/sci/ - Science & Math

5g allows remote pinging that is accurate enough to triangulate most people and household pet signatures. 6g could be accurate enough to pick up brainwaves. I'm not a crackpot, I know what the technology is capable of. Read up on it, in the 1990s a man was able to log keyboard strokes with a commercial microwave and a standard television set from over 500 yards away. Electronic signatures from organic chemistry are easily within the realm of spying now.

What does it mean for datacaps?

>>12321173
>Electronic signatures from organic chemistry are easily within the realm of spying now
And that is bad news for people who jerk it to Jesus.

>>12321086
https://intothelight.news/files/2019-03-06-qfs.php

>The QFS-system will cover the new global network for the transfer of gold or asset-backed money, initiated by Russia and China to replace the US-centrally-controlled Swift system.

This new Quantum Financial System – QFS runs on a quantum computer, based on an orbiting satellite.

>>12321419
Hello glownigger

>>12321173
Where can I read about that

>>12321419
>And that is bad news for people who jerk it to Jesus.
When you jerk with Jesus Jesus jerks with you.

what i dont understand is why instead of using sloppy radio saturating the earth everywhere, they dont just use optical link like laser or lifi and do radio where line of sight is a problem.

>>12321627
I think because the frequencies which telecommunications use are legally restricted, but sources of visible light interference are obviously everywhere.

>>12321086
whitu piggu you only afraid china is soon be number one

>>12321086
Us "conspiracy theorists" were talking about 6G using THz waves before 5G was even a big deal. 7G will probably use your body as a transceiver.

https://phys.org/news/2017-09-terahertz-impossible.html

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598- 020 -65955 -5

>>12321086
>>12321173
>>12321476
>>12321890
>>>/x/

Do you people realize the hertz of the wave refers to the wave the devices emit, how the fuck would they read your mind with it
But I could forsee health issues, yeah.

>>12321446
Fucking finally. Swift sucks hairy monkey balls.

>>12321901
> >>>/x/
>>>/adv/

>>12321879
It genuinely does concern me, as a culture they have a serious problem with empathy and global awareness.
If they're the global superpower, everyone will just be machines for them to use and the planet will be environmentally fucked.

>>12321901
t. scientifically illiterate retard who doesn't know how science works

I don't know much about 5G or 6G and I'm not someone who is super concerned about either, but the idea that anyone who questions the safety of these technologies is a 'schizo' is completely ridiculous. If anything that sort of attitude makes YOU a schizo and science denying retard.

The whole way science works is you have to test things and you have to allow for debate (and there are actually game theoretic models that show that science as a whole can actually begin to breakdown if you don't allow debate and criticism of accepted wisdom). You can't just a priori say that 5G or 6G is completely safe. Literally every technology has benefits and downsides, and those need to closely examined, and there must be room for debate. You can't just assume that 5G is safe. This has to be demonstrated through computational modeling and empirical research.

Moreover, there is a massive financial incentive (in the range billions to trillions of dollars) for telecommunications companies to emphasize the utility of 5G while downplaying it's dangers. Just like the tobacco industry, big pharma, or oil. Industry, Wall Street, and the mainstream media are intimately connected. The people at Fox News, CNN, Vice Media, Vox, MSNBC, Buzzfeed, etc., these people have a lot more in common with telecom executives and big oil executives than with the common people. They don't care about you interests or mine. They literally lie to us on a regular basis and repeatedly covered for multinational corporation and the government in the passed, so what makes you trust when they're cheering on censorship and calling anyone who questions big tech or wall street a "conspiracy theorist".

As I said, I'm not terribly concerned about 5G. I don't know much about the topic, but I doubt that I'm going to get cancer or grow another arm or anything. What concerns me is the attitude certain scientific topics are undebateable.

>>12321086
Everyone in this thread is rartarded. I thought people on this board would know basic science.

5g and 6g both use microwaves and THz - this is all less energetic than visible light. Do you think a lamp near you is dangerous? 5G and 6G towers are less energetic than that. they are nonionizing, the worst they can do is heat things (phones pick up mW and microWs of energy)

The legitimate concerns are 5g wavelengths are similar to water vapor, so they fuck up monitoring satellites.

>>12321173
Heres your (you), that's extraordinary retarded.

>>12322706
You are acting like this is settled science. I looked into it on Google scholar, and I was only able to find like 3 sources on the topic. They all indicated that it should be safe, but that still isn't such an overwhelming body of evidence that you can act like we know for certain that it is safe. Biophysics is an extremely new field with less than a few decades of solid research, and most of that has occurred in the last 20 years or so. We've been wrong before about topics that were much better established and more researched then the biophysical effects of light outside of the visible spectrum.

