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.

 

Atoms and The Unknown

page: 6
4
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 05:41 AM
link   
Yes, bioluminescence exists, but not with the same speed or fidelity that we have produced, things glow a single colour, using a chemical reaction.

We copied that process, it is chemiluminescence, there is no transistor switch in it, it is a purely chemical process. We copied it in the form of glow-sticks, not in the form of LEDs.

You might say well what about Octopus or Chameleon skin, well again this is closer to LCD displays than the example above, but I think we understood liquid crystals before we understood either of those creatures... and they don't use liquid crystals to change colour, they use chemical flow and constriction of their surface skin layers in a chromatophore in order to allow light to predominantly reflect or be absorbed by of different pigmentations. Chameleons change colour due to mood or stress, it isn't very high resolution and they cant do it quickly and keep doing it. Other creatures use it for camouflage very very effectively, but it isn't exactly a 4K display is it? To suggest that nature still does it best, is kind of ignorant.

So what about optical systems? Nature still got that one down as the best? Well no, not really, the efficiency of the human eye depending on the parts and the type of stimulus is between 1 and 30 % It is wide ranging due to the difficulty of measurement and how the chemical-neverous system links up and we perceive light.

So did we produce more sensitive optical systems in silicon? Yes we did, we have devices (abet not as high resolution) that are sensitive to less light, and at higher efficiency. The structure of a CCD is influenced by the structure of the cells in the eye, but we have you might say, improved upon the design going with something that now outstrips the resolution of the eye and also the efficiency, and timing. We have also managed to stretch the spectral range observable by natural systems.

Basically saying that "We just copied nature, and nature still does it best..." Is to be blissfully ignorant of all the wonderful technology that has been developed, some of it inspired by nature, other times... not so much... would love to understand where you can find a transistor vacuum tube in nature and where that was inspired from... last time i checked I never saw any hanging off of an octopus. You may argue neural science, but again, we developed the tools to allow us to understand that before understanding how it works... we didnt look at neurons and go, ah yes! we can copy this


Stars? really? You know that we can produce lasers that can easily recreate the conditions within the sun? We are trying to copy the energy generation process in the sun in a meaningful way sure, but in terms of things like say, optical intensity, we are already doing pretty good, and require less space to do it too.
edit on 24-9-2015 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 05:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: John333
certain frequencies can generate radiation.
secondly, as i pointed out. all frequencies generate a sound.
Frequencies don't generate radiation or sound.
Frequencies are properties of EM radiation or sound. EM radiation and sound have very different other properties such as sound not being able to travel through a vacuum while EM radiation can, so again you didn't explain how "sound sets the stage for light to manifest". I'm sure you can't find a scientific source saying it does, because it doesn't.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 05:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: John333

either way. ur so wrong about frequency. have you ever heard of sound cymatics?


Frequency = occurrances/time. That's it, there is no more to it than that.

It's not a magical mysterious force that creates things.

If you blink once a second you have a blink frequency of 60 blinks/minute. It doesn't then become some radiation generating creative universal force.

And I bet you an internet coke you can't describe Chladni patterns without copypasta. They are, at any rate, a parlor trick with very limited usefulness.

"Let there be light" never created a single photon. I've read the same hackneyed incorrect hogwash from more than one creationist, and no, you can't create light or give rise to objects by sounds.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 06:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: John333
certain frequencies can generate radiation.
secondly, as i pointed out. all frequencies generate a sound.
Frequencies don't generate radiation or sound.
Frequencies are properties of EM radiation or sound. EM radiation and sound have very different other properties such as sound not being able to travel through a vacuum while EM radiation can, so again you didn't explain how "sound sets the stage for light to manifest". I'm sure you can't find a scientific source saying it does, because it doesn't.


to understand what i mean you have to take the whole process.

a frequency is generated.
sound is the first byproduct after the generation of a frequency
the sound creates a field
the field has a specific shape or formation based on the frequency used
particles are attracted to, or formed near the field depending on the frequency used. the particles could be photons.

