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.

 

Nassim Haramein's Delegate Program

page: 13
17
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


No. An example would be your refrigerator magnet. It has a stationary magnetic field which is a type of an electromagnetic field, and it has no frequency.




posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
It's not exactly the most humble view for Haramein to claim that all of mainstream science is wrong and he's right.


I don't believe that he has claimed that all of mainstream science is wrong.

He has simply proposed a theory.


That "theory" of his is so disjoint from anything in "mainstream science", despite his borrowing tidbits from this and that, that his proclamations are nothing short of declaring that science as we know it is wrong. And of course he likes to describe his "revelations" with phrases like "and I'm, like, oh My God". This makes these videos a tough thing to watch.


Going forward I hope the discussion will be on physics and not people.


That would be fun, except there is zero quotient of physics in Haramein's lectures and papers, so what's left for us to do is indeed indulge in sarcasm.

Proton is simply not a black hole. There is no way to extract physics from patently absurd.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
. . . his proclamations are nothing short of declaring that science as we know it is wrong.


Maybe it is wrong.

Please vocus on the science and not the person.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur


Pretty! Some of them remind me of stained glass.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur


Wave–particle duality is deeply embedded into the foundations of quantum mechanics, so well that modern practitioners rarely discuss it as such. In the formalism of the theory . . .



I take it this theory has not been proven?



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur


Wave–particle duality is deeply embedded into the foundations of quantum mechanics, so well that modern practitioners rarely discuss it as such. In the formalism of the theory . . .



I take it this theory has not been proven?


It has, many times over.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Wave–particle duality


Looks like there is some controversy about wave-particle duality:

Particle-only view

The pilot wave model, originally developed by Louis de Broglie and further developed by David Bohm into the hidden variable theory proposes that there is no duality . . .

Wave-only view

At least one scientist proposes that the duality can be replaced by a "wave-only" view. . . .



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur


Pretty! Some of them remind me of stained glass.


I'm glad you like them. It wasn't until I saw the following thread on ATS last December that I realized we had made actual images of atoms with a new microscope and saw how well they matched our wave function models prediction of the shape of atoms. I really didn't expect to see such amazing visual confirmation of quantum theory on an atomic scale this soon.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by pteridine
Chemistry textbooks typically include illustrations of atoms, but with caveats. The drawings depict atomic nuclei surrounded by electron orbitals—fuzzy spheres, barbells, tripods, and so on—but those figures represent the probability of finding an electron at a certain place around the nucleus rather than an actual “shape.” Researchers have now managed to image the electron orbitals and show for the first time that, in a sense, atoms really look like those textbook images.

www.scientificamerican.com...

An interesting technological advance. This takes field-emission microscopy a step further and, using a clever technique, shows the shapes of electron clouds around individual atoms.


Originally posted by VitalOverdose
reply to post by Nathwa
 
Well it proves that the maths we have been using to simulate atoms and the theories we have come up with about the way they work are correct. It means we are on the right track to understanding how the universe works.




We are indeed clever little monkeys


Now how's that for confirming a predicted model with observational evidence from a microscope? The top image is the textbook model (like the image I posted for you was also, which shows more wave functions that this one) and the bottom image is what the new microscope saw.

This is truly amazing that we can make images of things this small, and that the images match our models so well! It makes me think maybe those mainstream scientists who made these wave function predictions about the shape of atoms may not be so dumb or so far off track in their understanding, like some people seem to think.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Wave–particle duality


Looks like there is some controversy about wave-particle duality:

Particle-only view

The pilot wave model, originally developed by Louis de Broglie and further developed by David Bohm into the hidden variable theory proposes that there is no duality . . .

Wave-only view

At least one scientist proposes that the duality can be replaced by a "wave-only" view. . . .


Well there's not really any controversy about the experimental results. Also there's not really much controversy that the models we use in quantum mechanics make very accurate predictions about what the experimental results will show.