Even the World Health Organization claims that cell phone technology may be carcinogenic and they cite concerns about the lack of quality research on the topic. Source: https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/electromagnetic-fields-and-public-health-mobile-phones

>>12321446
>QFS runs on a quantum computer, based on an orbiting satellite.
Holly shit raildex predicted this, next think you know a nun will fall on my balcony, jesus

>>12321879
By PPP metric, the past happened years ago.

>>12321901
Fuck off glow faggot
My brain is my brain

>>12322625
>Rich people test this on us
>Rich people and their children that live in densely populated cities are somehow not affected

>>12322467
>It genuinely does concern me, as a culture they have a serious problem with empathy and global awareness.
>america personal responsibility
>empathy
Both are trash desu.

>>12322800
Wavelengths of light is a settled science.
If 5G was harmful, then the visible light from your monitor would melt your face off like the arc of the covenant.

>>12323841
>not using a grid of miniaturized arc furnaces as a display for that juicy 1:500 000 000 000 contrast ratio

>>12321901
Clamped.

There's soooo much fucking glow ITT
Imagine shitting on people curious enquiring about the health and safety of these developments, especially coming out of a country that has proven how little it gives a fuck about human rights, regulations, environmentalism, animal rights, etc.

>>12323959
> Don't question just accept
>All progress = good no matter what
> Its all in your best interest whether you asked for it or not.

>>12323841
Wavelength of light is a settled science, but we're not simply speaking about wavelegths of light. That would be a discussion for electrodynamics or optics. What we're discussing is the effect of non-visible wavelengths of light on organic tissues, which is not at all a settled science. Like I said, I admit don't have much knowledge of this particular subject, but I am scientifically literate and I know enough about physics to know that what we are discussing is biophysics rather than electrodynamics or optics. Biophysics is a very immature science. Optics and electrodynamics are well established, but they have nothing to say about the health effect of light. The fact that you are unaware of this distinction makes me think you are not as informed as you would like to think.

Like I said, I wouldn't expect it to be seriously dangerous, otherwise we would know by now. Your point about a computer monitor does sound plausible enough. I understand that the visible light spectrum has much higher energy wavelengths than 5G, and both of them are non-ionizing, but I don't think that necessarily rules out all possibilities. For example, I know that properties of various proteins and crystals can change dramatically in response to different wavelengths of light, and there is a certain harmonic property to these changes. What I mean by that is that the changes are not necessarily a result of higher energy light radiation, but rather the periodic properties of the waves forms. For example, you could have a substance X and three distinct light sources A, B, C such that light source C is the most ionizing, but if the period of the waveform of B is a integer multiple of the waveform of A, you can actually have substances that are more responsive to A and B (undergo more of a change) rather than to C because the physical changes is protein folding/crystal structure/etc. are more so determined by the period of the waveform rather than energy level of the light itself.

>>12321086
3G was enough
everything after that is just for data collection

>>12323841
I am continuing from here: >>12324051
Your claim that this is "settled science" is simply false. There are very few examples of settled science. Quantum mechanics, relativity, classical field theory, and evolution are settled sciences. Almost anything to do with health, physiology, or genetic is not at all settled. In fact, most tissues and proteins in the human body could not even be analyzed with a high degree of reliability until the development of certain imaging technologies in the 90s and machine learning in the 2000s. We've literally only been examining human tissue composition and protein synthesis in serious manner for <20 years. But don't trust me, lets look at some source in my next post.

>>12323773
You are missing my point and this is a literal logical fallacy. There are several problems with your claim:
(1) You are overlooking issues like the Flint water crisis. Rich people live in Flint, MI and they rely on the same public water sources as everyone else, and yet they haven't done anything to stop it.
(2) By your reasoning oil companies and chemical have no reason to lie about the effects of greenhouse gasses and other pollutants, since they have to live in the same environment than us
(3) You are overlooking the concept of externalities and issues like the free rider problem. Yes rich people might be harmed just as much as the poor, but if they disportionately benefit from maintaining unsafe practices, these practices may nevertheless continue. In fact there are concrete example of these. Construction executive knew for decades that asbestos was bad, and yet they still built their own homes with asbestos, because the millions of dollars they raked in compensated for a slightly higher risk of cancer
(4) You are attacking a straw man. You are acting like I am suggesting that 5G is going to make us crazy or cause severe mutations. It could very well be minor issue, in which case, like I said in (3) the "rich" may not be too concerned.

>>12324051
>>12324102
>>12323841
>>12322706
World Health Organization: "Based largely on these data, IARC has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans. . .
While an increased risk of brain tumors is not established, the increasing use of mobile phones and the lack of data for mobile phone use over time periods longer than 15 years warrant further research of mobile phone use and brain cancer risk. In particular, with the recent popularity of mobile phone use among younger people, and therefore a potentially longer lifetime of exposure, WHO has promoted further research on this group. Several studies investigating potential health effects in children and adolescents are underway.

