/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15093547]

This graph destroys pro-5G shills.
Prove me wrong.
>le ionizing radiation! muh buzzwords!

protip: You can't.

[Anonymous No.15093559]

>>15093547
>graphing the sun of two sinusoidal waves
What does a high school math exercise have to do with whatever it is you’re talking about?

[Anonymous No.15093586]

>>15093559
Slow in the brain?
What happens when you mix multiple "safe" frequencies?
You receive peaks of higher frequency wavelength

[Anonymous No.15093639]

>>15093547
Wait till you learn about 6G and the graphene connection with the "vaccines" and how it can change neural pathways in the brain.
Yes this is real.

[Anonymous No.15093643]

>>15093639
Man made horrors beyond your comprehension.

[Anonymous No.15093652]

>>15093586
>You receive peaks of higher frequency wavelength
thats not what happened tho. you didn't measure peak to peak in the last image.

[Anonymous No.15093718]

>>15093652
What are harmonics

[Anonymous No.15093724]

>>15093643
For sure.

[Anonymous No.15093736]

>>15093547
Eh? Go see how well you can push a swing timing your pushes to intervals corresponding to quarters and halfs of its resonant frequency.

[Anonymous No.15093744]

>>15093736
Nobody is pushing swings by hand here, these are produced by computers using sensitive internal clocks.

[Anonymous No.15093746]

>>15093718
>What are harmonics
you don't create new frequencies by adding frequencies, moron. Your shitty OP is misleading and stupid.

[Anonymous No.15093748]

>>15093547
that's not how it works, dumbass

[Anonymous No.15093785]

kek, this /x/nigger couldn't even get the image right

[Anonymous No.15093886]

>>15093639

[Anonymous No.15093891]

>>15093886
pierce the veil!

[Anonymous No.15093912]

>>15093547
Absorption actually matters on the level of the individual photon. This can only ever be one frequency for interactions with electrons. So no, you don't create higher energy photons from mixing lower energy photons.

[Anonymous No.15093916]

>>15093547
Superoscillations exist.
Doesn't necessarily cause ionization but may cause undesirable resonances (heating) which can still catalyze bad things.
You can still break/rearrange bonds without ionization.
All it takes is the right resonances at the right phases in a large molecule.
Even without vibrating a molecule apart, additional heat can cataylze chemistry that wouldn't have happened or happened as fast otherwise.

There is a multiphoton photoelectric effect whereby ionization can happen by simultaneously absorbing two low energy photons that are each individually below the ionization threshold.

I don't know where the idea that non-ionizing radiation is always safe came from.
Food is pretty hot when I take it 24p4jout of the microwave.

[Anonymous No.15094020]

>>15093652
>>15093746
Huh? You think you need equal peaks for a frequency? Nope each slide on the wave is energy difference and acts upon any molecules same way as higher frequency would

[Anonymous No.15094027]

Alot of cope ITT with no counterarguments but uhhh "doesn't work that way okay"

Pic rel looks 99% identical to 4GHz wave, even though it's constructed by 1GHz and 2Ghz wave

[Anonymous No.15094035]

>>15093586
If you add two sinusoidal waves of frequencies A and B, the Fourier transform will have peaks at A and B and nothing else. What’s this “higher frequency” behavior you’re talking about?

[Anonymous No.15094085]

>>15094035
>Superoscillations
Look it up.

[Anonymous No.15094096]

>>15094027
do you understand the concept of wavelength, you fucking retard?

[Anonymous No.15094295]

>>15094035
Only if you take shitty transformation that doesnt take multiplies into account

[Anonymous No.15094297]

>>15094096
Do you cannoot see with your eyes. In that point the oscillation indeed occurs faster.

But you can also see its amplitude is way smaller.

[Anonymous No.15094301]

>>15094297
please, define wavelength in your own words.
then apply that definition to the feature you are highlighting.

[Anonymous No.15094302]

PS: this isn't a trick question

[Anonymous No.15094306]

>>15093547
>pro-5G shills
5G is already done, in telecoms research everyone is working on 6G already.

Mass adoption of 5G tech is well underway and inevitable as it enables a ton of very attractive tech.

>protip: You can't.

Adding up 2 signals with different frequencies doesn't magically introduce a new frequency in the resulting signal.

Concretely what we have here is:

[eqn]x(t) = \sin (2 \pi 1 \times 10^9 t) + \sin(2 \pi 2 \times 10^9 t)[/eqn]

Then

[eqn]\mathcal{F}\{x\}(\xi) =\frac{ \delta (\xi - 1 \pi 1 \times 10^9) - \delta (\xi + 1 \pi 1 \times 10^9)}{2i} + \frac{\delta (\xi - 2 \pi 1 \times 10^9) - \delta (\xi + 2 \pi 1 \times 10^9)}{2i}[/eqn]

There's no phantom 4ghz component here.

>t. mathematical signal processing researcher at a telecoms national lab

[Anonymous No.15094344]

>>15094306
Use real fourier stupid complexbitch

[Anonymous No.15094345]

>>15094344
What? Just, what?