And there's no controversy about the results of the double slit experment that shows light, or photons, as well as particles, like electrons, can display either wave or particle-like behaviors depending on how they are observed.

And you finally get to see some humility from me because while we can repeat these experiments and predict the results with great accuracy with our models, I think the jury is still out on the underlying physical causes for the obsevations we make regarding wave-particle duality. I've read a lot of ideas on this topic and I'll say that some ideas are better than others. When I see "at least one scientist proposes" that's a little bit of a red flag to me. I'll read what he has to say, but the other scientists are not dumb and if his idea was really that well supported by evidence it should have so many followers that we wouldn't see a statement like "at least one scientist proposes".

The analogy I would use to describe my own understanding of wave particle duality is the car analogy. Let's say someone gives me three cars to drive, but the hood is welded shut so I'm not allowed to look inside. I can make very accurate predictions about all three cars, like:
1. Step on the gas pedal hard and it will accelerate quckly.
2. Step on the brake pedal hard and it will stop quickly.
3. Turn the steering wheel to the right and it will turn to the right.

Similarly we can make accurate predictions reagrding quantum mechanics without knowing what exactly is "under the hood".

Now what is the underlying physical cause for the car accelerating when I step on the gas pedal? If I can't look under the hood I don't know if it's an internal combustion engine and is it powered by gasoline, hydrogen, diesel, or something else? Or is it an electrical motor powered engine, fueled by batteries, or by fuel cells or by a hybrid gasoline generator? The characteristics of the car's performance may have similarities with all these models.

Now if I can come up with a theory and confirm it with observational evidence, I may be able to tell what's under the hood. Like I might theorize that an internal combustion engine will make a certain kind of sound as a result of the combustion, and the electric engine will make a different kind of sound. I could then measure the sound and see which profile the sound matches, and then say I know what's under the hood.

To my knowledge, nobody has made such definitive predictions of the underlying physical causes of wave-particle duality, and confirmed it with observations and experiments. So we still aren't sure exactly what's "under the hood" so to speak, in my analogy. But when you read some of the proposals of what some people think the underlying causes are, they read to me sort of like saying:

"Well, maybe what's under the hood are some giant hamsters and a giant hamster wheel." Well since I can't prove what is under the hood, it's hard to say it's not giant hamsters (per my analogy), but like I said, some ideas are better than others. The "many worlds interpretation" reads a little to me like the "hamster wheel" car engine idea, sure neither idea is impossible, but when the theories require the invention of other entities not known to exist, like giant hamsters, or other worlds, it just seems like an unnecessarily complicated explanation considering Occam's razor. But the many worlds interpretation nonetheless has mainstream status along with other interpretations like the Copenhagen interpretation which I prefer. But proof is yet to come.


[edit on 21-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



That's irrelevant because we are talking specifically about proton, and we are observers outside of proton.


Uhm... excuse me?! Do you understand the concept of empirical equivalence?

In Haramein's model, there is a universe inside each and every black hole - including the ones with radius 1.32 fm - which accounts for entanglement. It could be new universes, it could be fractal mirrors of our own.

Think about it. He has shown that inside the radius of a 'proton' there is enough ZPE to fulfill the schwarzschild conditions for a black hole. In fact, the mass of the known universe.

So far, his theory explains conventional 'strong force' and anomalous entanglement in a much more comprehensive way.


There is nothing 100% precise, but our knowledge of proton structure is pretty good. Particles are waves but the wave aspect would depend on the wavelength, and the energies are such in accelerator experiments that quarks and gluons behave like point-like objects.


Yes, the wave aspect depends on many factors... but 'point-like objects' are still subject to the WPD, and are therefore just discrete levels of wave functions.

Notice the similarity between cymatics and wave functions:





Cymatics CAN explain atomic structure and natural geometries.


By definition information does not escape a black hole. If you look at the proton, it has a verifiable structure (a fairly complex one and it's still being studied) so info flows in and out in oodles.