From the journal of Environmental Research:
"- Children's radiofrequency radiation exposure should be reduced.
- Further research to evaluate the risks to the eye from use of VR is urgently needed.
Children's brains are more susceptible to hazardous exposures, and are thought to absorb higher doses of radiation from cell phones in some regions of the brain. "

I could go on, but I will run out off space. The point is that this is far from settled science. As I said, you are free to use Google scholar. There are simply very few sources investigating this problem, and calling this "basic science" like one anon did makes me think they are getting their views from Wired magazine or NatGeo or something. No topic is biophysics is "basic science". The vast majority of universities don't even have a biophysics department and most of them would not be interested in a topic like this. It doesn't really fall under engineering. It doesn't fall under medicine. It doesn't fall under information technology. The only people who would really be qualified to investigate this topic are biophysics and maybe people that are working at the intersection of public health and environmental science, but those people are few and far between as well.

>>12324102
>>12324051
>>12324152
>>12323841
The only topics that are in fact "settled science" are subjects like evolution or field theory, we have literally hundred of textbooks, thousands of papers, and numerous different paradigms and subfields.

From the Journal of Environmental Pollution (2017): "This paper attempts to resolve the debate about whether non-ionizing radiation (NIR) can cause cancer–a debate that has been ongoing for decades. The rationale, put forward mostly by physicists and accepted by many health agencies, is that, “since NIR does not have enough energy to dislodge electrons, it is unable to cause cancer.” This argument is based on a flawed assumption and uses the model of ionizing radiation (IR) to explain NIR, which is inappropriate. Evidence of free-radical damage has been repeatedly documented among humans, animals, plants and microorganisms for both extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic fields (EMF) and for radio frequency (RF) radiation, neither of which is ionizing."

Does this suggest that 5G or NIR is somehow super duper scary and dangerous? No, it doesn't, but it demonstrates that it is a topic of debate. Yes, scientists generally think 5G is safe, and I myself have repeatedly said that I think is safe and that it clearly doesn't have any super severe consequences. However, acting like the topic is "settled science" is completely inaccurate.

>>12324051
>>12324102
>>12324152
>>12324180
>>12323841
From the Journal of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology (2019):
No adequate scientific studies were conducted until the end of the 1970s on electromagnetic non‐ionizing radiation carcinogenicity. The explanation was that because non‐ionizing radiations do not have sufficient energy to alter the DNA directly, it was not “logical” to speculate on the existence of potential long‐term effects, such as cancers, being induced by other possible biological mechanisms.

The first information on the potential carcinogenic risks associated with exposure to non‐ionizing radiations arose in 1979 when Wertheimer and Leeper showed for the first time that children exposed residentially to extremely low‐frequency electromagnetic fields (ELFEMF) had a significantly increased risk of developing leukaemia

From the International Journal of Environmental Health Research (2020):
"Though the usage of such radiation emitting from mobile phones has risen steeply, there is a lack of proper knowledge about the associated risks. The review provides the latest research evidence based both on in vitro studies, in vivo studies, and possible gaps in our knowledge. "

Again, there is very little research, and we see that this is far from "settled science". Just because you heard read some article in Vox or Wired magazine about "conspiracy theorists and 5G technology", that does not a priori entail that 5G or other cell technology is perfectly safe. Actually, the opinions of a Wired or Vox journalist who literally works for tech CEOs and has no formal training in the natural sciences is completely irrelevant. I will be graduating in April with a bachelors degree in math, and that alone gives me more qualifications than most journalists or news anchors. Moreover, if scientific journals are allowing people to weigh in on the topic, then I think its pretty safe to say its not "settled science".

>>12321086
there are no health concerns over 5g retard

>5g is fast enough why go faster

based retard

>>12321086
Don't care we need to push forward. Who gives a damn about health concerns?
Did Americans give a damn when they dropped nukes on japan?

>>12321086
>Isn't 5G fast enough already?
No

>If there's health concerns over 5G
There isn't

>wouldn't it does some actually serious damage to your health?
No

>>12324299
How fast can we go?

>>12322625
"science is about testing things" being interpreted "you must give every insane theory or idea an uneducated retard thinks up on the toilet tons of serious attention" is the ultimate sign of a brainlet.

>>12321173
No

>>12324379
Don't bother with him. Anyone who gets in the way of science is someone who worships suffering. We have problems to solve. And the faster we can download the entire internet into our phones or brains in the future, the better.

>>12321086
OP it's fake ChiCom bullshit, fucking 5G doesn't even work worth shit or is even fully deployed yet, there is no such thing as """6G""" nor should there be, for fucks' sake 5G even is pointless.

