Cool Mission?

Quote from: Stash on February 01, 2023, 08:56:54 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 01, 2023, 05:53:52 PM

Thunder is about 120–130 decibels, a jet engine is 160dB on takeoff. Yet despite the fact that a jet takeoff can literally deafen you (150dB is the threshold for temporary deafness), you don't hear jet takeoff for miles on end.

How do you know that thunder is about 120–130 decibels and a jet engine is 160dB on takeoff? Did you measure these?

I did not.

You said you only believe in first hand facts. So how do you know those numbers are correct?

Here, you said it yourself:

...swallowing secondhand knowledge as science is still another (you cannot not know anything, until you move from being told it to experiencing it yourself; the word "science" means to know, but increasingly people have accepted the science of old dead people).

You cannot get your knowledge from secondhand or thirdhand sources.

Real science is about testing and theorizing, not about "knowing". We know things only after we have tested them, and are sure what we tested is right.

I guess whatever you posted is neither fact nor science.

What, you get to cite secondhand facts as though they are proof, but I do not? How unfair!

Do you live in a hole in the ground.

You never listen to the radio and heard interference from a lightning storm?


How a lightning detector works is demonstrable reality.

They are used in industry to keep construction workers and crafts working in steel structures safe.  It gives a warning to clear the steel structure and get workers to shelter.

Manufactured professional grade lightning detectors made for safety programs gives indication of lighting in the area, and when it’s time to bring everyone out of the steel structure and in to a safe building.

There would be a huge liability issue if lightning detection didn’t work, and didn’t work as advertised. And if they didn’t work on the faster radio electromagnetic radiation released by lighting.

You

If I can look up things online, and you get to reject them and say "how do you know?" Yet you get to rant on and on about how I'm "lying" about established reality.

You can literally build a lightning detector for yourself.

You literally can see in the design provided of a diy lightning detector, the lightning detector doesn’t need a microphone and a speaker.  It doesn’t need to detect sound.

Either one is true, but you have to pick:
1. We can take secondhand facts and use them, because other people's reports can be trusted
2.There is no established reality, and scientist guess at things.

I don’t have to use “secondhand” facts.

I have a better basic understanding of radio waves / radiation than you.


I have been driving and seen a lighting flash and heard the simultaneous static noise from the radio. Then heard the resultant thunder whole seconds later.


I have used a professional grade manufactured lighting detector to help provide safe working conditions for contractors.


Saying “secondhand” is your way of trying to disregard well established reality.  The history of lighting detection.  And the established principles of lighting detection circuits. 


You

The only way out of this is to understand that reality is like a storybook that isn't all done yet.

Lightning detection is not a story. It’s a well established science that keeps people safe. It uses the basic principles of a tuned circuit for radio waves.  Which is tuned to the most common frequency of radio waves created by lightning


Why a radio tuner works.

Your radio receiver needs a tuner. The antenna will receive thousands of sine waves. The job of a tuner is to separate one sine wave from the thousands of radio signals that the antenna receives. In this case, the tuner is tuned to receive the 680,000-hertz signal. Tuners work using a principle called resonance. That is, tuners resonate at, and amplify, one particular frequency and ignore all the other frequencies in the air. It is easy to create a resonator with a capacitor and an inductor (check out How Oscillators Work to see how inductors and capacitors work together to create a tuner).


https://electronics.howstuffworks.com/radio.htm

If you missed it “It is easy to create a resonator with a capacitor and an inductor”

Radio frequencies induce electron flow in an antenna, the desired radio frequency is tuned in by a resonator with a capacitor and inductor with no need to capture sound waves with a microphone.

A lighting detector is designed to tune in to the most common electromagnetic radio wave frequency generated by lightning called radio static of lightning, and triggers an alarm.  The lighting detector does not work on the principles of sound waves.  Doesn’t need a microphone.

The rest of your delusional rant is garbage, and has nothing to do with lighting generating radio electromagnetic radiation that is detectable by a lighting detector.  Which has nothing to do with sound waves.  And demonstrates radio waves travel faster and at different speeds than sound waves. 

@DataOverFlow
There was once such a fierce sunspot storm or something ( I don't remember what it was called) in the 1800s that it wiped out a ton of telegram machines. Some people reported getting shocked by their telegrams.

What, you get to cite secondhand facts as though they are proof, but I do not? How unfair!

If I can look up things online, and you get to reject them and say "how do you know?" Yet you get to rant on and on about how I'm "lying" about established reality.

Either one is true, but you have to pick:
1. We can take secondhand facts and use them, because other people's reports can be trusted
2.There is no established reality, and scientist guess at things.

It exposes your incredibly dishonest double standard.

If we are allowed to take second hand facts and use them, because other people's reports can be trusted, then we have plenty to clearly demonstrate pretty much everything you have said is pure garbage.
We have plenty to show Earth is round, that radio waves are EM waves which travel at the speed of light, that satellites are real and there are plenty currently orbiting Earth.

But you reject all that, because you don't like it.
Even though there are mountains of evidence to show you are wrong, you just dismiss it all, because you can't handle reality.

But then as soon as it comes to something you think supports you or that you can dishonestly present to pretend it supports you, you fully accept it, without question.

So I pick the first option, accepting that Earth is round and rotating, and orbiting the sun, and so on.

Which do you pick?

Some things aren't proved and I will question them.

Pure BS.
Somethings you hate, because they don't fit in your delusional fantasy which you have created because you can't handle reality.
You reject those things, not due to lack of evidence or because they haven't been proven, but because they don't fit your fantasy.