so if we take it from the top. frequency sets the stage for sound to generate a field formation which particle align to. again. please look into sound cymatics if you havent already. it demonstrates perfectly what im saying. each frequency has a specific formation assigned to it that is held in place by the sound waves. obviously programmed into the design of the universe from the very beginning.

in this day and age everyone should be very familiar with cymatics and it's proposed applications. cymatics will set the stage for massive technological achievement.

here is an example of frequency generated in the throat of a singer, generating a sound wave, and the different formations that arise from that sound wave.

www.youtube.com...

here's another:
www.youtube.com...

one of the most revealing experiments on the relation of light and sound can be seen here.

www.youtube.com...

frequency generating sound is bending light in this application and making the water appear to be doing something other than falling straight downward.

for more detailed info and the very complex shapes that are acquired directly from the influence of a frequency please entertain this full scientific production

www.youtube.com...

finally, it is this sound cymatics technology that is inherent throughout the universe that gives things including atoms shape. but more recently is the core element in the development of acoustic levitation technologies.
www.youtube.com...

so what am i talking about?

im saying without sound, there'd be no light because for one, there'd be no field created for a photon to manifest and the contents would just disperse. as the cymatics experiments have revealed. sound does carry EM properties. but those properties are not always visible or observable. it just depends on the application.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

well that's the thing. efficiency is a matter of circumstance. you are measuring efficiency based on your own borders. but efficiency isnt rigid like that in something as complex as the universe. in a local lab test.. sure. but not in this sea of complex and powerful plethora of frequencies working together to achieve one goal.

example.

in one scenario it may be considered quite efficient to set firewood ablaze to get some heat and light. if ur a caveman. but in another scenario setting firewood abalze for light and heat would attract predators who would ravage your camp and quite well.. you.

overall however, nature achieves all in the most efficient manner for one very simple reason.

NO CARBON EMISSIONS

all of our technology is inefficient because of carbon emmisions. burning oil and gas that pollutes the atmosphere with higher and higher concentrations of carbon to generate electricty for light. furthermore it is inefficient because we dont have an efficient recycling plan. nature, would never create a plastic bottle for a purpose and when done just leave it there in the street to clog the drainage system. when she is done with the bottle she will break it back down to make something else to use. there is no wasting of energy or resources when we use organic circuits. and i mean biological organic circuits.

granted, we can use our inferior technologies to solve problems that it appears nature did not see fit to solve for us. but at present, if nature did solve it for us so that we didnt need to mass produce some product to distribute. it would be more efficient in design and operation when compared in a holistic view.

and trust me... u dont want 4k camouflage in the wild. its going to make you stand out more than a blurry pic. as im sure defence industries will discover if they tried to design a 4k hd camouflage clothing for combat in the forest. they will have to adjust and use the 4k with blurring technologies so that it is not so vivid. but either way, nature accomplished her camouflage in an evolving and growing system that doesnt use batteries. but yet again, gains energy and expends it using a perfect circular autonomy of recycling where the environment is concerned. tree bares fruit, i eat the fruit, i poop, tree eats my poop. perfect!

LOL

so for you to impress me with the efficiency of manmade technologies, you'll have to be able to convert carbon emissions back into oil or some other useful but mainly harmless compound. after you've burnt the oil and gas to run the car. not just dump it, close your eyes, and hope that it never builds up too much.
edit on 24-9-2015 by John333 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-9-2015 by John333 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 07:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: John333

either way. ur so wrong about frequency. have you ever heard of sound cymatics?


Frequency = occurrances/time. That's it, there is no more to it than that.

It's not a magical mysterious force that creates things.

If you blink once a second you have a blink frequency of 60 blinks/minute. It doesn't then become some radiation generating creative universal force.

And I bet you an internet coke you can't describe Chladni patterns without copypasta. They are, at any rate, a parlor trick with very limited usefulness.

