It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

is that fish channeling the vibration frequency of life?

page: 2
22
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

It's such a shame that you sound like an arrogant person because some of your content is interesting.
I never stated I had any knowledge in physics. I was just sharing an idea.... and enlish is not my native language.
Tu vois ce que je veux dire?
Open-up bro.

Peace out.




posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: eisegesis
a reply to: Frank12345
These two pictures aren't even similar....

Not " similar " even if I correct the anamorphic-distortion and get rid of colour , so we are comparing like-with-like ? ...


edit on 2-12-2014 by Frank12345 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam



And here is my point: The Universe is nothing but the expression of multiple vibratory fields of various frequencies.


Nope.


Don't tell me, you've fallen in with them topology smoking string theorists who dress up in plaid, drink fancy espresso, and pretend to be physicists. What would your late pappy say, after 30 years plowing the quantum fields for his family, just to send you know it-all to that fancy schmancy edumacation institute of yours?
edit on 2-12-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-12-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-12-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Frank12345

They are similar only by comparison, but not by nature. You can use the word "frequency" when describing the two but each creation exhibits the very opposite definition of the word.

The fish exhibits a frequency of repetitive motions over a long period of time. There is imperfection in moving his fins around and the ocean current only complicates things more. There certainly is a design process at thought but I wouldn't go any further.

The cymatics video is a physical representation of vibration. The fish doesn't vibrate, it kicks sand around and moves forward. It's ability to make a circle is fantastic, but coming in at imperfect angles and flapping it's fins at different intervals created this, not vibratory frequencies.

This fish's instinct is to create and recognize this pattern. It uses intermittent, repetitive motion over a period of time. Vibratory frequencies are constant, specific and define. Normal mode only applies to cymatics, not the fish.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Logiciel
a reply to: Bedlam

It's such a shame that you sound like an arrogant person because some of your content is interesting.


Many people, given the chance to go back in time and alter one event, would kill Hitler or something similar.

I think I'd gut Madame Blavatsky, personally.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

Don't tell me, you've fallen in with them topology smoking string theorists who dress up in plaid, drink fancy espresso, and pretend to be physicists.


Tsk, tsk. I'd be more the t-shirt, suspenders and pipe sort of physicist, if I wasn't an engineer and quit tobaccy about 20 years ago.

My coffee is sort of like espresso, people say. Hell, if it doesn't melt spoons, it's not worth drinking, IMHO.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: eisegesis
The fish doesn't vibrate ...

The fish's fins do vibrate : when it starts to create the pattern it remains in the same spot, (what will become the centre of the pattern) , and flaps/vibrates it's fins for a prolonged period of time , ( demonstrating its stamina / fitness ).


originally posted by: eisegesis
Normal mode only applies to cymatics, not the fish ...

Normal modes, aka standing waves , apply to the water the fish is vibrating with it's fins, waves which cause the pattern in the sand to form.
edit on 2-12-2014 by Frank12345 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Frank12345

You can watch a YouTube video and draw you own conclusion, but the fish or water hardly vibrate nor does vibration have anything to do with it. Here is a paper done on the subject.

Role of Huge Geometric Circular Structures in the Reproduction of a Marine Pufferfish


During the early stages of construction (on the day of and the day after construction of the new circular structure), each male created a basic circular shape (Fig. 3a). Males dug valleys in the sandy bottom using their pectoral fins, anal fins, and caudal fins while swimming linearly (Fig. 1), and then swam at various angles in a radial direction from the outside of the circle to the inside, forming radially aligned peaks and valleys on the seabed. They passed from the outer zone towards the inside (O-in), the inner zone towards the inside (I-in) or continuously passed through both zones towards the inside (Figs. 4, 5, Supplementary Video 1). Males temporarily suspended fin flapping while moving inwards, thereby forming concavities and convexities in the valleys. They swam in random directions in the central zone (C), stirring the sand to form a flat area (Figs. 4, 5). In this way, a circular structure on the seabed composed of radially aligned peaks and valleys with a flat area at the centre was constructed.

I don't know how there is still any question after reading this. But don't stop believing.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: eisegesis
a reply to: Frank12345
You can watch a YouTube video and draw you own conclusion, but the fish or water hardly vibrate nor does vibration have anything to do with it ....

That YouTube video does not show earliest stage of the pattern creation , ( I saw the full show on TV ), initially the fish stays in one spot and flaps its fins for all it's worth , that's what generates the pattern , it may build upon that cymatic template later.
edit on 2-12-2014 by Frank12345 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 06:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Logiciel
a reply to: Bedlam

It's such a shame that you sound like an arrogant person because some of your content is interesting.


Many people, given the chance to go back in time and alter one event, would kill Hitler or something similar.

I think I'd gut Madame Blavatsky, personally.


LOL She looks pretty hot seems like a waste.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 07:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: TiM3LoRd

LOL She looks pretty hot seems like a waste.


She's the one who started using all this "vibration" and "energy" crap. Physics was the cool new thing in the news during her era, and she jumped on the bandwagon by stealing a lot of technical words and re-defining them as part of her new 'occult science'. Since a lot of people didn't really know a lot about physics, it sounded the same, and she rode that to a brief popularity.

But now theosophy is Rosicrucianism and New Age, and they still confuse people with "vibration", "dimension", "energy", "field" and the like, used in ways that are vague nonsense, but sound meaningful and sciency.

One opportune shove, and Madame B would have gone under the train wheels.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

But... But... How else am I supposed to take my quantum vibrational energy field to a new fractal dimension? My spirit animal would like a stern word with you, sir!



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Super cool fact about that puffer fish!

Too bad there's all that pseudo-science below in the OP. Somehow it make an extremely interesting information sound completely ridiculous.

thanks for the video anyway!