Again, ignoring the distances and scales involved just further shows your dishonesty.
Jet engines are small and point like. Lightning is very large and line like.
This gives them different relationships between loudness and distance.
Jet engines are usually heard up close. But lightning is usually heard from quite some distance.

Again, without knowing the distances involved in your numbers, your numbers are meaningless.

What, you get to cite secondhand facts as though they are proof, but I do not? How unfair!

Let’s think about the speed of sound vs speed of radio waves.

Having served in the military and just living in general.  I have used CB radio, used military portable radio, played with walkie-talkie’s.  Listening to people call the local radio station.  Had a little RadioShack kit that let you listen to passenger jets. 

And the speed of sound being around 1000 feet  / second.

I have never notice a 5 second delay talking to someone over a mile away by radio communication.

Or a 15 second delay talking to someone 3 miles away. 

30 miles is 158,400 feet?

Take 158,400 feet and divide by the speed of sound at sea level. That is 145 seconds.  Or 2.4 minutes.

There is no evidence that conversation by radio 30 miles apart has a lag of 2.4 minutes between the two radio sets.  Radio travels much faster than the speed of sound. 


Note.  Added after thought.  Or fighter jets and missiles traveling over the speed of sound can’t communicate in real time by radio because they are traveling faster than the speed of radio?


Thinking radio is sound waves is delusional and ignorant.  It’s just stupid. 

Alright, have you ever talked to someone across the Earth?

https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2021/07/01/long-distance-radio-transmissions-prove-that-the-earth-is-flat/

First of all, radio across the Earth should involve curving sound waves. But no such convolution is necessary.

Second, I took a short road trip to Walmart. I was listening to "satellite radio" specifically the station known as Korean Today. Ironically, they mentioned a map from the Joseon era that they were convinced proved the Earth is a sphere (because it had two discs).

The thing is the "live radio" said at one point, "the time is now 2am." It was 12pm. Now, this could be accounted for timezones. What wasn't accounted for is why radio announcers would be recording live at the dead of night.

The broadcast was mixed between three parts:
1. Real time announcement (live)
2. Radio announcer (prerecorded, several days of work spaced out between music)
3. Music (from automatic playlist)

In other words, the only thing live of the broadcast was the time announcement.

Radio, I said, is not the speed of light. In fact, I've said this repeatedly. And I've said that radio is a type of sound. I am talking about behavior not speed. The speed of sound is only about 700 mph. I'm not gonna say that. And in fact, my exact words are:

1. Radio is a type of sound. Sound definitely doesn't all move at the same rate.
2. Radio (if it exists) moves at several machs
3. Radio is pre-recorded even from "live" satellite broadcasts.
4. Radio is not automatically light speed just
5. In my signature picture below, I've made a distinction between different frequencies and rates. High frequency that light are faster than light particles. This is due to theories already existing about the movement of molecules.

Am I going to have to keep repeating these five points?

To go from one end of Earth to another in a single second requires a speed of 25,200,000 mph. Light speed is roughly 12 times that. And that's even going under the assumption that it does travel across Earth with no lag. In all likelihood, trying to broadcast across Earth would create lag or static. I do not believe the working range of a radio can cross twelve Earths. What I can believe is that wavelength affects range and reliability.

The thing is the "live radio" said at one point, "the time is now 2am." It was 12pm. Now, this could be accounted for timezones. What wasn't accounted for is why radio announcers would be recording live at the dead of night.

What?  So you don’t know how to set your watch.  Or you don’t know  the difference between listening to distance radio stations through streaming on the internet vs listening to a local station with a tower in your time zone broadcasting over the airwaves.  Or the difference between FM vs shortwave bouncing around. Or a night AM is bouncing around. 


Your “points” do not answer anything.

Why a faraday cage can block radio waves, but the mesh will allow sound waves to pass.

Why a faraday cage is designed and uses different materials than sound proofing.

You “points” have nothing to do with how a lighting detector works.  Doesn’t need a microphone nor speaker. 

Why lighting causes radio interference in the same instance the flash of lightning is seen. Then the resulting thunder is heard whole seconds later

You points have nothing to do with why a lighting detector can sense a lighting strike whole seconds before it’s heard.

You points have noting to do with..

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 02, 2023, 05:30:53 AM

What, you get to cite secondhand facts as though they are proof, but I do not? How unfair!

Let’s think about the speed of sound vs speed of radio waves.

Having served in the military and just living in general.  I have used CB radio, used military portable radio, played with walkie-talkie’s.  Listening to people call the local radio station.  Had a little RadioShack kit that let you listen to passenger jets. 

And the speed of sound being around 1000 feet  / second.

I have never notice a 5 second delay talking to someone over a mile away by radio communication.

Or a 15 second delay talking to someone 3 miles away. 

30 miles is 158,400 feet?

Take 158,400 feet and divide by the speed of sound at sea level. That is 145 seconds.  Or 2.4 minutes.

There is no evidence that conversation by radio 30 miles apart has a lag of 2.4 minutes between the two radio sets.  Radio travels much faster than the speed of sound. 


Note.  Added after thought.  Or fighter jets and missiles traveling over the speed of sound can’t communicate in real time by radio because they are traveling faster than the speed of radio?


Thinking radio is sound waves is delusional and ignorant.  It’s just stupid.

Can you answer what the time lag between two radio’s communicating 30 miles apart should be? It’s not 2.4 minutes because radio waves travel faster than sound. 