"Let there be light" never created a single photon. I've read the same hackneyed incorrect hogwash from more than one creationist, and no, you can't create light or give rise to objects by sounds.


the answer to your problem is simple. wrong combination.

if the numbers to open a safe are:

12 left, 2 right, 14 left, 17 left.

then tell me how you are going to open the safe with an alternate code? you have to know the specific code for what you want to manifest. in this case a fequency. unfortunately, you cannot blink your eyes fast enough to generate the frequency required to manifest a grid of any kind. so if u take it from there, ull realize, that maybe man just hasnt met the requirements in frequency power to generate things which nature does using that same method.

so 60 cycles a second probably wont make anything more than a resistiv e force from the batting of your eyelashes. but 6bn cycles a second might. unlike the quantum foam experiment which leaves much to be desired. the cymatics experiments make this clear. 30 hz wont produce any shape. but 528 and certain other frequencies will! but i suppose you could test it by simply using a magnetic field to generate a frequency within human visible range and see if light manifests. yes, a simple very quickly oscillating magnetic field. ever thought about that? easier said than done. i know.


edit on 24-9-2015 by John333 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-9-2015 by John333 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: John333

Sooo many wrong statements, its getting quite sad now

You eat one fruit, you poop... you put a seed in the poop and not do anything else and... the tree grows a bit then dies due to lack of nutrients. The cycle ends

So naive are your idea of how nature is all powerful is quite profound. There is a carbon hierarchy. You are blinded by it due to the fact that you need many many more trees than you need people in order for that system to work. Energy isn't free, and we do have carbon emissions if you like to be anally retentive about it. We breathe (at about 10 % oxygen extraction efficiency btw) and we poop.

Interesting how you think a HD camouflage would make you stand out more... so being able to mimic a background perfectly is worse than an imperfect camouflage? That makes no logical sense. Your understanding of scientific language is extremely bad and you like to impose hand waving arguments in some places that you don't really have an argument, and require absolutes from everyone else.

Science doesn't work like that.

Conversion into Oil or some useful but mainly harmless compound?
Lets be all silly shall we ----
Wow... just wow... fossil fuels such as natural coal is extremely radioactive and is very very bad for you and nature around you. Oil is also very very bad for the natural environment. You get a worse radiation dose from burning coal for power generation than you do a nuclear powerplant. your arguments are just out right moot. The number of deaths relating to Chernobyl, is shadowed by the number of people who killed themselves in the aftermath due to drugs and alcoholism brought on by governments handling of the situation and people... yet everyone cries foul of nuclear power... its just... so blind its unbelievable... much like your statements regarding frequency

Edit because i just thought of it
Human reproduction... men produce millions... billions of sperm. All of that does not guarantee a fertilized ova, even if the ova is present.

IVF, can technically take a very small amount of sperm and fertilize an ova 100% of the time.

Now, bringing that ova from cells to a baby, again, its around the same success rate as far as iv read. either it implants or not regardless of if its IVF or its natural. soooooooooooo yeah, you might deflect and say "Oh yeah but think of all the equipment and cost"

But still the same is true, natures method works, and is preferable, its approximately free too, but saying that it is perfect is just not the reality. Mankind can when needed to, take an imperfect system and make it work. My point is very facetious yes... but the difference is, is i am willing to admit that, and you just want to stick in a little box of Nature > all else.

If it was we would be immortal no?
edit on 24-9-2015 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

uve missed the point i was making. the point i was making is that there is no wasting of resources. again ur too local. there isnt only one tree and one human being or animal in the world. so in a forest of trees, with a forest full of animals and insects. the trees feed the animals and insects, the animals poop, the trees eat the poop and can sustain themselves for decades and even centuries with the circular autonomy of recycled resources. so i dont know why you allowed yourself to trap every mental experiment you conduct as a local closed lab situation. it's not. and the evidence is everywhere.. that it endures.

