Talk:The Frequency/@comment-247250-20140903194448

The grammar was bad, the idea was malformed, and it seems like you don't know how to differentiate between a "wave," "frequency," and "noise." A noise is something that your ears could potentially pick up, a sound. Sound is propogated via waves, and the picture you show is an artistic rendering of a WAVE, not a frequency. "Frequency" is a property of waves, and this is not limited to sound. Light waves, ocean waves, even waves when you shake a rope left and right; all of them have a frequency.

When you describe the test subjects being exposed to a "frequency," that means absolutely nothing. It would be like exposing a person to "3/5." "3/5" could be a property of some other thing, like if we had 3/5 of an apple, but 3/5 itself is not a physical thing and cannot be interacted with. Frequencies are the same way.

Rant over.

On top of all that, there was a lot of cliche here. I actually kind of liked the idea of them seeing shadows coming from fog; that could be an eerie image in a better thought out story. Everything else here is derivative or lame.

Overall, 3/10