>>12324379
It's not an insane theory.
(1) I have already provided 5 different sources (4 of which have been published in major journals within the last 2 years), that clearly and unambiguously demostrate that this is not "settled science". Namely in these posts >>12324258
>>12324180
>>12324152
>>12324102
>>12324051

(2) If it is a "insane theory", then you have to explain why it is insane. If you're argument someone presents you with an argument you can't a priori reject the argument because "its insane" and then refuse to accept any new evidence. That is circular reasoning. Moreover, you are actually objectively wrong when you say it is an insane argument. I have presented numerous scientific sources which irrefutably prove that scientists are indeed still debating and investigating the topic.

(3) As I have mentioned, there are multiple game theoretic models which demonstrate that concepts like "settled science" or "established wisdom" can actually systematically undermine the scientific method as a whole. I refer you to the work the work of Joseph Henrich (e.g. "The Evolution of Innovation-Enhancing Institutions") as well as much of the work of the UC Irvine's Logic department.

(4) I have even cited the WHO who clearly and unambiguously state their findings "[warrant further research of mobile phone use and brain cancer risk" Source: https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/electromagnetic-fields-and-public-health-mobile-phones
You are literally denying the world health organization. You are the schizo. Do you also think COVID is a hoax? Do you think the earth is flat? This issue is more serious than at any point in our history. Retards like you are now responsible for the deaths of literally hundreds of thousands of americans.

(5) You honestly sound like someone with no background in science. I'm guessing you are studying and/or have studied some sort of brainlet field like education, nursing, or software engineering?

>>12323959
>>12324021
Weird, it's like real people have returned to the internet. Where was everyone when I was making threads on this almost weekly? Hm, reading this thread is pretty bizarre tb qh.

https://www.mediafire.com/folder/dj875cd10yb72/EMF
For the hell of it. Lot of data and documents here.

>>12321086
>china trying to give everyone the black shakes

>>12324427
>>12322625
You wrote like 10 essay length posts. Half of the posts in this thread are from you. Bro you are a fucking schizo and an autist and you even admitted in one of your posts that you havent graduated college. All the sources except the WHO are from literal who publication that nobody has ever heard of. You can find shit published on the internet that supports any idea. You cant just trust whatever you fond on the internet. I could read some shit on Alex Jones's blog and then go around telling everyone, but just because Alex Jones said it on his blog doesnt make it true. Here are actual, known, reliable sources. Every single one says 5G is safe and they describe what your saying as a conspiracy.

>https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/14/tech/5g-health-conspiracy-debunked/index.html

>https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/apr/07/how-false-claims-about-5g-health-risks-spread-into-the-mainstream

>https://www.wired.co.uk/article/5g-coronavirus-conspiracy-theory-attacks

Unlike you, I actually work in the med industry and I have a 5G phone. If this shit was going to kill me or give me covid or make me go crazy then I would no by now. If this shit was gangerous me and my colleagues would no right now. Medical experts today are worried about COVID and the opiate crisis and obesity. Not about 5G or 6G or vaccines or whatever schizo shit. We have real problems to deal with right now.

>>12324660
Not him, but you call that research? Those are news sources, not scientific literature.

>>12324660
>actual known reliable sources
>cnn, guardian, and wired
8/10 for the effort put into post length

>>12324369
>>Isn't 5G fast enough already?
>No

Explain.

>>12324771
What is there to explain, who wouldn't want more capacity or faster internet or better car or what ever, it's basic human desire. If you don't think there will be a market for them then invest in slower systems I guess.

>>12321879

China has 3-4 times USA population. So if China reaches HALF of USA per person GDP it will dominate in country wide GDP.

So yeah China as a whole will be 'richer' but the average USA person will be FAR richer than the average Chinese.

>>12322706
>use microwaves and THz - this is all less energetic than visible light. Do you think a lamp near you is dangerous?
I bet you were out into a microwave oven as a kid.

>>12324660
>I actually work in the med industry

You're probably a male nurse or dental technician or some shit, and the sources you provided are popular news sources and magazines intended for a general audience. These sources are often simplistic, misleading, or even incorrect. I provided actual academic sources. The reason you don't appreciate this distinction just demonstrates that you're a scientifically illiterate ideologue who just blindly parrots the mainstream media and popular culture.