I think the term is latency.

  In real lime, it’s measured in less than a second.  It’s measured in milliseconds.

How is real time radio communication possible for a jet going faster than the speed of sound?

First of all, radio across the Earth should involve curving sound waves. But no such convolution is necessary.

No, your convoluted BS isn't necessary.
Radio waves aren't sound waves. So that was your first mistake.
But you already know radio waves (of some frequencies) can reflect off the ionosphere and Earth.

So no need for any of your delusional BS.

What wasn't accounted for is why radio announcers would be recording live at the dead of night.

People work at night. That isn't surprising.

The broadcast was mixed between three parts:
1. Real time announcement (live)
2. Radio announcer (prerecorded, several days of work spaced out between music)
3. Music (from automatic playlist)
In other words, the only thing live of the broadcast was the time announcement.

Based on what?
How do you know the radio announcer wasn't live?

Radio, I said, is not the speed of light. In fact, I've said this repeatedly. And I've said that radio is a type of sound.

Yes, you have repeatedly spouted the same delusional BS again and again, with absolutely nothing to support this delusional BS of yours, nor anything to cause any sane person to doubt the mountains of evidence that you are wrong.

1. Radio is a type of sound. Sound definitely doesn't all move at the same rate.
2. Radio (if it exists) moves at several machs
3. Radio is pre-recorded even from "live" satellite broadcasts.
4. Radio is not automatically light speed just
5. In my signature picture below, I've made a distinction between different frequencies and rates. High frequency that light are faster than light particles. This is due to theories already existing about the movement of molecules.

1 - No it isn't. Continually spouting the same delusional BS will not help you. Also, sound waves travel at the same speed in a given medium (e.g. air) regardless of frequency. If it didn't, sounds would get massively distorted as the distance increased, with music and voices becoming unrecognisable at a large enough distance.
2 - It does exist. Its velocity is independent of the velocity of sound. It travels at the speed of light.
3 - Prove it.
4 - Yes, it is, as are all EM waves.
5 - Your signature is pure BS.

Am I going to have to keep repeating these five points?

No, what you have to do is start justifying your delusional BS.
Repeating the same delusional BS again and again just shows how dishonest you are and how little you care about reality and the truth.

If you actually cared about the truth, you would stop just repeating the same pathetic lies and instead try to support them with evidence, something you severely lack. You would also try to honestly address the available evidence, like the everyday use of radar.

I get it, you can't handle reality. You want to be the centre of the universe and the toy of a childish, evil tyrant. And radio destroys that fantasy of yours. But that doesn't make your delusional BS correct.

I do not believe the working range of a radio can cross twelve Earths.

Because yet again you fail to comprehend the difference between speed and range.

What wasn't accounted for is why radio announcers would be recording live at the dead of night.

You can't be serious using this as any sort of "argument". If you are, you are so a troll because that's just the dumbest, most outlandish thing I've read in I can't remember when. Only a troll would try and slip this type a thing in.

Alright, have you ever talked to someone across the Earth?

https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2021/07/01/long-distance-radio-transmissions-prove-that-the-earth-is-flat/

You said you only believe in first hand facts. So why are you posting a link to, at a minimum, a second-hand source?

Here, you said it yourself:

...swallowing secondhand knowledge as science is still another (you cannot not know anything, until you move from being told it to experiencing it yourself; the word "science" means to know, but increasingly people have accepted the science of old dead people).

You cannot get your knowledge from secondhand or thirdhand sources.

Real science is about testing and theorizing, not about "knowing". We know things only after we have tested them, and are sure what we tested is right.

I guess whatever you posted is neither fact nor science.

I guess whatever you posted is neither fact nor science.

Because you "guessed".



Vibration. Vibration, on a fundamental level, is sound.

For instance, solids emit sound occasionally, at a subsonic level. When an earthquake hits, you feel such sound, hearing it only when it is loud enough to create upheaval. Liquids, especially at the ocean make sounds. Subsonic to sonic, depending on rate of motion. Gases increasingly are sonic, are wind and such blows. Plasma is supersonic for the most part, moving into energetic frequencies.

The more energetic matter is, the faster molecules or particles or whatever are. Water is frozen, its stuff slows to a crawl, if you thaw it, you can see water and even steam moving. If you managed to quickly evaporate water you would see the motion of fog or whatever.

We know these particles move at faster rates from models of the state of matter. But sure, if you wanna say all vibrations are the same, explain this to the scientists who showed that ice doesn't move at the same vibration as water.

We don't claim all particles or molecules move at the same rate. Solids move slower than liquids, which move slower than gas, which move slower than plasma.

But yet this is exactly what you are claiming with your theories of sound and especially electromagnetics!!!

Okay, so why is there an "upgrade" from 2G to 5G?

If all EM frequencies are equal, and all move at exactly the speed of light, then telegraph is perfectly fine for you. And then radio should be okay without any upgrades.
 Yet 5G is approaching the microwave wavelength. Obviously, phone companies know something you don't.
And so do internet companies! Internet has gotten faster over the past 30 years. I remember dialup actually made a sound! In fact, we had to use splitters in order not to have phone disruption whenever dialup loaded. If you think that went at the speed of light, you're definitely wrong.

In fact, all claims that streaming video or any other type of radio or wifi signal can get faster should be nonsense, as we are supposedly at light speed and can't get any faster.



I guess this guy is stuck. His signal is EM, so it will never get any faster. Too bad, huh? Of course if not all EM frequencies are the same, then signals can be upgraded.

