Cyclone and Tornado spawning. Are they preventable?

P

PiNgMaSta

Guest
I have posted here before and people seem to get off the track of what I am trying to discuss.
Hence I have posted this theory on my domain front page as I feel it may be important if valid.
Please read http://www.pingmasta.com and offer me some constructive feedback.
I have been in touch with some scientific centres here and, finally, people are responding so I thought this may be of interest to some here?...

Cheers,
PiNgMaSta
 
I am also very interested in this phenomena but I follow a different set of theories that have more to do with the electrical properties of planetary bodies. My understanding is that a vortex system such as a hurricane forms when clouds forming over water and in an area where there is a high concentration of electrical charge in the ionosphere, creates a column for electrons to flow downward toward a grounding source. This same principal was used by Tesla when he built the Wardenclyffe tower in Shoreham, NY. The physical reaction of air molecules when electrons travel downward is to move up creating low barometric pressure at the surface. This upward flow creates rotation -- counter clockwise above the equator, clockwise below -- creating hurricanes or if over land violent storms and tornado's.

It is the lack of grounding that allows hurricanes to develop their strength. As soon as a hurricane approaches land it begins to dissipate because the electron flow is shunted. You will note that this was a low year for hurricanes. Did you also notice that there were very few sunspots and solar flares? Solar flares charge our ionosphere and create more energy potential for storms.

Electricity plays a much larger role in weather than NOAA or any weather person is willing to admit. It is my understanding that electricity plays a more important role in our entire solar system than NASA or any planetary scientist is willing to admit. The data coming back from comet probes is a classic case in point. What they are seeing completely undermines the party line about comets being sublimating ice balls and throws into question many other "theories" such as the big bang, cosmic red shift and background microwave signatures just to name a few.

This is a fascinating area of research that is rapidly changing and I hope that you continue to investigate and learn what you can. What I have said here is what I have learned through my own personal investigations using many different sources. I would encourage you to dig deeply and never assume that what your reading -- including this! -- is the truth.

Jim
 
Snowalker,

How fantastic to get a reply the opens discussion on this topic rather than wandering off on tangents.
Although I have had good responses from my web site recently it has been hard to instigate a discussion on these topics, within forums, without someone else wanting 2 ridicule or attempt to show more intelligence by leading the conversation off onto un related topics.
Congrats on being my first constructive respondent!! So thanks for sticking to the topic and not picking on my spelling or grammar lmao

I was interested to see you say that you had the same belief but based them on a "different set of theories".
Currently I am working on a paper describing the wider theories that led to my storm cell theory. Please be sure to watch my site as I am SURE you will find your set of theories, quickly, align themselves with mine.
After reading your post I am of the firm opinion that your theories may not differ from mine at all. I believe that what you describe as your belief here is actually a "component" of how my structure for the universe works.
Forgetting the electrical activity on this planet and the storm "formation" your ideas on cosmic polarities and magnetic forces having an effect on our planet concurs with mine. The science community seem to have become blind to this magnetic flux.
The entire universe is operating on magnetics in a much, much more dramatic way than any scientist has admitted. Is this because they do not know or because they do not dare tackle the subject?
I know, from my own studies, that a "pandoras box" opens when you begin to question the magnetic properties of our planet and it's surrounding habitat.
At times I become overloaded with information and feel the puzzle is too difficult to solve.
Among the other ideas I have put forward I also believe that, should my theories prove correct, that it may be possible to re create what the universe does naturally and cause rf to collapse on itself.
All my thinking being correct then the way in which I propose to cause this effect also has some interesting side effects. The amount of "side effects" or other possibilities with this theory, encourage the thought that I am close to the facts. My design (based on my theories) should not only break the laws of science by creating an artificial gravity but it opens up the possibility of:

- Perpetual Motion / Free Energy
- Space Travel
- Cold Fusion

I believe you are completely correct in your belief that the magnetic properties of what surround us having effect on our weather patterns etc. The correlating evidence is there between geological events and cosmic events. Sun spots and passing meteorites seem to have the most noticeable effects (before any smart alec asks me for links to back those claims I suggest you do what I did and don't be freak'n lazy! Look it up!)
Anyway keep in touch and watch my site as I am close to publishing the new model for the universe which I am sure will interest you and thanks for your comments : )
 
One thing you ought to ask yourself is this one question:

Why is there is a HIGH INCIDENCE of vortexes (tornadoes, huricanes, etc.)
concentrated east of the USA? Why so few or nonexistant vortexes, WEST
of the USA?
 
dant said:
One thing you ought to ask yourself is this one question:

Why is there is a HIGH INCIDENCE of vortexes (tornadoes, huricanes, etc.)
concentrated east of the USA? Why so few or nonexistant vortexes, WEST
of the USA?
Click to expand...
Interesting point my friend. Not even one I had contemplated till you asked.
Let's open up some theoretical discussion on it shall we? I would be interested in your thoughts on reasons for this.