[Anonymous No.15094381]

>>15094345
https://www.quora.com/When-taking-the-Fourier-Transform-of-a-sum-of-two-different-frequencies-why-doesnt-a-peak-appear-that-corresponds-to-the-beating-frequency-of-the-signal

Okay there is beat frequency but it wont have 'energy' nor does show in the transform.

This won't say in that point of time there wouldn't be a (beat) frequency that may or may not kill you. Remember that fourier is just mathematical bullcrap.

[Anonymous No.15094406]

>>15093639
Good thing I didn't take it (the clotshot)

[Anonymous No.15094410]

>>15093891
How?

[Anonymous No.15094414]

>>15094306
>mathematical signal processing researcher at a telecoms national lab
You'll get the rope too nigger

Either that or you're eating the bugs and getting black goo to control you pathetic body via terahertz
https://www.bitchute.com/video/n4pID0q54Oaw/

[Anonymous No.15094448]

>>15094306
Bro, all you need is for it to resemble another frequency on a finite interval.
Instead of fourier transform you should use Short Time Fourier Transform.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-time_Fourier_transform
This is what is used to make spectrograms

People smarter than you have looked into the subject.
https://michaelberryphysics.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/berry2621.pdf
>Band limited functions f(x) can oscillate for arbitrarily long intervals arbitrarily faster than the highest frequency they contain.
There is a trade-off of requiring exponentially higher amplitudes for longer intervals and higher frequencies because as >>15094027 shows the oscillations are of smaller magnitude.

[Anonymous No.15094450]

Sin x + sin y=2 sin(x+y/2)cos(x-y/2)

So in one point it will be sum freq /2and one point their difference/2. Fourier believers btfo

[Anonymous No.15094536]

>>15094448
you don't seem to understand any of the things you posted or how they relate to OPs schizophrenic argument.
See>>15093586
Clearly he seems to thing adding low frequency signals produces high frequency components in the resulting signals and thus results in unforeseen effects that can affect human health, but it doesn't.
These oscillations have 0 energy and the fact that you can see that they exist from a spectrogram doesn't imply that they don't have 0 energy.

>>15094414
Please fuck off from /sci/

[Anonymous No.15094540]

>>15094381
>This won't say in that point of time there wouldn't be a (beat) frequency that may or may not kill you
Please explain why you think a 0 energy signal can call you. Why are you afraid of 5g specifically? do you have any concrete reasons to think that its dangerous other than you being a paranoid schizophrenic retard that doesn't understand how 5g works or what it even is?

>Remember that fourier is just mathematical bullcrap.
the words "mathematical bullcrap" form an oxymoron.

[Anonymous No.15094561]

>>15094540
Its 0 energy only time average. But if you have two very close frequencies, the beat will be their average and some low frequency.

There will not be cases where the frequency is some GHz and another twice that. So all in all there is no "risk" of 5G.

But the problem was no 5 G engineer like you understood the raise of another frequencies even "no energy". This of course raises distrust and 5g schizos.

[Anonymous No.15094565]

>>15093744
>Nobody is pushing swings by hand here
Retard, I'm just trying to give you a simple illustration of why combining two frequencies doesn't create a third, at least not in any sense that physical systems that respond to particular frequencies would care about.

[Anonymous No.15094574]

>>15094565
Definetely would give noise to the beat frequency tuned radio receiver. Noob. You can even hear the beat from two close freq sound sources

[Anonymous No.15094575]

kek i love these types of threads

[Anonymous No.15094580]

>>15094574
Look, if I had known you are so dedicated to being wrong and retarded, I wouldn't have responded.

[Anonymous No.15094719]

>>15093547
Where are the axis labels?

[Anonymous No.15094765]

>>15093547
>Let's pretend fourier transform is not linear
t. filtered

[Anonymous No.15094785]

>>15093547
>shorter wavelengths are more harmful
Are you retarded? The smaller something is, the less harmful it becomes.

[Anonymous No.15094970]

>>15094410
by brapping the conjugate waveform to phase cancel them

[Anonymous No.15094976]

please post firmware so I can try to MIMO oxygen out of hemoglobin

[Anonymous No.15094999]

>>15094580
>you can hear something
>it doesnt exists as my time integral in all time is 0

[Anonymous No.15095095]

>>15094785
Ah shorter wave is traveling shorter and thud needs more energy

[Anonymous No.15095281]

>>15094448
it's hard to call something an oscillation when it's not periodic.
also, finite transforms are necessarily periodic.

[Anonymous No.15096301]

>>15094020
>You think you need equal peaks for a frequency?
you deny the definition of frequency. by your logic you can just take two points anywhere and call it any frequency. OP isn't measuring peak to peak in the last pic. that measure doesn't represent a frequency.

[Anonymous No.15096319]

>>15096301
Your definitions mumbling don't matter, the physics is always right. You have 4Ghz wavelength, end of story

[Anonymous No.15096351]

>>15096319
>You have 4Ghz wavelength
no. you literally do not. you placed the terminals of the line segment at random places. why not try to actually argue your point, moron? prove your are placing the cursor in a place relevant to any wavelength or frequency.