We know that radio moves faster than sound. We can't say anything more than that. We most definitely cannot say we "know" that all EM moves at speed of light. It doesn't. It only moves faster than sound. Definitely not all frequencies are identical.

When internet handshake could be heard, internet was literally slower than it is today. And it disrupted other signals plugged nearby because of frequency being similar. The same as sound can disrupt other sound.



This is real science, you frauds.



Just for that, you get to listen to dialup sounds.

If all EM frequencies are equal, and all move at exactly the speed of light,

Stop changing the subject.

If radio moves at the speed of sound.  Do you have any proof the lag between two radios communicating 30 miles apart is 2.4 minutes.

The lag or latency between two radios communicating 30 miles apart is less than a second and measured in milliseconds.  Not 2.4 minutes.  This alone proves you’re full of shit. 

Internet has gotten faster over the past 30 years.

You mean as computer processing speed has gone from megahertz to gigahertz?  So computers can process more data per second.  And as computer word size has gone from 8 bits to 64 bits? 

So today’s computers are processing more data at a faster rate.  You’re the master of the obvious.


Next you’ll be stating modern fighter jets fly faster than the Wright brother’s first airplane. 

Quote

I guess whatever you posted is neither fact nor science.

Because you "guessed".

I was being charitable.

You cannot get your knowledge from secondhand or thirdhand sources.

Okay, so why is there an "upgrade" from 2G to 5G?

Bandwidth.

Bulmabriefs,

Are you seriously saying that you think 5G ‘faster’ than previous iterations of cellphone tech because the waves they transmit are likewise faster?

Can you provide evidence please? (I would in fact be grateful for any evidence of any claim you’ve made on this thread).

I’m assuming you realise the 5G radios utilise multiple bands and multiple frequencies within those bands? Some of them at a lower frequency than 4G and 3G et al?

The more energetic matter is, the faster molecules or particles or whatever are. Water is frozen, its stuff slows to a crawl, if you thaw it, you can see water and even steam moving. If you managed to quickly evaporate water you would see the motion of fog or whatever.

We know these particles move at faster rates from models of the state of matter. But sure, if you wanna say all vibrations are the same, explain this to the scientists who showed that ice doesn't move at the same vibration as water.

We don't claim all particles or molecules move at the same rate. Solids move slower than liquids, which move slower than gas, which move slower than plasma.

You are trying to equate the bulk motion of an object, with the speed of sound.
They are vastly different.
This is because all sound requires is a small motion back and forth, while bulk motion requires it to break the bonds or overcome intermolecular forces to move.

The speed of sound will vary depending on the medium.

For example, the speed of sound decreases as you increase altitude. It varies with temperature. And the speed of sound in water is faster than the speed of sound in air.

Okay, so why is there an "upgrade" from 2G to 5G?

If all EM frequencies are equal, and all move at exactly the speed of light, then telegraph is perfectly fine for you. And then radio should be okay without any upgrades.

This has already been explained to you.
Your wilful ignorance of reality has no impact on it.

The velocity would relate to ping or latency. The frequency relates to the data rate.

Morse code takes more than a second for each word transmitted. It has an incredibly slow data rate.
If we be generous and assume 1 byte per letter and 8 letters per word, that works out to be a transmission rate of 64 b/s.
At that data rate, this page (before this response) would take roughly 12 minutes to load.

Higher frequencies allow more data to be sent in the same amount of time.

If we lived in your delusional fantasy land where the velocity of EM waves varied dramatically with frequency, but it actually went the other way with higher frequencies travelling slower, that would mean that going to a higher frequency would allow more data to be sent in the same amount of time, but the latency would be increased.

That would mean you could go from low frequency taking 12 minutes to transmit the data, and less than a second for it to travel to you; to less than a second to send the data, but then it taking a minute to send to you.

I remember dialup actually made a sound! In fact, we had to use splitters in order not to have phone disruption whenever dialup loaded. If you think that went at the speed of light, you're definitely wrong.

And yet again you spout pure nonsense.
Dialup took up your phone line. No splitter was necessary.
ADSL used a splitter.
They went at the standard speed of electrical signals in a wire, which is approximately the speed of light.

In fact, all claims that streaming video or any other type of radio or wifi signal can get faster should be nonsense, as we are supposedly at light speed and can't get any faster.

Again, this shows a fundamental lack of understanding of signals.
They are referring to the data rate.

What you are suggesting now is akin to claiming that if someone says you can transfer more with a truck than a car then they are lying, because they are both limited to the speed limit of the road.

We know that radio moves faster than sound. We can't say anything more than that.

YOU can't say anything more than that, because you are choosing to remain wilfully ignorant of reality.
Those choosing to not remain wilfully ignorant can certainly say more.
They can accept the countless measurements of EM waves showing they travel at the speed of light, they can even make their own.
They can accept the widespread use of radar to understand that if we were wrong about the speed of radio waves, then we would repeatedly get distance wrong and likely have aircraft crashing every day.
They can also understand what EM waves are, and how they are fundamentally different from sound waves, and how they will travel at the speed of the propagations of disturbances in the EM field, i.e. at the speed of light.

You still haven't addressed the fundamental ways in which sound and EM waves differ, with radio waves matching EM waves. Their ability to traverse a vacuum, and their ability to be polarised.
At the very least, this demonstrates that light and sound are fundamentally different and are not part of the same spectrum as your delusional garbage states.