I would have a number of "theoretical" ideas but this will take some homework to raise any definitive answer that will fit into my current model.

There are definite "hot spots" where these babies occur so there MUST be a reason for their localisation?

I will look into it but, again, I believe that something in that region is offering up more conductivity.

Is the salt content or water temp higher on the lower east coast than the west?
Is there an opposite pole to our north and south? An east and west? The magnetic flux is only going to allow the vortex to form if all other ingredients are in place so it is becoming more obvious that something other than just moist air and warn up drafts are needed.
Another interesting observation thanks :)
 
As for this West/East USA observation, I don't know of any publically
accessable data that shows world-wide data WRT vortexes. IMO, I think
the real data is hidden from us and the PTB does not want this information
out. I think if you were able to get your hands onto direct data from the
satelites and/or other sources as to vortexes, magnetic/jet-stream contours,
ocean properties(salt,pollution,thermal, etc.) of planetary earth data, this may
help us into formulating a theory but the data must be available first, obviously.

You might notice that jet-streams seems to follow a somewhat consistent pattern
and it seems to have a contour somewhat like a sine(cosine) wave but I am only
familiar with the northern hemisphere of the USA and I have NO IDEA what the
contours look like outside the USA. Weather data shows only the USA and regions
in the North and South borders are truncated out and I often wondered why.

I also note that magnetic contours are also important because I know that magnetic
properties of the earth are not spread evenly across the planet due to the land and
ocean properties as well. For example, regions of caldera shows magnetic anomolies
over land, and the heat of the calderas in the oceans also shows imbalances as well
so it is not going to be a cinch that will be easy to obtain that data as it is dynamic
but if they can hold a pattern consistenly, then maybe the data can be extrapolated,
I don't know. Oh, you might also want to consider land properties such as iron/magnetite
properties, mineral concentrations, that may also distort magnetic contours?

I want to point out as an example of a magnetic anonmoly, check out the Oregon Vortex
site. http://www.oregon-coastdirectory.com/cities/goldhill/vortex/vortex.htm
 
These are some of the exact things I am looking into at this point m8 :)
There is no data available on magnetic flux or vortex publicly available and this has been my greatest set back!
If one were a "conspiracy theorist" one would think there was something to hide? lol

The contours and fault lines have definite value in the way these vortices move around our planet and, that too, is something I am investigating.
I am investigating the possibility that "magma" is compressed to such a point that it is not able to conduct.
Scientist have found that super compressed water in glaciers does not freeze because the molecules are so compressed that they can not stick together. As a result the water becomes "super chilled" and remains fluid below freezing point!
This water then seeks a way out of the glacier and begins drilling with heat created by friction from VORTIICES that form under pressure.
Is it possible that molten rock exhibits the same properties and therefore vortexes and drills out of the earth?
This would lead me to reach a conclusion on the storm activity that rages over volcanoes.
It makes sense to me that as this rock decompresses it would offer up a high level of conductivity would it not?
Would the rising temperature shooting directly up from the ensuing volcano be enough to cause, yet again, a "micro tear" in the ionosphere?

Having no data on any of the magnetic activity the planet exhibits I have had to compile data from many different sciences from Geology through to astrophysics to piece my puzzle together. There is a picture forming but wouldn't it be so much easier if the data, us tax payers fund the study of, was available to us?
As I sit here replying I am actually asking your question of myself and looking at why the vortexes only form in some sympathetic areas and not others.... Here is something interesting...
If you have Google Earth then look @ the contour of the fault lines. Around the globe... The areas that cyclones form in seem to be shallow?... Am I wrong?... The indo area as well as the northern tip of Australia (both surrounded by reef) are cyclone hot spots... Move over to the Florida area and down through the Bahamas I se the same geology... Shallow reef areas.
On the west coast the shelf seems to drop off.
Is this a factor? Does the water need to be shallow? Another thought would be that of the volcanic activity under the water?... If there is sulfur pouring into the water from below the conductivity of the water will rise.