I already posted numerous quotes and you are free too refer back to those in my previous posts. Here are the links to the sources:
"Non-ionizing radiation as possible carcinogen"
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32885667/

"When theory and observation collide: Can non-ionizing radiation cause cancer?"
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27903411/

"Absorption of wireless radiation in the child versus adult brain and eye from cell phone conversation or virtual reality "
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29884550/

"Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile phones"
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/electromagnetic-fields-and-public-health-mobile-phones

>>12325110
lmao

>>12324660
This is one of the dumbest posts I've ever seen.
Nobody in this whole thread has said anything about a link between COVID and 5G. That is a complete strawman. If you have an actual argumemt, then lets see it. So far, the only argument that any of you retards have been able to present is that anyone who disagrees with you is insane. That is literally not an argument.

>>12321086
Anon visible light Is In the tera hertz range. You need more “oh no number big” to say if it’s bad or good. If anything it’s getting closer to a frequency we get blasted with all the time.
>>12321173
>>>/x/
We literally shove probes into people’s brains and we can’t do anything useful with the information. Yet you think magic waves are doing to read minds. This is your mind on schizophrenia.

>>12327315
>blah blah blah
Stop talking out of your ass and actually read a book.

>>12325110
based

>>12327330
Not an argument. Retard.

>>12321086
Personally I don't see the point of anything less than quantum teleportation/FTL comm after DSL.

>>12327373
See: >>12324440

>If anything it’s getting closer to a frequency we get blasted with all the time.
Frequency is not the only field characteristic that matters. There is frequency, polarization, modulation (including rise time and peak power), etc.

>We literally shove probes into people’s brains
Who's "we", are you a mouse in someone's pocket?

>and we can’t do anything useful with the information
See Jose Delgado, Sharp, autocorrelator, MKULTRA, etc.

>Yet you think magic waves are doing to read minds
"I don't understand it so that means someone who knows more than me must just believe in magic!"

>This is your mind on schizophrenia.
this is your brain on retardationa nd narcissism. Read a book, momo. Keep on and you're going to get what you give out, tenfold.

>>12327393

>>12327393
Oh my god anon you have no idea what you are talking about. Non of those things matter. Every wave is made out of a bunch of some waves at different frequencies. Read a book. So having a waves that have weird rise time peak power and other shit just means it’s outputting at a more frequencies. I guess the voices in your head don’t teach you about Fourier series. So saying rise time peak power polarization etc literally means nothing.
>who are “we”
An autistic schizo. Good combination.
>vague appeals to random shit schizos love
Still doesn’t explain how magic waves let us read people minds from far away.
Basically you are retarded read a book instead of CIA documents written by people high on meth that they stole from a war lord in South America. We are able to do some correlation with brainwaves but the output is trash and still completely useless to bring up since the only way to even begin to get any useful measurement is prob attached to your head or probe in skull. Basically kill yourself. OD on your lithium.

>>12327447
>Non of those things matter
And you assert this on what basis? A priori notions, that's what your basis is. You don't think you need to engage with the literature or gather empirical data, little narcissist thinks he simply knows it all at the outset. Man, why do we bother with experiment when we could jsut save a lot of time and money, and just ask you?

Read a book, kiddo.

>We are able to do some correlation with brainwaves but the output is trash
Topic is too broad. Many methods of remote pickup were developed decades ago (implants, nanotech, interference (see patents) + autocorrelator), and remote sensing and biometrics is a rapidly advancing field present day. It really depends on what you're looking measure, and what you intend to do with that metric.

>Basically kill yourself. OD on your lithium.
lol, u mad bro? Pathetic. And you actually seem think anyone would think you're worth the time.

Anything above 500 mbps is retarded

>radio, tv, 1g, 2g, 3g, 4g roll out
>nobody cares
>5g
>real shit

>>12324102
>Rich people live in Flint, MI and they rely on the same public water sources as everyone else, and yet they haven't done anything to stop it.

Not a good example.
You can choose your water source by moving.

You can't avoid 5G if it is all encompassing.

>>12324660
Pick a paper and tell us about it
Any good peer-reviewed paper.

>>12325110
How dare you!!!!??
You're on of them and are an elitist and in the pocket of the conspiracy. Damn you with your academic citations, research and logic and reason.

What next? Pointing out nuanced discussion and disagreement within the scientific community and then citing interesting socio-economic and political aspects?

>WHERES MUH POLARISATION BLACK AND WHITE! I WANT THE TRUTH!!!

>>12324371
A question for the ages.

>>12327769
kek

>>12328018
It's still a perfectly valid point for several reasons:
(1) I never said 5G would be all encompassing. Rich people can move out of Flint, MI, to escape the toxic water and they could also move to private islands to escape 5G so in either case my point still stands.
(2) Even IF the CAN move out of Flint, MI that is irrelevant because some of them DO live in Flint, MI. If rich people would never do anything environmentally harmful to themselves, then you have to explain why some rich people actually do live in Flint. The fact that they can choose to leave Flint is irrelevant.
(3) That still doesn't address my claims about greenhouse gas emissions, asbestos, or chemical pollutants like pesticides and herbicides. By your reasoning, rich people and fossil fuel executives have no reason to lie about climate change or pollution, because they themselves are harmed by it.