Bulmabriefs,

Are you seriously saying that you think 5G ‘faster’ than previous iterations of cellphone tech because the waves they transmit are likewise faster?

Can you provide evidence please? (I would in fact be grateful for any evidence of any claim you’ve made on this thread).

I assuming you realise the 5G radios utilise multiple bands and multiple frequencies within those bands? Some of them at a lower frequency than 4G and 3G et al?

Oh seriously. 

Yes, that is the point. "Can you hear me now? " Why do you think he was asking that? Because early Verizon had suck coverage range. They had dropped calls, they probably couldn't even use internet, much less fast internet. But so did everyone. For years.



But what is coverage? As wavelength decreases, frequency increases. As frequency increases, energy increases. You're talking about a better connection because the area is blanketed with faster signals. This means that if I use the internet on my phone, I am not contending with 30 minute page load time. Yes,I remember the horribleness that was dialup. Today? Today, I routinely download games for my computer, some of which approach the GB mark. If they are also a faster connection, I can download within minutes. Even 10 years ago, I literally couldn't download games for the PSP because it required 20+ hours and bottlenecked everyone's connection. 6 years ago, I tried to use Steam. I quit it in frustration as the net use was faster but caused my parents grief.

So answer this. If all frequencies are the same (they are not, you insufferable dumbasses), then what is the actual point of upgrading from almost harmless RF frequencies to much more dangerous MF radiation? I mean seriously, we use microwave radiation to cook our food, despite that  cases of cancer have definitely increased since that became the trend.

Cuz if there is no upgrade, you're saying people are getting  zapped with higher intensity radiation cuz ppl want them dead. Now, that may be true (Malthus was a thing), but we'll give humanity the benefit of the doubt. Tell you what, I'll give you a 1G phone and we can compare (you can go back in time somehow to when previous cell lines were common for this theoretical comparison, still bad).

https://www.lifewire.com/1g-vs-2g-vs-2-5g-vs-3g-vs-4g-578681

As you might expect, subsequent generations are faster and contain improved or new features. Most wireless carriers currently support both 4G and 3G technology, which is handy when your location allows your phone to operate only at 3G speeds.

Yes, even they admit to the term faster. But you say that all EM frequencies travel at light speed. Okay here you go.



I'll take a 4G phone, since I don't trust the safety of 5G. You get a 1G phone. And you can play Worldle and use the net and make calls with that.

Landlines were (and still are, proved land is connected, thanks to better line tech) reliable. But cellular technology had to come a long long way from missed calls and scratchy audio to fast internet and good signal. I'll tell you something though. We should stop phone frequency progression at light frequencies. If they get up to gamma radiation, phones will kill us all.

Oh seriously. 

Stop changing the subject.

You act like my kid trying to get out of answering who got water all over the bathroom floor.

Answer the question.

If radio moves at the speed of sound.  Do you have any proof the lag between two radios communicating 30 miles apart is 2.4 minutes.

The lag or latency between two radios communicating 30 miles apart is less than a second and measured in milliseconds.  Not 2.4 minutes. 

You need to adult and acknowledge you have provided no proof radio waves are sound waves.

You need to acknowledge higher frequencies carry more data because of the increased peaks and valleys for a given time.  Not because the velocity of the actual electromagnetic wave changes from 1 gigahertz to 20 gigahertz.

1000000000 Cycles per second vs 20000000000 cycles per second.  With both wave frequencies covering distance at the same velocity.

 I mean seriously, we use microwave radiation to cook our food, despite that  cases of cancer have definitely increased since that became the trend.

Microwave?  Like the box with shielding much stronger than a cellphone?

It should be noted that microwave ovens emit 700 Watts of power, hundreds of times more than the maximum that a cell phone does (and thousands of times more than your cell phone does during the majority of your call).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2018/02/02/the-truth-about-cell-phone-radiation/amp/

As pointed out by the cited article..

They are not harmful in small doses because one photon does not have enough energy to ionize atoms and/or break apart molecules. In very large doses, non-ionizing radiation can be harmful. For example, a visible light laser with sufficient power (at least several hundred times more than a legal laser pointer) which is concentrated in a small enough spot will burn your skin and do worse things to your eye if it gets in there.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2018/02/02/the-truth-about-cell-phone-radiation/amp/

Being around a light bulb emitting light not a big deal.  Compared to being hit with a powerful laser emitting light. 

The intensity has much to do with risk.

Anyway.  Cellphone radiation is the least of your worries…

Radiation Sources and Doses




https://www.epa.gov/radiation/radiation-sources-and-doses

 I mean seriously, we use microwave radiation to cook our food, despite that  cases of cancer have definitely increased since that became the trend.

So. How does a microwave oven in good condition (shielding in place) cause cancer? 

Thank you. I will use that for another thread.

Anyway, that wasn't the point!

The point is that 1G could manage voice only, and it wasn't until nearly 3G that we began to talk about data plans. Had data been used in 1G, it would have been laughed off. My mom was able to do video calls during the height of COVID hysteria.

I shouldn't need to tell any of you what a 1G video call would look like. Some choppy pictures, inability to hear the audio, and then dropped call.

These are not the same quality signals. If you think they are, you're delusional.

Thank you. I will use that for another thread.

Anyway, that wasn't the point!

The point is that 1G could manage voice only, and it wasn't until nearly 3G that we began to talk about data plans. Had data been used in 1G, it would have been laughed off. My mom was able to do video calls during the height of COVID hysteria.

