It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Frequency-nuts: a conspiracy within conspiracy theory.

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 07:22 AM
Has anyone else noticed that whenever the word "frequency" occurs within a conspiracy theory, the next thing you know a whole raft of posters will jump in with the wildest supplementary ideas conflating anything that can be described by its frequency with the phenomenon under discussion? Its really starting to piss me off!
To be clear then: whilst "a frequency" can be used as a noun, it does not refer to anything that actually exists in the real world, but rather to a measurement of a real phenomenon. Anything which happens repetitively can be described as having a frequency; that is all it means: how frequently it happens.
You cannot hear frequencies coming from your [insert object]: you hear sound, most likely composed of harmonics at various frequencies.
You do not have frequencies emitted by your phone, you have EM radiation (oh noes! PLEASE just look it up), otherwise known as EHF radio waves.
Sound is the transmission of kinetic energy through a physical medium. You hit something: its molecules are compressed; they spring back & the force is applied to those molecules closest, which also spring back, passing the energy along. Its the same principal with vibrating objects in air, the energy is passed along from the object's molecules to those of the air. This is why things get quieter the further from them you get.
Electro-magnetic energy (or radiation, oh noes!) is a totally different thing. It comprises: radio, microwaves, infrared heat, light, ultraviolet, x-rays & gamma radiation (these last 3 are dodgy). They are are a fundamental force of the universe, can travel through a vacuum & are completely different from sound. COMPLETLY DIFFERENT, OK?
The earth has a frequency: approx. 0.000011574 Hz. ie it revolves once/day. My car has many frequencies, but 1 I can easily measure is the revolution of the crankshaft: 0.01 Hz = 6000 RPM. My arse has a frequency: approx. 0.000185 Hz. or 16 farts/day.
What is the conspiracy then? This dumbed down info is widely available, so why is it ignored?

[edit on 24/11/09 by Bunken Drum]

posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 06:32 PM
Well I tried...
I suppose I'll just have to content myself with that.

posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 06:47 PM
ah yes, but the question is, does this type of thread have a frequency?

if you are frequently misunderstood when you use the word frequency, perhaps you should use a different word. "cycle" or maybe "cyclical period" might be fairly interchangeable.

at the end of the day, you are probably better off just expressing yourself in laymans terms on ATS. in laymans terms, frequency refers to a signal you pick up, as in radio frequency.

all i'm saying is, if you are being misunderstood, you're probably not reading your audience. you can have the best theory in the world but if no-one knows what you're talking about, WTF's the point?

posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 07:26 PM
reply to post by pieman
You make a good point, but I wasn't talking so much about me. You can see by my flag level, I rarely start threads, I just chip in with bits of stuff I know about here & there.
What prompted me to start this tho was that, in so many threads, it seems like I'd have to start by going back to give an elementary physics lesson before people could grasp the point I would like to make. Its frankly offputting & depressing.
Still, I do seriously wonder how it is possible for people who have the intelligence to use the internet to be so ignorant of basic physics. There seems to be no reasonable accounting for it... unless they were never actually educated at all, but merely trained to use tools...?

posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 08:28 AM
reply to post by Bunken Drum

the problem with physics, IMO, is that it's so full of unintuitive jargon that it puts people off. like you say, you need to explain all the words and concepts before making your point.

i think it's an issue with physics and physicists, not education. for example, dr. michio kaku probably isn't the most brilliant physicist in the world but he is, by far, the best able to translate the concepts into normal language. so everybody knows him.

there is a thirst to understand this stuff, broadly, but the jargony language is terrible.

posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 10:21 AM
reply to post by pieman
Yeah, Adam Hart-Davis is pretty good too. Still, jargon is one thing, but simple concepts like the fundamental difference between sound & radiation, is something entirely different. Thats not jargon, its simply a definition of words.
Does anyone confuse straw & potatoes because they are both measured in pounds?
Does anyone say, "Wow, this is spooky: my horse sleeps on weight & I eat weight; there's a conspiracy I tell yer!"?

top topics

log in