It also still doesn't address the rest of my argument. Anon's have repeatedly claimed that the safety of 5G is "settled science" - which is a meaningless phrase that is not used by actual scientists. In fact, if you presented an argument in a journal that described your position as "settled science", you would literally receive a generic form rejection letter with no comments from the editor or reviewer.

Nobody in this thread has even attempted to address my actual points or the references I mentioned in these posts.
>>12325110
>>12324427
>>12324180
>>12324258
>>12324152
As I have repeatedly said, I imagine 5G is relatively safe, but the notion that it is "settled science" is objectively false, and the literature I cited as well as the World Health Organization both corroborate that claim. The only argument I'm trying to make is that the safety of 5G is not "settled science". What I am interested to see is for someone to provide an actual, concrete argument explaining why the safety of 5G is "settled science".

>>12328249
Can you provide a paper that it 5G safety, relative to most and prior technologies is not "settled" science?

The papers cited here do point against your assertion.
This is /sci/

If you have a counter point against the consensus simply post your evidence of a similar scientific stature.

Are we ready for cellphone charging lampposts?

>>12321173
>in the 1990s a man was able to log keyboard strokes with a commercial microwave and a standard television set from over 500 yards away
Source me on this bro, I too, wish too be as mad as this fellow.

>>12329485
source: my ass

>>12321173
>Read up on it, in the 1990s a man was able to log keyboard strokes with a commercial microwave and a standard television set from over 500 yards away
Jamie, pull that up.

>>12323809
Who said anything about america

>>12329485
they can already use wifi to track persons through walls.
this is every shopping malls wet dream tracking people all over the place

>>12321086
>meanwhile in 1980
What's the point of Ethernet? Isn't tokenring fast enough already?

>>12330705
what's wrong with tracking criminals? if you're a criminal, you're going to be tracked. if you're not a criminal, you have nothing to worry about. you'll just be a scan in an seemingly endless sea of scans. they don't have enough people to read your mind and say, "yup, this person faps to trannies." it will all be run by AI, and when they want to find the criminal, they'll do it, making society cancer-free fuck criminals. i've done my share of shit, but i want killers off the streets

besides, they can't read your mind. what would they see on their end? a bunch of brain waves? how will that be reading your mind?

>>12331080
the best thing they can do is read heightened brain activity. say a person is about to commit a crime, their brain activity could be heightened, or different areas of their brain might light up. they could prevent crime this way.
this would be very useful

>>12321173
jesus that's retarded. Wth is an "electronic signature from organic chemistry"? If you mean electronic transitions, those can't be used with wavelengths other than UV or visible and would be totally useless to do any sort of spying

>>12321086
Robot sensors like 3d scanners and hyperspectral cameras generate a huge amount of data. The other cool thing with 6G would be lower latency so you could have more of a robot's control system offboard. VR would benefit from it because of the lower latency.

>>12331080
People want freedom. It's the same deal with masks. Wearing one is not a big deal. But people want FREEDOM over safety. An AI doesn't care about you, but people worry someone might look you up and see that you fap to loli futa bestiality rape. But they forget about NSA backdoors in your Windows 10 and that they can look through your webcam and see you fap.

>>12331241
what's the point of building another network for trillion bucks
just so in some edge case cases you can save $2000 on storage.
ffs shills, your examples are so shoehorned

>smart cities (aka sending few bytes of data every second with current state)
>telemedicine (aka skype calls)
>(((autonomous))) cars which must be connected to the net and send trillions of gbs of data
>hyper spectral 3d scanning vr bullshit

you don't ever run out of bullshit claims, do you?

>>12323841
go stare into a headlight and tell me how your eyes feel lmao

>>12321086
>What's the point of this shit?
Turning the country into an all-seeing-eye scanner botnet.

>>12331741
One of those new literally retina destroying LED headlights, that is.

>>12331080
>if you're not a criminal, you have nothing to worry about
Tell that to the tens of millions of people who died to political repressions within the last century.

>>12331682
autonomous cars don't need to be connected to the net, but it would help a lot if they were connected to each other. For example, one car can notify the ones behind it of a patch of ice or debris so that the cars behind can compensate in advance of hitting the obstacle. Autonomous cars could be better than humans at driving. At the current time car crashes are a major cause of human death and injury, having autonomous cars which are better than humans could reduce this.

>>12321173
Even if they were able to read your brain activity, there's noexisting method to map brain activity to specific thought. Maybe they would be able to read basic brain states like sleep/wakefulness. Useless information.