[Anonymous No.15096358]

>>15096351
It's literally a full wave cycle mate, take your meds >>15094027

[Anonymous No.15096363]

>>15095281
Is cos(x) + cos(x*sqrt(2)) periodic?
It consists of 2 pure oscillations.
>finite transforms are necessarily periodic
Nope. Only if the sampling is some subset Z*f.
You could imagine using sampling points from Gaussian quadrature when calculating the inverse fourier transform to get an approximation of of your function that isn't periodic.

[Anonymous No.15096364]

>le five gee bait thread

[Anonymous No.15096367]

>>15096358
>It's literally a full wave cycle mate,
no. It's not. a period is defined thusly

f(t)=f(t+T) were T is the period. You are making up your own definition for what a period, wavelength, and frequency are.

[Anonymous No.15096711]

>>15096367
yeah result 99% same, math is to describe what you see, and you see what your math does yet you deny its the same thing, really sad

[Anonymous No.15097098]

>>15096711
>yeah result 99% same, math is to describe what you see, and you see what your math does yet you deny its the same thing, really sad
you are an idiot who is making up your own definitions for fundamental and shit simple shit. why does a a certain frequency @2.45 GHz warm-up water? it's because that dipolar molecule resonates at that specific frequency. resonance doesn't work at any frequency other than the fundamental one f(t)=f(t+T). resonance only works because energy is delivered at a specific phase at a specific time over multiple periods. energy is pumped into the system. in your case you can never achieve resonance, because after the first "cycle" all the energy is entirely off in its phase. it's like you are on a swing and you pump your legs once with the right rhythm, but then do random spastic movements for the next minute. you aren't going to be swinging very high, moron.

[Anonymous No.15097106]

>>15094406
it's in medical saline...

[Anonymous No.15097945]

>>15097098
>why does a a certain frequency @2.45 GHz warm-up water? it's because that dipolar molecule resonates at that specific frequency.
it's due to dielectric heating caused by the time derivative of polarization density P, not any special resonance. that's a old wives' tale

[Anonymous No.15098087]

>>15097945
Even if you'd rather believe this. Take the derivative of the original expression. You notice it's not multiplied by (F1+f2). Take an average over time you don't get the power from the sum of the frequencies. Why am I even saying this? It's obvious shit any retard had already done in their head.

[Anonymous No.15098890]

>>15093547
Shouldn't it be
pic

[Anonymous No.15098922]

>>15094785
Oh yeah, black widows are less dangerous than kittens then, you fucking retard ?

[Anonymous No.15098928]

>>15098890
It is, but OP is carefully avoiding to define what a (((wavelength))) is.

[Anonymous No.15099059]

>>15098087
>Le average over time
The E=hf doesnt have the time average memo. It hits with its enegy in that timepoint. This is why fourier analysis fails and you can hear beating with two close frequency sound sources.

[Anonymous No.15099911]

>>15099059
>The E=hf doesnt have the time average memo.

That's because it's wrong. Turns out the photoelectric effect was falsified when lasers were demonstrated to ionize well below ultraviolet.

[Anonymous No.15100061]

>>15099911
Let me guess, some nanosecond off/on/off pulse giving raise to higher frequencies

[Anonymous No.15100084]

>>15100061
>Let me guess, some nanosecond off/on/off pulse giving raise to higher frequencies
You are saying the windowing function in the frequency domain which is orders of magnitude below the frequency of the light is changing the red lights frequency and making it ultraviolet? That's retarded. So if you turn a light on and off you are increasing the photons frequency?

Get a red laser. Point it in your retina. It ionizes your rods and cones and blinds you. It can be s continuous beam If you don't believe me then do it and post the video. Then you win the argument.

[Anonymous No.15100193]

>>15100084
Im not hurting my eyes. But was i right it was sharp pulse?

As Im indeed expert in wave physics. Only naïve theories contains fourier transform and simple waves with one frequency.

If you like fourier analysis so much, why dont you make one with the on/off pulse. Take a small interval window with one sinusoid. Let it be 0 outside the window. Next do a realistic pulse where its not so sharp, the amplitude raises with quickly raising but differentiable curve.

[Anonymous No.15100266]

>>15100193
>Im not hurting my eyes
But E=hf, remember? I'm just asking you to point a 19mw red laser at your retina for a minute. Indoor light are tens or hundreds of watts. I'm just asking 0.01W. and it's only red. Einstein explained this can not harm you. So do it faggot. Prove your point by pointing a measly 10mw of red continuous laser light in your eyes

[Anonymous No.15101953]

>>15093586
Polarized non ionizing emf sources can stack, creating standing waves and we have very little idea what the full ramifications are, but we do know it can open and close random ion channels and turn genes on and off. Doesn't have to ve ionizing but POLARIZED is enough as opposed to diffused (all directions randomly) emf sources like the sun. Source, look it up spoon feeder