The seed does not just grow a little in the poop and die because more poop is always on the way!


again.. who dug up the coal. who dug up the oil. was it harmful to us where it was in the ground and deep within mountains full of trees and running water slowly dispersing it across the globe at a manageable rate?

i see with the chernobyl example uve made an attempt at a holistic overview of a situation and how the butterfly effect works in conjunction. bravo to you for this. the more of this you do the more we will begin to see eye to eye.

regarding the camouflage. i dont think. i know. 4k is great for viewing pleasure of your favourite movie. but i can garantee ya, a camouflage pattern generated on a 4k hd screen will stand out. there are technologies they will have to apply that the creatures ur speaking about already have.

-waterproofing.. reptile skin and generally all skin has a level of water resistance. its circuits wont short out if it gets wet
-organic surfaces. you will have to make an overlay for the display so that it doesnt look so glassy or plasticy/shiny in the sun"
-smooth surface?
-what about trauma. suit gets damaged from a fall or hit and now u have a big black square of dead pixels showing up in the daytime while u try to hide in that bush lol?


dude.. u gonna get shot standing there in your 4k suit thinking ur invisible. lol there alot mrore i can point out that the technology will have to mimic from nature before it becomes acceptable and really practical. in the end ur going to have to make organic texture as well because those play with light reflection and the horizon. thats what works in camouflage the most. the appearance in one body of some parts being near and other's far so the image cant be easily made out in one shape. besides blurring and hiding the edges of the shape that would determine whether its a lizard, butterfly or snake. thats what camouflage does.

u stand there with a shiny one layer surface screen and the glare alone is gonna get you caught with ur pants around ur ankles. but nature already addressed all those problems.

such technology would be impressive, convincing, but only barely practical. until it incorporates more of the elements of pre-planning that nature already has taken to protect it's species.
edit on 24-9-2015 by John333 because: (no reason given)


stop assuming man does it better. we dont do anything better than nature. nothing. we solve our problems. how we solve them sometimes is unarguably detrimental to ourselves in another area.
edit on 24-9-2015 by John333 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

uve made a good point about fertilization. most likely to jab at my "nothing is wasted" comment. ive also questioned this. 1 sperm can fertilize an egg, yet we produce billions for each ejaculation. i dont want to go off topic and get into cell replication or mating rituals. but i can still say, at least all the sperm is not harmful to the environment. it will quickly breakdown and die outside of the environment needed to sustain itself(uterus). and the process of decay will convert it to naturally occurring elements.

why nature chose to push billions when only one can get through is anyone's guess. but im sure she has her reasons.

and please. nothing is really perfect in this physical plane. so when i say perfect. i mean its just not a situation where we're lighting the stove whilst standing inside the frying pan gambling that we'll have enough time to jump out before it gets too hot.

think about it this way. if every time we drove our cars instead of carbon emmisions we got fruits and vegetables we could then definitely say it's efficient, unharmful and beneficial all at the same time. thats how nature does it.
edit on 24-9-2015 by John333 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 08:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: John333
a frequency is generated.
sound is the first byproduct after the generation of a frequency
the sound creates a field
What kind of field? Where is your scientific reference for this claim?



the field has a specific shape or formation based on the frequency used
particles are attracted to, or formed near the field depending on the frequency used. the particles could be photons.

so if we take it from the top. frequency sets the stage for sound to generate a field formation which particle align to. again. please look into sound cymatics if you havent already.
In my experience, the only time I ever see that word is from people that pee on my leg and tell me it's raining, and you're no exception. Neither is this guy:

Cymatics and The New Age of Miracles
Great, if I just say "cymatics" that means I don't have to cite any scientific source to back up my claim, because...cymatics.
Miraculous and miracles of course don't follow natural laws.

So why does everybody I've seen use that term pee on my leg and tell me it's raining? That's what the founder of the term did:

Cymatics

Cymatics, from Greek: κῦμα, meaning "wave", is a subset of modal vibrational phenomena. The term was coined by Hans Jenny (1904-1972), a Swiss follower of the pseudoscience known as anthroposophy.
So you're referring me to a term coined by a follower of pseudoscience. This doesn't say anything good about the scientific legitimacy of your claims. If you're talking about Chladni patterns why not call them Chladni patterns? Why adopt a term coined by a follower of pseudoscience that really doesn't add anything but some obfuscating jargon to the discussion?