I shouldn't need to tell any of you what a 1G video call would look like. Some choppy pictures, inability to hear the audio, and then dropped call.

These are not the same quality signals. If you think they are, you're delusional.

And how does that contradict

“You need to acknowledge higher frequencies carry more data because of the increased peaks and valleys for a given time.  Not because the velocity of the actual electromagnetic wave changes from 1 gigahertz to 20 gigahertz.

1000000000 Cycles per second vs 20000000000 cycles per second.  With both wave frequencies covering distance at the same velocity.”


And you need to stop changing the subject and answer to..

“If radio moves at the speed of sound.  Do you have any proof the lag between two radios communicating 30 miles apart is 2.4 minutes.

The lag or latency between two radios communicating 30 miles apart is less than a second and measured in milliseconds.  Not 2.4 minutes. “

I will use that for another thread.

Anyway, that wasn't the point!

The point is that 1G could manage voice only, and it wasn't until nearly 3G

Why.   It’s not like you stay on topic for any thread.   You just troll.

And..


http://net-informations.com/q/diff/generations.html

Look at the changes in carrier frequencies over time.

Quote from: Gonzo230 on February 04, 2023, 10:38:42 AM

Bulmabriefs,

Are you seriously saying that you think 5G ‘faster’ than previous iterations of cellphone tech because the waves they transmit are likewise faster?

Can you provide evidence please? (I would in fact be grateful for any evidence of any claim you’ve made on this thread).

I assuming you realise the 5G radios utilise multiple bands and multiple frequencies within those bands? Some of them at a lower frequency than 4G and 3G et al?

Oh seriously. 

Yes, that is the point. "Can you hear me now? " Why do you think he was asking that? Because early Verizon had suck coverage range. They had dropped calls, they probably couldn't even use internet, much less fast internet. But so did everyone. For years.



But what is coverage? As wavelength decreases, frequency increases. As frequency increases, energy increases. You're talking about a better connection because the area is blanketed with faster signals. This means that if I use the internet on my phone, I am not contending with 30 minute page load time. Yes,I remember the horribleness that was dialup. Today? Today, I routinely download games for my computer, some of which approach the GB mark. If they are also a faster connection, I can download within minutes. Even 10 years ago, I literally couldn't download games for the PSP because it required 20+ hours and bottlenecked everyone's connection. 6 years ago, I tried to use Steam. I quit it in frustration as the net use was faster but caused my parents grief.

So answer this. If all frequencies are the same (they are not, you insufferable dumbasses), then what is the actual point of upgrading from almost harmless RF frequencies to much more dangerous MF radiation? I mean seriously, we use microwave radiation to cook our food, despite that  cases of cancer have definitely increased since that became the trend.

Cuz if there is no upgrade, you're saying people are getting  zapped with higher intensity radiation cuz ppl want them dead. Now, that may be true (Malthus was a thing), but we'll give humanity the benefit of the doubt. Tell you what, I'll give you a 1G phone and we can compare (you can go back in time somehow to when previous cell lines were common for this theoretical comparison, still bad).

https://www.lifewire.com/1g-vs-2g-vs-2-5g-vs-3g-vs-4g-578681

Quote

As you might expect, subsequent generations are faster and contain improved or new features. Most wireless carriers currently support both 4G and 3G technology, which is handy when your location allows your phone to operate only at 3G speeds.

Yes, even they admit to the term faster. But you say that all EM frequencies travel at light speed. Okay here you go.



I'll take a 4G phone, since I don't trust the safety of 5G. You get a 1G phone. And you can play Worldle and use the net and make calls with that.

Landlines were (and still are, proved land is connected, thanks to better line tech) reliable. But cellular technology had to come a long long way from missed calls and scratchy audio to fast internet and good signal. I'll tell you something though. We should stop phone frequency progression at light frequencies. If they get up to gamma radiation, phones will kill us all.

I think you quoted my post in error, because that didn’t address anything I posted. You seem to be conflating speed, bandwidth, coverage and signal strength, much like you’re conflating frequency, wavelength, energy and speed.

You know speed of radiation of EM waves is very different from the speed of transmission of data encoded within an EM wave….. right? ………right?

Oh seriously. 

That is basically how everyone is thinking about you.

You don't seem to understand the difference between the speed the wave travels at, vs how much data it can carry.

Lets keep it simple, you have a fleet of small hatch backs, each capable of carrying 100 kg, and a fleet of large B-double trucks (i.e. a truck, with 2 large trailers) each capable of carrying 40 000 kg.
Both will travel at 100 km/hr, the entire time, and for the sake of argument, can be loaded instantly, and you can send 1 car out every hour.

You need to move 80 000 kg of stuff, a distance of 100 hours.
How long will it take?

A child can probably do the math and tell you that the trucks will require 2 trips, the second will be sent out 1 hour the first one leaves, and then take 1 hour to reach its destination, for a total time of 2 hours.
The hatch backs instead will require 800 trips, for a total time of 801 hours (1 hour delay between sending out each, and the 1 hour for the last one to travel).

Both travelled at the same velocity, but one required fewer trips so was able to get the job done faster.

As another comparison, lets just say you have 2 options for the fleet of hatch backs.
In one, you can send 1 out every hour, for another, you can send 1 out every minute.
Now, the 1 every hour is the same as before, so it will take 801 hours.
But the one sending 1 every minute will take 800 minutes plus 1 hour, or roughly 14 hours.

Again, they travel at the same velocity, but one is able to send much more data.