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Bedlam

But... But... How else am I supposed to take my quantum vibrational energy field to a new fractal dimension.
My spirit animal would like a stern word with you, sir!


shush. your astral nanotubules have been all quantumly entangled up in knot theory by your colon chakra

drink some midichlorian tea (now only $49.95 if you order today), and channel your local yogi (amex/mc/visa please, no checks) to transcend the Born approximation, couple to the godhead's matrix element, elevate your orbital momentum and achieve spiritual superfluidity and bosonic critical mass. No transitions are disallowed upon enlightenment. Beware the Xenu.
edit on 3-12-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-12-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 04:28 AM
link   
I know you will have your # shower coming here. It's a fate. I guess I'm a honest dreamer. Not trying to harm others. Candid also took other's rigorism frontally. I don't really care. I do integrate your answers, I sometimes do wish it could be expressed in a more "evolved way" given the apparent intellect some of you guys seem to possess.
I don't think it was an insanely stupid thought to imagine that a fish could percieve vibrations or frequencies that other "more evolved" spieces don't. I did learn that the graphics on the plates were closely related to the actual nature and size of said plates. I still imagine this little fish high on cosmic vibrations expressing them as a pattern in a crazy little transe.
Even if I now know it's probably not the case. I choose to be a romantic.
Don't forget to let go of ego sometimes, even if it's so easy to have your virtual existence happening here on the web. Karma also happens here

I don't mind sarcasm. I'm french and I can be a bit mean, but it's a subtle art.

Peace out



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 05:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logiciel
I don't think it was an insanely stupid
Je ne pense pas non plus que c'était le message que les sceptiques voulaient faire passer. Moi aussi j'aime l'imagination et l'imaginaire quand il s'agit des mystères du monde.

Seulement je sais aussi par expérience personnelle que cette imagination, lorsqu'on lui laisse carte blanche avec comme consigne "montres-moi un monde magique", fera exactement cela, avec tout les artifices dont elle dispose, au risque de tromper et fourvoyer. Biais de confirmation, illusions, prophécies auto-réalisées, tout ça dépeint un monde tellement beau et divin, mais en même temps c'est également le chemin vers l'aveuglement et même dans les cas extrêmes le délire.

Moi aussi je suis un romantique. Bon dieu je suis même un croyant c'est dire si j'accepte une bonne dose de réalités non-scientifiques. Et pourtant, un peu d'esprit critiques ne fais jamais de mal. Qu'un poète, un artiste, un rêveur vienne partager sa vision, je l'apprécierai comme telle. Mais que quelqu'un émette des hypothèses dans le but d'expliquer une réalité scientifique, et je traiterai ces hypothèses avec toute la rigueur qu'elles méritent



originally posted by: Logiciel
Don't forget to let go of ego sometimes


Ce qui est à la fois fascinant et ironique avec de telles phrases, c'est qu'elles sont souvent le reflet de ce que celui qui les prononce devrait également appliquer à lui même ! En effet, comment celui qui ne laisse pas son ego le dominer pourrait prendre personellement de simples commentaires anonymes sur internet



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 05:40 AM
link   
a reply to: JUhrman

Merci pour ton commentaire patriotique?
Je ne pense pas en être à l'étape de l'aveuglement. L'aveuglement est hermétique et ne permet aucune prise en compte de points de vue exterieur. J'entends, je note, j'intègre. Je balance mon esprit créatif par un peu de jugement critique.
Quand à l'égo je pense avoir fait pas mal de chemin dans ce domaine

J'apprécie juste les conversations dans lesquelles on peu ressentir un respect mutuel et un plaisir à exprimer ses connaissances. Rien de plus vraiment...
Maintenant je sais à quel point les gens qui privilégient leur monde révé peuvent être énervant. Tous ces gens qui voient des choses dans les cailloux... sur Mars par exemple...
J'étais réelement curieux d'avoir un avis exterieur venant de gens ayant un savoir plus étendu dans un domaine qui m'est très mystérieux. Je l'ai eu.

Ciao.



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 06:08 AM
link   
and by the way I still don't have the answer to my question.
I hear your opinions. It can not be in any way related to a sort of frequency that this fish is peirciving and reproducing on the sand.
But then what is this pattern?
Pure hasard? Pure maths? It can not just be the fish thinking "oh that's cute". Or is appreciation of harmony in forms and shapes a universal notion?
I know patterns in nature are following mathematical concepts like fractals, golden ratio, Fibonacci and all... So I guess the question then would be what makes a fractal brocoli grow in such a shape... Does that mean that both are programmed to do so? Like genetically?
Muaha.



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 07:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logiciel
Or is appreciation of harmony in forms and shapes a universal notion?


Presented this way, this is an idea worth exploring




originally posted by: Logiciel
I know patterns in nature are following mathematical concepts like fractals, golden ratio, Fibonacci and all... So I guess the question then would be what makes a fractal brocoli grow in such a shape... Does that mean that both are programmed to do so? Like genetically?
Muaha.


Mathematics are not a purely abstract science. They are mainly the result of the observation and theorization of the laws ruling our physical universe.

So is it really the universe following mathematical concepts, or mathematics following universal concepts? Do fractals resemble the way broccoli grow, or do fractals describe the way broccoli grow? It's not the same thing. During the classical period there was no distinction between the universe, the divine and the sciences studying them. As such, mathematics were not only the cold and rigorous science we know today, but also the quest for the hidden harmony behind all things.

Are the broccoli genetically programmed to grow that way? Yes.
Does that mean broccoli are doing maths? No. Simply that the laws of the universes and the laws of mathematics are not separate and distinct things.
edit on 8-12-2014 by JUhrman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: JUhrman

Kiewl!




top topics



 
22
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join