Cymatics as pseudoscience
Researchers into similarities between philosophical and religious intuitions and aspects of modern physics have claimed parallels between the phenomena described by cymatics, the wave forms of quantum mechanics and the phenomena that lead to the formation of fractal structures.

Jenny followers, in quack groups like the so-called Globe Institute, have falsely claimed that sound waves generating particular patterns might have some sort of healing power, and offer fraudulent classes claiming to teach this supposed information.


You managed to write that whole post and still not a single scientific source to back up your claim as I asked.

edit on 2015924 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

it's actually far from miraculous. its perfectly logical. i havent delved into anything near miracles on this thread yet. but since its like the 3rd time ur mentioning it i want to bring u back down to earth.

we are dealing here with a logical progression, with logical parts which act as building blocks. yes i can say "cymatics" because if uve studied cymatics at all it is made very very clear.

sound waves generated by specific frequencies can generate magnetic/gravitational grids. yes i have scientific study that can demonstrate it. i can show you how frequency produces sound and controls oscillations. to hear the sound u need to have a medium that can transfer it out. thats all.

ive also done some study and come up to a point where i realize there is a pattern with which frequencies create what shapes and grids. its really simple and logical

just using simple numbers here, they are not accurate. just to give u an idea of how it works.

lets just say....
a 1hz frequency generates a plain circular grid.
a 2hz frequency generates a dual circular grid
a 3 hz frequency generates a circular grid with spiked edges.
a 4 hz frequency creates a dual circular grid with spiked edges


etc etc.. there is a logic prograssion to the defining of the shapes that form in cymatics. the shapes/grid becomes more and more complex the higher frequency you use. but there is also patterns to the progress like notes of a guitar fretboard. they are not evenly spaced, but it is still a logical progression.

the formations take their most rigid/clear shape at certain points in the frequency scale. so if u start at frequency 1 and slowly increase frequency steadily. you will notice that each grid is preceded and by a blurry version of itself. with the most clear representation being the perfect tuning for that shape. as you move up slowly again the image will blur as the new elements of that frequency take shape until we reach perfect tuning again and a new sharp and clear image is formed. which uses elements from the previous frequencies.


so waves create 3d gravtiational grids and the force depending on the situation can either cause particles to manifest.. or align with the grid that is formed. this is what cymatics shows us. and this is what it means when i say.. CYMATICS
edit on 24-9-2015 by John333 because: (no reason given)


also try to put your religious biases aside. i know some scientists hate to give credit to ancient religious proclamations. but starved for understanding id advise not to hold such a bias on them. they actually knew what they were talking about. one of my specialties is decoding ancient cultures writings and ritual practices. and i have seen without a doubt that they have been correct in everything they have said. u just have to have the decryption key to decode what they are saying correctly and interpret it for its rightful application. that's my opinion. that your bias is stunting your scientific growth.
edit on 24-9-2015 by John333 because: (no reason given)


and why refer to hans jenny cymatics instead of chladni because it was during hans jenny's very awesome presentation is when major epiphanies on frequency's role in the universe started blossoming. i give him the credit because it is his work, that opened my eyes. since it is more extensive and complete and well, documented. than chladni.
edit on 24-9-2015 by John333 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-9-2015 by John333 because: (no reason given)


umm and well.. so there are cult groups that can form around the growing of a purple banana. though im not going to deny that frequency is very much required in healing. the problem again is.. what frequency. we dont know the frequencies. so those people at globe institute or whatever would have to be really good at both extracting and creating frequencies to match what they have extracted. theyd have to find that specific healing frequency. if its even specific as it may differ for different ppl and different types of organism. do i believe in the healing power of frequency.. yes. do i believe that frequency has been found? no!
edit on 24-9-2015 by John333 because: (no reason given)


