But I highly doubt these Havana syndrome cases were being bombarded with Bluetooth rays.
But I highly doubt these Havana syndrome cases were being bombarded with Bluetooth rays.But that's his point, frequency isn't the causal factor for how 'dangerous' something is, power is far more relevant. There's lots of high freq shit flying around all the time but we're not all spontaneously disintegrating.
Read his post again, angry little man. He was talking about the full spectrum. Not my fault you didn’t read it in your rage-induced blackout coma.
lol that you think you are educating me though. I’d say you could teach high school physics but not sure they’d let you within 100 yards of a school given how you’ve blown up here for no reason.
So do I, and so does @Amused.But I highly doubt these Havana syndrome cases were being bombarded with Bluetooth rays.
But I highly doubt these Havana syndrome cases were being bombarded with Bluetooth rays.
Cool. But irrelevant and silly to conflate ionizing radiation in a discussion of claimed microwave attacks.
Wrong end of the spectrum. As far as I know NO ONE is suggestion the Havana attacks are ionizing radiation,. ESPECIALLY since ALL of these facilities have detectors for that.
Moot and irrelevant.
EM penetration diminishes with frequency all they way up to ultra violet.
Not really, this was his quote:Generally agree with you here, I’m not the one who made the original statement anyway. Just saw no need for the attack because Muse had phrased what he said correctly in the first place
To give a token vehicle analogy, It's like saying the speed at which air moves through the engine intake IS a big deal wrt the engine's horsepower, because it makes it run faster. It's not a wrong statement but it's missing the actual detail required to make it correct, AND it can lead others to the wrong conclusions.Frequency IS a big deal with EM radiation. The higher the frequency the more it penetrates, both structures and bodies.
You're almost getting it. And since there is NO sign of ionizing radiation here... the claim is that of microwaves...
RF...
Which... Wait for it... makes these claims impossible.
If you think they are real. Replicate them.
You keep repeating this but fail to acknowledge that similar effects exist.
The Microwave Auditory Effect
The microwave auditory effect has been widely recognized as one of the most interesting and significant biological phenomena from microwave exposure. The hearing of pulsed microwaves is a unique exception to sound waves encountered in human auditory perception. The hearing of microwave pulses...ieeexplore.ieee.org
Not really, this was his quote:
To give a token vehicle analogy, It's like saying the speed at which air moves through the engine intake IS a big deal wrt the engine's horsepower, because it makes it run faster. It's not a wrong statement but it's missing the actual detail required to make it correct, AND it can lead others to the wrong conclusions.
You're NOT going to have that without heating.
You're also not going to have that with the other described symptoms.
No heat, no attack of RF. Period. The ONLY DEMONSTRABLE, VERIFIABLE harmful effect of high wattage RF is HEAT.
But... it isn't. An RF signal of similar power from a high freq source is going to have less penetration power than a low freq source, that's like introductory RF. It's exactly the opposite of what I quoted.Don’t really see how the analogy applies, and what you quoted is a generally correct statement.
But... it isn't. An RF signal of similar power from a high freq source is going to have less penetration power than a low freq source, that's like introductory RF. It's exactly the opposite of what I quoted.
Okay.. but the same applies? Are there some high frequency EM fields I'm not familiar with that are inversely related to what would be expected from RF?Again, he didn’t say RF, he said EM. He was talking about the whole spectrum.
It’s a verified fact that people can experience the Frey effect without experiencing heat. Doesn’t matter that it’s caused by heat gradients creating pressure waves. The ear is more sensitive by far than temperature sensing nerves.
Again, he didn’t say RF, he said EM. He was talking about the whole spectrum.
Okay.. but the same applies? Are there some high frequency EM fields I'm not familiar with that are inversely related to what would be expected from RF?
Fields that pass through everything equally don't count.
Yes, But also read this which rules OUT a "microwave weapon" doing this:
Also, note the lack of logic here. The Frey effect does not mean RF can do ANYTHIUNG other than that.
In 2003–04, WaveBand Corp. had a contract from the U.S. Navy for the design of an MAE system they called MEDUSA (Mob Excess Deterrent Using Silent Audio) that was intended to temporarily incapacitate personnel through remote application.[8] Reportedly, Sierra Nevada Corp. took over the contract from WaveBand.[9] Experts, such as Kenneth Foster, a University of Pennsylvania bioengineering professor who published research on the microwave auditory effect in 1974, have discounted the effectiveness of the proposed device. Foster said that because of human biophysics, the device "would kill you well before you were bothered by the noise". According to former professor at the University of Washington Bill Guy, "There’s a misunderstanding by the public and even some scientists about this auditory effect," and "there couldn’t possibly be a hazard from the sound, because the heat would get you first".[10]
Which I want to reiterate:
ALL EM weapons to date use HEAT as deterrence. Not sounds, not Havana syndromes.
HEAT.
And an interesting factoid: They RAISED the frequency in EM crowd deterrence weapons because the higher frequency warmed ONLY THE OUTER SKIN. Earlier lower frequency weapons would cause blistering.
As the frequency gets high enough, wavelength decreases to the point where it’s on the order of e.g. the distance between atoms in a crystal (see X-ray crystallography), and smaller to the point where radiation travels through the empty space between tightly packed atoms. A single gamma ray photon of high enough frequency will pass through a foot of lead with high probability.
Again, for him to include ANY ionizing radiation in this discussion is not only irrelevant, but intentionally misleading.
NO ionizing radiation was detected OR suggested in these attacks. ONLY RF.
Period.
And Non-ionizing radiation penetrates less the higher the frequency all the way to ultra violet.
I mean, yeah, I really don’t disagree that it’s unlikely. I’m just not willing to rule it out and dismiss a bunch of highly intelligent analyst and diplomat complaints as 100% hysteria. I don’t think the physics warrants that and does warrant investigation.
As with all of science, replicate it or stop claiming it.
Claims made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
There is NO evidence ne that ANY RF weapon could cause these symptoms. Especially without heating. Zero.
So investigate it, literally what I suggested in my post. The medical community doesn’t really make a habit of studying how best to damage people with military grade radio equipment but the US military should be trying to replicate. Doubt we’d hear about it if they succeed. Well, maybe I would.
Do you suspect that an x-ray laser of that capability which can be projected between buildings, or possibly neutron stars are within the scope of what we are talking about, in this circumstance? Or is it academic navel gazing, and more likely to muddy the water than be useful information for anyone else reading the information?As the frequency gets high enough, wavelength decreases to the point where it’s on the order of e.g. the distance between atoms in a crystal (see X-ray crystallography), and smaller to the point where radiation travels through the empty space between tightly packed atoms. A single gamma ray photon of high enough frequency will pass through a foot of lead with high probability.
Do you suspect that an x-ray laser of that capability which can be projected between buildings, or possibly neutron stars are within the scope of what we are talking about, in this circumstance? Or is it academic navel gazing, and more likely to muddy the water than be useful information for anyone else reading the information?
Do you suspect that an x-ray laser of that capability which can be projected between buildings, or possibly neutron stars are within the scope of what we are talking about, in this circumstance? Or is it academic navel gazing, and more likely to muddy the water than be useful information for anyone else reading the information?