A higher data rate (which equates to a faster transfer speed) does NOT require a higher velocity.

Likewise, range depends on the energy of the emitter.
Again, you can compare a tiny LED, with a higher power LED floodlight.
One has a much larger effective range. This has NOTHING to do with the wavelength.

A child can easily understand these points. Why do you insist on playing dumb?

But what is coverage? As wavelength decreases, frequency increases. As frequency increases, energy increases.

A multitude of factors, but the one you are focusing on actually works against you.
For a higher frequency, the energy per photon increases, which means for the same energy you have fewer photons coming out, which means the signal can be worse.
Note that 5G transmitters require more energy than a 4G transmitter and cover a smaller area.

So that doesn't help your claim at all.

You're talking about a better connection because the area is blanketed with faster signals.

No, there is a better connection because there is more bandwidth.
It has NOTHING to do with velocity of the signals.

So answer this. If all frequencies are the same (they are not, you insufferable dumbasses), then what is the actual point of upgrading from almost harmless RF frequencies to much more dangerous MF radiation? I mean seriously, we use microwave radiation to cook our food, despite that  cases of cancer have definitely increased since that became the trend.

Again, this has been explained repeatedly.
Stop just ignoring it and stop playing dumb.

The SPEED of the waves are the same. What changes is the frequency, and with that, the amount of data that can be sent.

Repeatedly ignoring this fact because it is inconvenient for your delusional garbage just shows your dishonesty.

If you increase the frequency, you increase the data rate.

Yes, even they admit to the term faster.

Because they are referring to the data transfer rate.
You can transfer the same amount of data faster.
That doesn't mean the velocity of the wave is faster.

The point is that 1G could manage voice only, and it wasn't until nearly 3G that we began to talk about data plans. Had data been used in 1G, it would have been laughed off. My mom was able to do video calls during the height of COVID hysteria.

1G was analogue (a collection of different standards).
Data is transferred in a digital format, so you would need something on top of that 1G to be able to get data transferred.

2G provided a 30 kHz channel, so not much data could be sent.
4G provides more options for channels, from 5 MHz to 40 MHz, allowing vastly more data to be sent.
Again, they don't need the waves themselves to travel faster.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 05, 2023, 03:30:48 AM

Quote from: Gonzo230 on February 04, 2023, 10:38:42 AM

Bulmabriefs,

Are you seriously saying that you think 5G ‘faster’ than previous iterations of cellphone tech because the waves they transmit are likewise faster?

Can you provide evidence please? (I would in fact be grateful for any evidence of any claim you’ve made on this thread).

I assuming you realise the 5G radios utilise multiple bands and multiple frequencies within those bands? Some of them at a lower frequency than 4G and 3G et al?

Oh seriously. 

Yes, that is the point. "Can you hear me now? " Why do you think he was asking that? Because early Verizon had suck coverage range. They had dropped calls, they probably couldn't even use internet, much less fast internet. But so did everyone. For years.



But what is coverage? As wavelength decreases, frequency increases. As frequency increases, energy increases. You're talking about a better connection because the area is blanketed with faster signals. This means that if I use the internet on my phone, I am not contending with 30 minute page load time. Yes,I remember the horribleness that was dialup. Today? Today, I routinely download games for my computer, some of which approach the GB mark. If they are also a faster connection, I can download within minutes. Even 10 years ago, I literally couldn't download games for the PSP because it required 20+ hours and bottlenecked everyone's connection. 6 years ago, I tried to use Steam. I quit it in frustration as the net use was faster but caused my parents grief.

So answer this. If all frequencies are the same (they are not, you insufferable dumbasses), then what is the actual point of upgrading from almost harmless RF frequencies to much more dangerous MF radiation? I mean seriously, we use microwave radiation to cook our food, despite that  cases of cancer have definitely increased since that became the trend.

Cuz if there is no upgrade, you're saying people are getting  zapped with higher intensity radiation cuz ppl want them dead. Now, that may be true (Malthus was a thing), but we'll give humanity the benefit of the doubt. Tell you what, I'll give you a 1G phone and we can compare (you can go back in time somehow to when previous cell lines were common for this theoretical comparison, still bad).

https://www.lifewire.com/1g-vs-2g-vs-2-5g-vs-3g-vs-4g-578681

Quote

As you might expect, subsequent generations are faster and contain improved or new features. Most wireless carriers currently support both 4G and 3G technology, which is handy when your location allows your phone to operate only at 3G speeds.

Yes, even they admit to the term faster. But you say that all EM frequencies travel at light speed. Okay here you go.



I'll take a 4G phone, since I don't trust the safety of 5G. You get a 1G phone. And you can play Worldle and use the net and make calls with that.

Landlines were (and still are, proved land is connected, thanks to better line tech) reliable. But cellular technology had to come a long long way from missed calls and scratchy audio to fast internet and good signal. I'll tell you something though. We should stop phone frequency progression at light frequencies. If they get up to gamma radiation, phones will kill us all.

I think you quoted my post in error, because that didn’t address anything I posted. You seem to be conflating speed, bandwidth, coverage and signal strength, much like you’re conflating frequency, wavelength, energy and speed.

You know speed of radiation of EM waves is very different from the speed of transmission of data encoded within an EM wave….. right? ………right?

I see. So you're doubling down.

"Ohh, everything moves at light speed, we just haven't found a way to transmit it without alot of resistance. "

Sorry pal. No dice. Not buying it.

You expect me to believe that they know how to zap stuff along at light speed, but:
1. Can't manage to transfer it back to light and and sound properly?
2. Require radio towers every few feet. I've looked around our town, and there's actually quite a few towers. About five or six with about two or three blocks.
3. Can't do perfect signals even with all this infrastructure.
4. Moreover, the fact that there actually is history of wifi. It should have involved instant transmission long ago, by the very nature of light speed particles.
5. Unless... they really aren't light speed particles, and run into resistance because of lack of energetic signal means that while there is no resistance in air (you say) there is plenty of resistance in metal you are supposed to be conducting on. Almost like it's not as electromagnetic as all that.

Once again, you fail to actually address anything.

To use a radio analogy; you’re stuck on transmit, and your signal to noise ratio is very, very low.

Interesting you use the phrase ‘doubling down’. You just keep demonstrating you have no working knowledge of radio, radar, WiFi and cellular networks.

Let’s start at the basics. Read up on AM and FM radio. That might help you to understand how radio can function.

You expect me to believe that they know how to zap stuff along at light speed, but:
1. Can't manage to transfer it back to light and and sound properly?
2. Require radio towers every few feet. I've looked around our town, and there's actually quite a few towers. About five or six with about two or three blocks.
3. Can't do perfect signals even with all this infrastructure.
4. Moreover, the fact that there actually is history of wifi. It should have involved instant transmission long ago, by the very nature of light speed particles.
5. Unless... they really aren't light speed particles, and run into resistance because of lack of energetic signal means that while there is no resistance in air (you say) there is plenty of resistance in metal you are supposed to be conducting on. Almost like it's not as electromagnetic as all that.

Take away points.

You clearly don't know the difference between waves and particles.

You clearly don't understand the difference between antennas used for broadcasting and those used for receiving.

You clearly don't understand the difference between rate of transmission and speed of signal/transmission.

I see. So you're doubling down.

I see you are doubling down on stupidity.
Still pretending that if something travels at a speed of x, then it is only ever capable of transmitting data at a rate of y, and can never be any different.

You expect me to believe that they know how to zap stuff along at light speed, but:
1. Can't manage to transfer it back to light and and sound properly?
2. Require radio towers every few feet. I've looked around our town, and there's actually quite a few towers. About five or six with about two or three blocks.
3. Can't do perfect signals even with all this infrastructure.
4. Moreover, the fact that there actually is history of wifi. It should have involved instant transmission long ago, by the very nature of light speed particles.
5. Unless... they really aren't light speed particles, and run into resistance because of lack of energetic signal means that while there is no resistance in air (you say) there is plenty of resistance in metal you are supposed to be conducting on. Almost like it's not as electromagnetic as all that.

Stop just asserting the same refuted garbage.

Just because it travels at light speed doesn't mean you can cram an infinite amount of data into it.

Again, these simple analogies demonstrate why your claims are stupid:
Lets keep it simple, you have a fleet of small hatch backs, each capable of carrying 100 kg, and a fleet of large B-double trucks (i.e. a truck, with 2 large trailers) each capable of carrying 40 000 kg.
Both will travel at 100 km/hr, the entire time, and for the sake of argument, can be loaded instantly, and you can send 1 car out every hour.

You need to move 80 000 kg of stuff, a distance of 100 hours.
How long will it take?

A child can probably do the math and tell you that the trucks will require 2 trips, the second will be sent out 1 hour the first one leaves, and then take 1 hour to reach its destination, for a total time of 2 hours.
The hatch backs instead will require 800 trips, for a total time of 801 hours (1 hour delay between sending out each, and the 1 hour for the last one to travel).

Both travelled at the same velocity, but one required fewer trips so was able to get the job done faster.

As another comparison, lets just say you have 2 options for the fleet of hatch backs.
In one, you can send 1 out every hour, for another, you can send 1 out every minute.
Now, the 1 every hour is the same as before, so it will take 801 hours.
But the one sending 1 every minute will take 800 minutes plus 1 hour, or roughly 14 hours.

Again, they travel at the same velocity, but one is able to send much more data.

A higher data rate (which equates to a faster transfer speed) does NOT require a higher velocity.

Light speed particles doesn't mean infinite data rate.

Repeating the same pathetic refuted BS just demonstrates how pathetic and desperate you are.

Sorry pal. No dice. Not buying it.

You expect me to believe that they know how to zap stuff along at light speed, but:
1. Can't manage to transfer it back to light and and sound properly?
2. Require radio towers every few feet. I've looked around our town, and there's actually quite a few towers. About five or six with about two or three blocks.
3. Can't do perfect signals even with all this infrastructure.
4. Moreover, the fact that there actually is history of wifi. It should have involved instant transmission long ago, by the very nature of light speed particles.
5. Unless... they really aren't light speed particles, and run into resistance because of lack of energetic signal means that while there is no resistance in air (you say) there is plenty of resistance in metal you are supposed to be conducting on. Almost like it's not as electromagnetic as all that.

1. Study instead of googling
2. Because there are different companys building them for their consumers.
3. Different mediums generate different signals at different speeds. Some are stronger, some are weaker.
4. Making something travel at the speed of light is IMPOSSIBLE as it would require more energy than what is in the Universe
5. Different metals conduct things differently. Some are better conductors than others (like copper) while some are terrible.

You can argue with delusional people but you can't make them have common sense!

You clearly don't know the difference between waves and particles.

I suppose that I shouldn't bring up the particle-wave duality of photons.
https://photonterrace.net/en/photon/duality/