>>12331788
Don't bother. Most of these people have never heard of the Holodomor and they think stuff like central African genocides and Soviet purges are all old world history. They lack the capacity to admit to the potential.

>>12331080
You're a retard who doesn't know shit about social psychology or behavioral economics. The attitude you have is literally what causes genocides and totalitarianism, and this is a well established fact in the psychological literature that has been supported by both empirical and historical studies. Every single case in human history of totalitarianism, genocide, violence, fascism, etc. has been a result of people who think that their communities legal or military policies will only be used to suppress 'bad guys'. This is a brainlet tier cognitive bias. No society creates a totalitarian government just for shits and giggles. The only reason totalitarian government are able to emerge is because people are willing to say 'oh these laws, policies, etc. will only be used against those who threaten civil society and the public good.

>>12332082
They don't understand this, they won't understand this, and people like us are not in charge.

>>12321086
You never know. If 5G could cause the coronavirus then imagine what 6G could accomplish.

>>12322625
you are a schizo and a retard. These theories were considered, tested, proven false and rejected. But you dont keep up with science so you dont know. You follow fake leaders on the internet without really listening to them just because they trigger your beta male instinct to follow.

You are the ape.

>>12332319
Not him, but
>These theories were considered,
[citation needed]
>tested,
[citation needed]
proven false
[citation needed]
and rejected.
[citation needed]
[by whom?]

>But you dont keep up with science so you dont know
Keep up with science? What does that even mean? Bioelectromagnetics and magnetobiology are fields so far out of the mainstream that hardly anyone "keeps up with "science"".

>You follow fake leaders on the internet
Such as? Who does he follow?

>without really listening to them just because they trigger your beta male instinct to follow.
I mean that's a nice hypothesis and all, but you need to back it up with a plausible mechanism and actual evidence.

>You are the ape.
Seems to me it's the inverse. He's rational and well grounded, and you're the shit flinging overgrown infant.

This is pathetic anon. Stop posturing and acting tough on the interwebs.

>>12321879
You're missing the super mega drop after the hiant realestate bubble blows up in China in 2026.

>>12332319
You're an arrogant retard. What you're saying is objectively false, and I have already proven it. See
>>12328249
>>12325110
>>12324427
>>12324180
>>12324258
>>12324152
you are a scientifically illiterate retard and you don't know how science works. I have already provided numerous citations which objectively and irrefutably prove that this is not 'settled science'. If you disagree with that, then you are disagreeing with the WHO. I'm not making any claims about the safety of 5G. All I'm doing is pointing out that there are academic sources that are still investigating this topic. That should not be a controversial claim, given that I have provided links to these sources.

I have also pointed out that the attitude you are promoting has been shown to pose a threat to the scientific method as a whole, and I have provided sources for that claim as well (e.g. Joseph Henrich, Caitlin O'conner, Kevin Zollman).

Calling anyone who disagrees with you a schizo does not strengthen your argument. I have provided actual academic sources (>>12325110) and you retards have responded by cited Wired magazine and the Guardian. You're a working class, uneducated loser who doesn't even understand the difference between a scientific journal and a popular magazine. Nobody takes you seriously and nobody ever will. You can call someone a schizo a thousand times but that doesn't make you right.

>>12321086
>there's health concerns over 5G
this shit again?

>>12322706
cell phone radiation has been known to nearly halve your sperm count since like 2011, stupid fuck

>>12322706
>Do you think a lamp near you is dangerous?
You're assuming a linear dose response. Pretty high and mighty for someone who can't even intpo basic toxicology and pharmacology.

Yes!

This thread proves once again that redditors and normies will always get BTFO'd by autists in a 1v1.

>>12334769
5G is dangerous.

WE'RE HERE!

>>12322467
>If anglos become the global superpower, everyone will just be machines for them to use and the planet will be environmentally fucked.
fixed that for you

>>12332758
>cell phone radiation has been known to nearly halve your sperm count since like 2011
Source?

>>12322800
the electromagnetic spectrum is the most basic high school science, but most people only see the end consumer product as part of their daily life and have no understanding whatsoever of what lies behind it or how it works, just like you living inside your own body and not understanding what it is or how it works.

>>12337092
Anglos are the superpower and at least we're pretending to try to fix things and don't literally expend human lives like tools in shitty factories.
White western civilisation is certainly not perfect but the up and coming west doesn't give the slightest shit about human wellbeing, just progress as fast as possible.
I get it, they want to escape poverty.
But I don't know if they'll straighten up once they get to that point, maybe they will.
Who knows?

>>12321086
Frequencies over 30GHz won't really be used all that much, since the gets absorbed by literally everything.
>If there's health concerns over 5G
Only if you're a double-digiter. By schizo logic, 5G should actually be safer since its penetration in the scary frequencies is fuckall.

