Whereas I think you should try harder to explain it, because it’s not making any sense to me as a justification for your (plainly incorrect) claim about that figure and right now my leading hypothesis is that you just don’t understand the mathematics and/or the physics involved well enough to see what’s going on and are trying to obfuscate, and there is a (not very high) limit to how much trouble I am willing to go to to understand something that seems likely not to be worth understanding.
I could, of course, be wrong about this. As I already mentioned, I am very fallible. Feel free to convince me.
I might as well answer your question about chirped signals. If you have a signal that looks like f(t)sin(t+kt2) where f is a slowly varying function (compared with the chirpy factor) then subtracting a slightly time-shifted copy of it gives you roughly the derivative, which when f varies slowly is roughly f(t)(1+kt)cos(t+kt2), which is indeed a chirped signal that resembles the initial chirp albeit with some extra variation in amplitude. If you have a phase-shifted version available instead of a time-shifted one, the resemblance is closer because the 1+kt factor goes away. So yes, subtracting chirpy signals with a small shift gives you similar-ish chirpy signals. Now, how does this give any reason to think that that plot is a less-processed version of “the prize-winning figure”?
Whereas I think you should try harder to explain it, because it’s not making any sense to me as a justification for your (plainly incorrect) claim about that figure and right now my leading hypothesis is that you just don’t understand the mathematics and/or the physics involved well enough to see what’s going on and are trying to obfuscate, and there is a (not very high) limit to how much trouble I am willing to go to to understand something that seems likely not to be worth understanding.
I could, of course, be wrong about this. As I already mentioned, I am very fallible. Feel free to convince me.
I might as well answer your question about chirped signals. If you have a signal that looks like f(t)sin(t+kt2) where f is a slowly varying function (compared with the chirpy factor) then subtracting a slightly time-shifted copy of it gives you roughly the derivative, which when f varies slowly is roughly f(t)(1+kt)cos(t+kt2), which is indeed a chirped signal that resembles the initial chirp albeit with some extra variation in amplitude. If you have a phase-shifted version available instead of a time-shifted one, the resemblance is closer because the 1+kt factor goes away. So yes, subtracting chirpy signals with a small shift gives you similar-ish chirpy signals. Now, how does this give any reason to think that that plot is a less-processed version of “the prize-winning figure”?