By what definition? Not much is known for certain regarding black holes...
Hawking Radiation

I'm not sure where you are going with the other sentence.


If by "fundamentalist" you mean coming from fundamental science, you are right. And if by holistic you mean (and you do) tossing around words and categories that sounds cool but to which you have no clue, you are also right. You are an example of devolution as it applies to human appreciation of science and nature around us.


Do you think thats what I meant?

If by 'tossing around words and categories that sounds cool' you mean that you haven't the slightest of what is being discussed, you are right. I don't mean to stoop so low like you have been, but can you see how childish you are behaving?

Ridiculing a holistic approach is EXACTLY like a religious fundamentalist ridiculing the occultist that understands the hidden symbolism in the fundamentalist's religious texts.

The holistic occultist sees the astronomical symbolism, the fundamentalist takes the 'word of god' as law.

----

If anyone is still interested in furthering the discussion of haramein's theory, please help by analyzing and criticizing the information I have provided in my last post.

BTW Arbitrageur, notice the torus geometry in the images you have just posted...



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
Think about it. He has shown that inside the radius of a 'proton' there is enough ZPE to fulfill the schwarzschild conditions for a black hole. In fact, the mass of the known universe.


He has shown jack. He didn't show how much ZPE there is, he took a number from another source and multiplied it by an arbitrary factor to get, guess what, enough mass for a black hole of 1.32 fm radius. It's not science.


So far, his theory explains conventional 'strong force' and anomalous entanglement in a much more comprehensive way.


You do not have a slightest idea about the strong force and how it works which is the only explanation why you came up with such nonsense. Haramein's theory DOES NOT EXPLAIN what we know about strong interaction.

I had to type it 5 times over and I guess I'll need to do it again -- how does hard scattering get its explanation there, huh?



By definition information does not escape a black hole. If you look at the proton, it has a verifiable structure (a fairly complex one and it's still being studied) so info flows in and out in oodles.


By what definition? Not much is known for certain regarding black holes...
Hawking Radiation


Can you extract same component part out of black holes, time after time, just like taking out a part out of your car engine? You cannot. You can't get anything out black hole. Yes, there may be Hawking radiation, but you don't get same information over and over out of many black holes, that they have 3 valent quarks.

[edit on 22-6-2010 by buddhasystem]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
Notice the similarity between cymatics and wave functions:





Cymatics CAN explain atomic structure and natural geometries.


tossing around words and categories that sounds cool


Do you think thats what I meant?

BTW Arbitrageur, notice the torus geometry in the images you have just posted...


This is a little bit like saying the study of meteorology can help explain why it rains, sort of stating the obvious.

We use wave functions to describe matter. Cymatics is the study of waves. Wow I see the word "wave " in both of those. Not exactly a revelation.

So yes there may be a relationship but I have to agree with the "cool word" moniker to your use of the word "cymatics". To physicists and engineers, the math describes the waves better than words. And whether you call it cymatics, or the study of waves, or something else, doesn't change the math&physics, it's the same math&physics regardless of which word you use.

I see the torus geometry in the lower right textbook image of a wave function that I posted, that's a 3-D projection onto 2-D so it's easier to recognize the torus shape than in the other images which are just 2-D projections. What about it?



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Ok... Buddhasystem and Arbitrageur --

Clearly you two think I am incapable.

I will state that I think you guys are missing the fundamental points of the discussion, and I am discussing one thing, while you guys are picking at another.


What would you prefer I call cymatics?! I am amazed that you both think I am trying to dance around with fancy terminology... To me it just comes across as ignorance of what the 'fancy terms' refer to.

I will state the facts as I see them once more:

Cymatics is the geometrical structures of matter seen through vibration, or sound.

Zero Point Energy has been demonstrated through the Casimir Effect.

ZPE is electromagnetic 'noise'.

Thus, this 'noise' is vibrating everything constantly. As waves.


Therefore, I make the logical conclusion that the universe should organize itself geometrically due to the constant vibration from ZPE.