Sorry for my ramblings guys. Too much going on in head now lol
Will do some research and get back to you. We really need a place to compile our data. Anyone up for a database we can begin to populate as a team effort?

Chat soon.
P.S. If you would like to physically talk to me with regards to these theories I have a free video chat I built and hang at most of the time. http://www.pingshack.com so come and sign up and I will set up a video chat dedicated to outer science and the active discussion of these theories and ideas. Perhaps the forum would be more productive if we "nut out" our ideas and then post with specific information and data we compile?
 
East coast versus West coast storm intensity I think may have more to do with air and moisture patterns. If it is true that clouds aid in the grounding of electrons from the ionosphere then areas where cloud formation is aided by temperature and the moisture content will tend to experience more storm activity.

Let's take tornado ally for example. Here is a combination of geology and air currents where moist warm air from the Gulf of Mexico collide with dry cool air from the Rockies to create very high cloud tops. This corridor of moist air makes a good shunt to the ground where a large volume of current can travel quickly to the ground. This rapid grounding of electrons creates very strong updrafts and rotation spawning tornadoes. This combination does not occur with this intensity anywhere else in the US. The same criteria can be applied to the West coast of Africa to explain high cloud formations and the birthing of hurricanes. The main difference being that the ocean does not ground the electron flow as readily.

The other piece to keep in mind is where the concentrations of electrons tend to be in the ionosphere. It seems that there are many more storms near the equator and so that may be an indicator that there is something different near the equator in terms of electron distribution. I am speculating here as I have not researched this particular aspect.

Now here comes a kicker. If it is true that storms use electricity to fuel their engines then it might be possible to increase storm intensity by focusing an electron beam from a satellite down into the eye. Conversely it may be possible to steer a hurricane using the same technology. The PTB have long had electron beam technology and if the concept proved feasible then they would certainly use it IMO. I have seen video clips showing anomalies that would indicate that they are indeed affecting these weather systems but I am still early on in my research into this phenominon as well.

Jim
 
I have read heaps of stuff about how humans can control the weather, but I have no proof.

I think it may be true, but if you want proof, you will have to search for yourself.
 
Dude the electron beam from satellite is brilliant. While I am still of the opinion that the geological form and content has 2 be correct to allow the eye to form I concur that you may be able 2 manipulate the path via satellite.
I have been studying for the last 48 hours and hence why I have been so quiet.
I am finding amazing data that correlates with a lot of what we are talking about. So much so that I am planning a visit to the US. There are anomalies I am keen on investigating.
I looked into the Oregon Vortex that was posted here and while fascinating have come to the conclusion this is of no relevance to what we are looking at unless we plan on building a house of fun lmao:
http://www.o4r.org/investigations/oregon_vortex.html
I wanted to believe but after hours of studying satellite images and available data it, truly, appears to be a very clever trick.
I am finding a tonne of evidence that is pointing to electricity and its conductivity levels in certain pressures, temperatures and terrains being altered. Jupiter, while being the largest planet in the solar system, has 100 times LESS electrical activity on it's surface than Earth.
I am looking into the possibility that this is a density issue now. It may be so dense on the planets surface that the ions are not able to react with each other. The same effect we find with super chilled and super compressed water at the bottom of glaciers.
Now do you know what water under large volumes of pressure does?... Not only is its resistance affected but it will vortex. Yes that is a fact. Water under pressure will vortex. So I am theorising that the same happens on Jupiter with RF or it's ionosphere. This may lead to show how a 300 year old vortex is still going on the planets surface. The vortex may not be an electrical storm, as scientists propose, but an "anti storm"?.... The place where the ions vortex under pressure from the atmosphere.
Just a theory but one that assists in the rest of my "imaginings".
So if the density and content of the atmosphere and surface dictate its tolerance or resistance then this must go to same effect on all planets. Following Einstein's theory of "General Relativity" (not relativity) it would make sense that all planets posses the same laws and only display different qualities depending on the make up and density of its position on the space time continuum.
I will wind this up here as I have an entire new paper to publish that will be tacked onto my last post that will explain how all of this leads to the storm cell theory.
Essentially what I am seeing is that the magnetic flux is a universal power which IS essentially the space time continuum on which we all sit. This magnetic force is massive and its flux affects every piece of rock and gas on it in some specific way.
Our storm systems, as other planets, are being ultimately designed by the magnetic activity on the STC and it's effect on our own magnetic field as we move in sympathy with it. More things I am investigating that I could do with help on are the changes in air potential and conductivity on a seasonal basis. I want to know what the air potential is at certain air temperatures in different parts of the world at different times of year. Any ideas?
I can see that electrical activity increases, dramatically, over volcanic areas. This "appears" to be due to the increased heat in the air and increased sulfides and chlorides in the air? Not a fact and, although I find a lot of discussion on it, no one seems to put the increase down to anything definitive. The previous is my supposition.
Also found the magnetic information I required and am tabulating this. The USGS has it's daily results of recorded geomagnetism @ http://geomag.usgs.gov/observatories/ if anyone is interested. In order to find a correlation I must tabulate the storm cell and earth quake data available with the archived results of these 14 observatories. Any help appreciated. Big job. lol.
Soon guys.
 