finally, in response to your last statement. i would have to say that at this point, i understand cymatics and the behaviour of frequency in our universe better than hans jenny. i can demonstrate, thereby proving through replication many things ive said through experimentation. im really not saying anything i cant prove given a lab and the required equipment and assistants. i have made some of my own discoveries. and ATS is just the first ones to get a sneak peak of what is in store for the future. and all my writings serve as a time capsule that will demonstrate when the discoveries are finally published... that i said and went into great detail about them.. first!
edit on 24-9-2015 by John333 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-9-2015 by John333 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: John333
just using simple numbers here, they are not accurate. just to give u an idea of how it works.

lets just say....
a 1hz frequency generates a plain circular grid.
a 2hz frequency generates a dual circular grid
a 3 hz frequency generates a circular grid with spiked edges.
a 4 hz frequency creates a dual circular grid with spiked edges


Not exactly. The vibration of a plate of a certain shape at a suitable resonant frequency has nulls and peaks in some arrangement. At another resonant frequency the vibration of the plate has nulls and peaks in some other arrangement. Take a plate of a different shape and your 528 Hz vibration will not give the pattern you thought it universally manifests.

It is about the vibration of the plate, not about one of the parameters of the vibration.

People generally use the word "frequency" to mean a specific thing. If you mean some other thing, expect people to be confused. Better yet, give your concept a name that is not the same as a well established word.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Pirvonen

yeah i know i used to use names but ppl would seem equally lost. so i tried just using those things we already know and defining them by their similarities in behaviour for useful metaphors.

on the topic of clarity and the conveying of messages. could you try again at saying what ur trying to say?

are you saying that if i use a circular plate and a square plate id get different formations using the same frequency just because the shape of the plate is different? no right? because i can remove the plate and suspend say a drop of water in an acoustic levitation chamber and get the same shape as on the plate using 528hz. in fact this is a great example of a metaphor here.. because thats exactly what the acoustic levitron does. it creates an invisible "plate/standing wave" thats resistant enough to allow solid matter to sit on.

ok so lets see..in place of frequency, can i use.. pulses? because im saying that a series of perfectly timed pulses, signifying one complete oscilation opens the doors to new and unique formations. as we increase from very slow oscillations to faster and faster oscillations we'll be moving through levels starting from

no response.. to light refractive formations, to light emissions, all the way up to invisibility if we could muster such a high frequency. literally if i spin anything fast enough it will seem to disappear. leaving empty space.

well at least that sentence allowed us to touch base back on topic eh? lol



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: John333
a reply to: Pirvonen

are you saying that if i use a circular plate and a square plate id get different formations using the same frequency just because the shape of the plate is different?



YES.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: John333
a reply to: Pirvonen

are you saying that if i use a circular plate and a square plate id get different formations using the same frequency just because the shape of the plate is different?



YES.


ok.. i never considered it until u brought it up. but now i realise, and you can tell me if im correct. because the edges of the plate act as a barrier for the vibration before it takes a slightly weakened form into the air around the plate. the vibrations may bounce back towards the center of the plate thereby corrupting the formation produced.

to solve this problem ive made a decision. since we are dealing with a universe of circular and spherical formations, that we should use circular plates in all lab tests. ignoring the change of formation acquired from using differently shaped plates. at least for the preliminary stuff. plates of different shapes may have their own usefulness which we are yet to discover.

but ive still got some flags. is the image on a square plate that distorted from the image on a circular plate that much that it is not recognizably the same? i mean if the circular plate generates a perfect circle formation for a particular frequency, does the squar e plate produce something totally different? like a triangle? or is it just a distorted circle? if it is just a distorted circle or image as i expect, then its just another pointer from the universe we should be using a circular plate if we are to properly mimic universal operation.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: John333

en.wikipedia.org...

EDIT:


In physics, a standing wave – also known as a stationary wave – is a wave in a medium in which each point on the axis of the wave has an associated constant amplitude. The locations at which the amplitude is minimum are called nodes, and the locations where the amplitude is maximum are called antinodes.

This phenomenon can occur because the medium is moving in the opposite direction to the wave, or it can arise in a stationary medium as a result of interference between two waves traveling in opposite directions. The most common cause of standing waves is the phenomenon of resonance, in which standing waves occur inside a resonator due to interference between waves reflected back and forth at the resonator's resonant frequency.

For waves of equal amplitude traveling in opposing directions, there is on average no net propagation of energy.

edit on 24-9-2015 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: John333

ok.. i never considered it until u brought it up. but now i realise, and you can tell me if im correct. because the edges of the plate act as a barrier for the vibration before it takes a slightly weakened form into the air around the plate. the vibrations may bounce back towards the center of the plate thereby corrupting the formation produced.


Wait wait wait... backup a second... thought you knew? thought you claimed to know all about this stuff?

That is fairly basic, even for the initiated. The geometry, mass all change how it behaves. The patterns are due to the formation of a standing wave... it is like physics 101



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: John333

en.wikipedia.org...


so i guess u see why we're dealing with a plethora of frequencies. divided in to sub groups, each preconceived to specific formations which can be compunded to form more and more complex formations by crossing them with eachother.

its the same thing ive been saying...

each frequency generates a wave. each wave pulses at a different time because of it's individual frequency. the collection of repetitive pulses eventually mathematically comes to a culmination where they all begin again at the starting point of the orchestra. this culmination i call the end of the sequence, or one full oscillation. THIS master oscillation of the collection of frequencies will produce it's own unique formation. now by grabbing the patterns from the formations we can get the frequencies that the universe responds to. creating a chart of frequencies and their relative patterns. so basically we can ride frequencies untop of eachother so that the standing wave that is created when they clash(finish the sequence or complete one full oscillation) will create more complex formations.

we will find many of the ancient mandalas and other sacred geometry drawings are actually the patterns derived from specific frequencies. but sacred geometry isnt all these are good for. these are gravitational grids. containing channels of energy. compounding them on eachother will reveal more about particle manifestation. and lead to the ability to convert dark energy into possibly any atom we want.

creating a standing wave in the acoustic levitron is just the start. im willing to bet. that if you compound the right frequencies, the standing wave that will be created will produce light at the nodes. out of thin air.
edit on 24-9-2015 by John333 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: ErosA433

originally posted by: John333

ok.. i never considered it until u brought it up. but now i realise, and you can tell me if im correct. because the edges of the plate act as a barrier for the vibration before it takes a slightly weakened form into the air around the plate. the vibrations may bounce back towards the center of the plate thereby corrupting the formation produced.


Wait wait wait... backup a second... thought you knew? thought you claimed to know all about this stuff?

That is fairly basic, even for the initiated. The geometry, mass all change how it behaves. The patterns are due to the formation of a standing wave... it is like physics 101


well i guess ive found something im not so good at. pretending not to know it all. lool

but yah i never even thought to consider using a different shaped plate. was going circle from start to finish because i know its the right thing. lol



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: John333
Well that idea isn't totally crazy yes we know of an effect called Sonoluminescence.Basically Sonoluminescence you suspend a Bible of noble gasses like at on in a liquid the vibrations of the liquid disrupts the electrons in the Bible creating flashes of light. Two problems here you didn't think all the way through involving the sun. . On the sun you said sound causes the gasses to move creating pressure in the gasses creating 'em radiation. But if frequencies cause the movement of the plasma what's causing the frequencies in the first place. Much like our Bible suspended in liquid it would require some sort of plasma or liquid outside the sun to transfer out frequency. There is nothing there that can transfer any motion to the sun. Second you would never get any x rays or gamma in fact you would be limited to a very narrow band of the spectrum. And any outside force on the sun would be enough to stop planet formations as it drove everything into the sun. Be like trying to fight your way out of a whirl pool.







 
4
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join