Now, ZPE is also known as vacuum energy... in other words the energy of space, not matter. So Haramein(or Rauscher more likely) takes the radius of a 'proton' and calculates the amount of ZPE in that SPACE - which yields the results that are so controversial.

edit to add: And PLEASE learn about empirical equivalence...


I see the torus geometry in the lower right textbook image of a wave function that I posted, that's a 3-D projection onto 2-D so it's easier to recognize the torus shape than in the other images which are just 2-D projections. What about it?


..... Well, what about it? It just happens to be the model of the way space time expresses itself in a fluid medium in Harameins theory...

[edit on 22-6-2010 by beebs]



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
What would you prefer I call cymatics?! I am amazed that you both think I am trying to dance around with fancy terminology... To me it just comes across as ignorance of what the 'fancy terms' refer to.
I didn't say using the word "cymatics" was completely wrong, it's the study of waves and wave functions have wavelike properties. If you are referring to wave functions, what else could you call them? How about, hmmm, let's see, maybe, "wave functions"?


I will state the facts as I see them once more:

Cymatics is the geometrical structures of matter seen through vibration, or sound.
It's the study of waves, which happens to include any kind of waves, sound, water, or otherwise. Our only disagreement about this seems to be that you're telling me I don't know what the term means when in fact I think it's you who may not understand the meaning. The vibrations and sounds you mention, they're waves. And cymatics is a cool word.

Zero Point Energy has been demonstrated through the Casimir Effect.

ZPE is electromagnetic 'noise'.
What makes you think it's electromagnetic?


Thus, this 'noise' is vibrating everything constantly. As waves.
Well, there are waves everywhere, that's kind of the whole idea behind quantum mechanics. And there are also electromagnetic waves, sound waves and water waves. But I think you are confusing them and thinking because they are all waves they must all be the same thing. Yes they do all have some wavelike properties but they are quite different.


Therefore, I make the logical conclusion that the universe should organize itself geometrically due to the constant vibration from ZPE.
This statement is so broad as to be practically meaningless. Now if you restate that to say that the wave functions of atoms have geometric shapes, obviously that's true, and there are other geometric shapes in nature too like crystalline shapes. But the universe encompasses a lot and I don't see that everything is necessarily geometric. Take my avatar as an example, one of the "pillars of creation". You could say it's shape is roughly cylindrical but look at the other pillars and they are even less so. Some shapes in the universe I would have to say are amorphous and not geometric.


Now, ZPE is also known as vacuum energy... in other words the energy of space, not matter. So Haramein(or Rauscher more likely) takes the radius of a 'proton' and calculates the amount of ZPE in that SPACE - which yields the results that are so controversial.
If by controversial, you mean making sh... I mean stuff up, then yes, they did that.



I see the torus geometry in the lower right textbook image of a wave function that I posted, that's a 3-D projection onto 2-D so it's easier to recognize the torus shape than in the other images which are just 2-D projections. What about it?


..... Well, what about it? It just happens to be the model of the way space time expresses itself in a fluid medium in Harameins theory...
That torus shape appears in just one of many wave functions. I probably shouldnt show you this because you might think this also fits in with the wave function torus and Haramein's torus somehow, but here are pictures of torus based shapes called "vortices", which have some cool causes, but they are from different causes than the torus shape forms in the wave functions.

www.caelestia.be...
Here's one I saved because I think it may be like the UFO seen over the Chicago Ohare airport, it even has the same cause, burning fuel.



Just seeing something that looks like something else does get some people excited, like Don Scott who thinks the Grand Canyon may have been formed by electricity since it vaguely resembles the shape of a lightning strike. But it can also earn you the label "crackpot", and in his case, justifiably so. I suspect you are smarter than him and will research the true causes for the shapes you see before you write any books about two things looking similar which have completely different causes.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
Cymatics is the geometrical structures of matter seen through vibration, or sound.

Zero Point Energy has been demonstrated through the Casimir Effect.