Millie said:
I have read heaps of stuff about how humans can control the weather, but I have no proof.

I think it may be true, but if you want proof, you will have to search for yourself.
Click to expand...
We can not definitively control weather as yet mate. The US government may be in possession of such technology but if they are then it is not publicly available.
We can "effect" weather in the form of "cloud seeding" and there is plenty of study going into weather manipulation but I think "searching the net" will only yield experimental projects currently. I have no doubt that the control of the weather patterns may prove easy in theory but the difficult thing will be having an effect on something at a global level.
To raise the temperature of a water filled volcano basin by 1deg c takes a massive geological heating event that only mother nature could possibly hope to create. Imagine attempting to heat the air in the same fashion? Wow! Not impossible but what an engineering feat. I eagerly await the day we can move a storm cell to where it is needed :)
 
PiNgMaSta said:
We can not definitively control weather as yet mate. The US government may be in possession of such technology but if they are then it is not publicly available.
Click to expand...
tanks are not what I'd call 'publicly available', but they are still used to definitively control people.

If by 'publicly available' you meant something like 'publicly visible', then just because something isn't immediately apparent, doesn't mean that it is necessarily wrong or nonexistant - that is 'flat-earth' thinking.
 
How did this thread lead to tanks? Lost. I have seen tanks too and I agree that they are not always publicly available but I haven't seen any weather changing device apart from in science fiction. Was this guy talking about fact or fiction? I don't understand that post? As for pingmastas post I am interested in your ideas and will email you some figures I have available to me that may not be to you in Australia. Thanks.
 
sorry, I didn't mean to distract from the main subject.
What I meant was: I'm very wary of the statement that 'We can not definitively control weather as yet', because this is far too definite, especially given what we know about how many things are controlled in ways that we are do currently fully understand. Because of that, I conclude that we need to leave open the possibility, should more data come to light.
 
sleepyvinny said:
What I meant was: I'm very wary of the statement that 'We can not definitively control weather as yet', because this is far too definite, especially given what we know about how many things are controlled in ways that we are do currently fully understand. Because of that, I conclude that we need to leave open the possibility, should more data come to light.
Click to expand...
Good point. Never assume anything is either possible or impossible without sufficient data and even then don't assume it.

As for weather manipulation data, if one wants to find it there is plenty out there to discover. Here are two things to consider.

1. There are many sources of laboratory testing results from rain samples after chemtrail sightings. The lab reports show substances such as barium salts, aluminum oxides and micoplasma cells. The visible behavior of chemtrails as they diffuse into a solid cloud layer is also a useful observation.

2. Weather radar loops can display telltale anomolies that cannot be explained yet they are clearly visible. Normal weather radar as well as doppler radar can pick up disturbances in the atmosphere that could indicate manipulated effects. I am guessing that radar loops are often scrubbed before being shown on television. Even still I have seen these strange signatures on loops shown on nightly news casts. The GWEN system (Ground-Wave Emergency Network) along with the HAARP facility in Alaska are other possible sources of these anomolies. There are a number of web sites that show radar images with obvious energy signatures but as always be discerning.

Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom