It's an example of horribly inaccurate terminology.
Inaccurate in the sense that the etymology of the word doesn't match?
That is only a problem for people like you that want to pretend words need to cling to their etymology.
Most people understand what static is.
Now me, I'm gonna say vibrations are vibrations and we should call this the Matter & Energy Vibrational Spectrum instead of the Electromagnetic Spectrum, since many things that are part of this or interfere with this are not electrical or magnetic per se.
And any sane person (at least those who understand what is being discussed), will point out that idea is pure BS.
We will keep the EM spectrum for EM radiation. That means your BS with trying to stick sound on it is wrong.
They would also recognise that sound and light are NOT on the spectrum. They are fundamentally different.
There is no gradual change from sound to light. There is a massive jump.
The simplest way to understand this is velocity.
Sound travels at the speed of sound.
You can go to higher and higher frequencies, and it will still be travelling at ~350 m/s.
EM radiation travels at the speed of light.
You can't gradually transition waves from travelling at the speed of sound to the speed of light.
And the same applies to other properties.
Sound waves are waves propagating through a medium.
EM radiation is distortion of the EM field propagating through space without any need for a medium.
There is no in-between.
You can't have something which partially needs a medium but partially doesn't.
Either it or it doesn't.
This is a drastic change, like a step. Something a spectrum cannot allow.
Even the regions of the EM spectrum are arbitrary lines in the sand. And the visual portion of it is a great example, where different people can see different ranges. Some people can see further into the UV region than others. And there really isn't any significant difference between EM radiation on either side of that UV-Visible divide.
Another example is that sound in air is longitudinal while EM radiation is transverse. This means sound can't be polarised, but EM radiation can.
I see you have decided to write a comic about yourself and how pathetic and dishonest you are?
So what if it isn't traveling anywhere?
It demonstrates that the "speed" you are focusing on is fundamentally different to the speed of propagation of a wave.
To further demonstrate this you can consider the amplitude.
Consider your pathetic rope spinning so it has an amplitude of 0.5 m, and 1 cycle per second, and then compare that to an identical rope which has an amplitude of 1 m, but still a period of 1 second. That second rope, with a larger amplitude has to be moving faster to make that greater distance. But that is not the speed of propagation of the wave.
You are not focusing on how fast the wave is propagating, but how fast the rope is moving around.
This makes it entirely useless for a discussion on the velocity of waves.
In fact, in nearly all real world examples, speed and frequency are identical.
Once more, pure BS.
In NO example are they identical.
They are measured in fundamentally different units.
Speed and frequency are different phenomenon and thus will not be identical.
In the example above, the ropes both had a frequency of 1 Hz, or 1 /s. Yet neither rope had a speed of 1 /s.
Instead, the example where the rope had an amplitude of 0.5 m, that means it would trace a circle that is roughly 3.14 m long (at the centre) and thus travel at ~3.14 m/s. Notice how this is NOT 1/s.
The larger amplitude of 1 m would result in a circle that is ~6.28 m long, so it travels at a speed of 6.28 m/s.
Notice how these 2 ropes, which both have a period of 1 second, or a frequency of 1 Hz have the physical rope moving at a different speeds, and neither of the speeds is 1 /s.
The mere fact that you can sing at whole notes, half notes, and grace notes means sound have different rates of movement. And different pitches produce different frequencies as demonstrated below.
The fact that you can make music (or speak) in a manner where multiple different frequencies play at once, without any significant distortion, demonstrates that your claim is delusional BS.
In your delusional BS, the high pitched frequencies should reach your ear much faster than a low frequency sound, resulting in massive distortion of music and speech, with that distortion growing the further away you are from the object.
But it doesn't.
Now, I don't pretend to understand how acoustic dispersion works precisely, which sounds disperses at what what rate.
No, instead you will just dishonestly pretend it backs up your delusional BS.
But from reading below, it appears to be a factor of amplitude.
Or more specifically, it is a break down of the assumptions of ideality, and is a function of both amplitude and frequency, where it is entirely insignificant at low amplitudes, and is nothing at all like what you suggest.
This is because frequency makes a difference in how sound is projected, and at range, sounds will scatter into more distinct speeds based on frequency.
No, it wont.
Instead it is based upon the properties of the medium absorbing sound.
This is why FM works well, it projects radio waves through a series of conduits
And more delusional BS.
FM works well because it uses frequency modulation which is less sensitive to noise when above a particular threshold.
There are no magical conduits.
Static is, as said before, because frequency isn't fast enough nor the amplitude good enough.
And as others have corrected you (including myself), that is pure BS.
Static is not the signal magically being delayed.
It is other sources of radiation causing interference.
Random background noise.
Repeating your same delusional BS wont make it true.
When playing a xylophone as a kid, and a hammer dulcimer as an adult, I noticed that the higher the note, the more difficult it was to play at the same amplitude, and the more quickly it seemed to break down (I noticed this because I was a strange kid and didn't hammer with alot of vigor but just softly tapped the xylophone, and noticed it didn't really take for about the top two or three panels, so I had to hit harder).
Your inability to play an instrument has no bearing on how fast sound travels.
Yet again, you just spout delusional BS with no rational justification nor evidence to support your delusional BS.
Acoustic dispersion is probably why people's voices suck on the phone or recording.
No, it is because they limit the bandwidth, to only use a certain amount of data.
It has nothing to do with dispertion.
If it actually was due to dispersion, you would have the same effect with the same distance.
i.e. if someone had a microphone 10 cm from them, and recorded their voice, and then you played in through a speaker that was 1 m away from your ear, then it would be the same as if your ear was 1.1 m away from them and they were just speaking.
But you can be listening through headphones, basically touching your ears, with the sound recorded from a microphone that was basically touching their mouth and have it sound far worse than just sitting a few m away from them listening to them talking.
Again, you should really stop just spouting delusional BS.
Instead, try coming up with a coherent, rational argument or evidence to defend your delusional BS.