>>12321173
>I'm not a crackpot
You sure?

>>12321086
I read about 5 years ago that South Koreans averaged about 600mbps up and down on their 4G. I struggle to get 40mbps on my Verizon 4G. American tech and telecom companies are 100% about greed and zero percent about technological development.

>>12321525
Based son knows what overworked Dad needs.

>>12337131
>Anglos are the superpower and at least we're pretending to try to fix things and don't literally expend human lives like tools in shitty factories.
Only because you've figured out how to externalize it so you can pretend you're paragons of ethics and civilization now.
All white people have done is pull up the ladder behind them.
>I got rich and acquired geopolitical power/influence by colonizing the world and aggressive wars?
>Y-you can't do that! It's unethical!

Now that the rest of the world is trying to bootstrap themselves best they can by doing industrial revolution tier strategies you're chastising them for not being able to skip the uncomfortable process that made the west dominant.

based

>>12321086
What is it about China's system that just lets them do things with insane efficiency? Is it the lack of democracy?

>>12324152
We better stop using satellites then. They can operate on 500ghz.
Microwave transmittions used for long range data transfer also operates on frequencies much greater than 5ghz.
Needless to say, if electromagnetic waves are dangerous to humans it's already too late.
BTW visible light is also electromagnetic.

>>12339435
It's the fact that if you call them out for lying you get sent to a labor camp where you and your family are worked to death

>>12339435
Compare western STEM graduates with Asian STEM graduates. They spend their money and time on real degrees. Things like Black History degrees aren't necessary.

>>12321086
>If there's health concerns over 5G, and 6G is 100+ times faster, wouldn't it does some actually serious damage to your health?
Nature finds a way.

>>12339435
Freedom vs Efficiency.
It's that simple. They are mutually exclusive.

>>12322467
>as a culture they have a serious problem with empathy and global awareness
When have either of those things mattered in geopolitics over the past 6000 years

>>12337131
>at least we're pretending
And pretending to be something your not is good because?

>>12339435
>Is it the lack of democracy
You can get a lot done when your form of government isn't based around obscuring real power relations in order to maintain a facade of liberalism.

>>12321446
so based, so redpilled, I wanted to add deterrent capabililty with some non lethal DEWs, but still, so awesome

>>12339461
>BTW visible light is also electromagnetic.
I know light is electromagnetic energy. I'm actually taking a course on Fourier analysis. I literally brought up wave forms and explained why the average energy level at some point in a field is not the only thing that determines the way objects in that field interact. This is why many physical objects display harmonic properties. For example, this is why pinch harmonics work on a vibrating string. The same principles apply to any field theory, including electromagnetic fields. Just reading your post it's pretty obvious that you don't have any background in physics, just like the other anon >>12324660, >>12323841
who cited Wired magazine and claimed that biophysics is a subfield of optics (even a literal community college engineering student would know better than this).

As for this claim
>Needless to say, if electromagnetic waves are dangerous to humans it's already too late
This is literally a logical fallacy for several reasons,
(1) You are committing the fallacy of the suppressed correlative. Something can still be dangerous and not necessarily be so dangerous that it threatens the existence of life on earth. In fact most things that are dangerous do not threaten to completely undermine human civilization or life on earth. For example, we are constantly exposed to low levels of radiation and yet most of us will never experience any side effects (e.g. from UV light, trace levels of radioactive isotopes in common objects, etc.). By your reasoning radiation must be perfectly safe.
(2) You are committing a strawman. I never made the argument that 5G is dangerous. I have repeatedly and unambiguously argued that the safety of 5G and other telecommunications technology is not 'settled science'. The phrase 'settled science' is itself unscientific. I've never seen it in a single academic journal. This is the kind of language you see in the newspaper or social media, not in academia.

>>12341281
>And pretending to be something your not is good because?
It was more a figure of speech, my point being that the west is actually making some efforts towards being better.
Even if it is extremely slowly, and only some of it. I can't see the east following suit for a long time.

>>12331788
>>12332082
This
>>12331080
Hi, Stalin.

>>12331080
hello shill

isnt 4g fast enough already?

>>12344918
no

>>12340288
How is black history STEM?

based

>>12321086
implessive

>>12321086
>Trusting anything China says
>5G is dangerous
>Not knowing the difference between "there's" and "there are"
You are the biggest faggot in OP history.

>China ever leading the world in anything
>ever

They are one big ugly pastiche of the United States. They are fundamentally incapable of "leaping ahead" since they need someone else to innovate first, and then copy.

Sounds based to me.

First it was 5g, then 6g, then 12g, how long before the government is broadcasting light beams directly into our eYES oH CHIRSt

>>12353865
Mmm! Good old gamma rays!