ZPE is electromagnetic 'noise'.

Thus, this 'noise' is vibrating everything constantly. As waves.


Therefore, I make the logical conclusion that the universe should organize itself geometrically due to the constant vibration from ZPE.

Now, ZPE is also known as vacuum energy... in other words the energy of space, not matter. So Haramein(or Rauscher more likely) takes the radius of a 'proton' and calculates the amount of ZPE in that SPACE - which yields the results that are so controversial.


Beebs,

Would this video have any relevance to the discussion?




posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
Ok... Buddhasystem and Arbitrageur --

Clearly you two think I am incapable.


I personally do, very much so.


I will state that I think you guys are missing the fundamental points of the discussion, and I am discussing one thing, while you guys are picking at another.


What would you prefer I call cymatics?! I am amazed that you both think I am trying to dance around with fancy terminology... To me it just comes across as ignorance of what the 'fancy terms' refer to.


I leave it to Arbitrageur to pick apart the "cymatics" part. In lay mathematician's term, it's most often reduced to solving an equation with a particular set of boundary conditions, and all kinds of fancy patterns can surface in the solution. That's not the point I'm making here, though.

Your insistence on explaining strong interaction "a la Haramein" demonstrates your ignorance in actual empirical characteristics of it, let alone theory.


Zero Point Energy has been demonstrated through the Casimir Effect.


The effect was discovered while studying the van der Waals force and in practical terms is not different from it, in that you can't extract energy from vacuum. Cf. the Grand Canyon example.

This sums it up pretty nicely:
en.wikipedia.org...

The discovery of zero point energy did not alter the implausibility of perpetual motion machines. Much attention has been given to reputable science suggesting that zero point energy is infinite, but zero point energy is a minimum energy below which a thermodynamic system can never go, thus none of this energy can be withdrawn without altering the system to a different form in which the system has a lower zero point energy. The calculation that underlies the Casimir experiment, a calculation based on the formula predicting infinite vacuum energy, shows the zero point energy of a system consisting of a vacuum between two plates will decrease at a finite rate as the two plates are drawn together. The vacuum energies are predicted to be infinite, but the changes are predicted to be finite. Casimir combined the projected rate of change in zero point energy with the principle of conservation of energy to predict a force on the plates. The predicted force, which is very small and was experimentally measured to be within 5% of its predicted value, is finite. Even though the zero point energy might be infinite, there is no theoretical basis or practical evidence to suggest that infinite amounts of zero point energy are available for use, that zero point energy can be withdrawn for free, or that zero point energy can be used in violation of conservation of energy.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   
EDIT:removed post entirely, was very sure of myself, now just cannot be bothered, especially if it turned out I was wrong. sorry for wasted space!

EDIT2:
was asked to reconsider participation & have some questions & points of interest to add. I will ask in advance to those who know the lingo & proper phrasing of things not to belittle & also to be patient & put effort into communicating your ideas & arguments in a way that the person you are directly talking with will understand rather than only that which can be understood by your peers within the 'specialist' communities that make up the 'established scientific community'.

addressing specifically the following,

As far as I'm aware, Nassim's 'black hole theory' that claimed all planets/stars to have a black hole 'core', and the all important part (which tells even a laymen like myself that he is onto something...) where he predicts that according to his model of 'things' saturn would flow into itself in at one 'pole' and out the other 'pole' over the surface of itself, etc continuously, I believe from memory that he made the distincting between planets like saturn which aren't solid (gas?) displaying the same flow characteristics & moving the same way as the electromagnetic field of the planet & solid planet's which move less obviously the same way as the electromagnetic field, I seem to remember he linked the moving tectonic plates to this somehow.

The 'schumann resonance' seems explains the propagation of the vibrations through the body of saturn that caused the standing wave hexagon if the electromagnetic 'pulse' determines the wave rate of the gas? (which is saturn) the waves then creating the standing wave which appears as a hexagon....?

And finally the clincher, as far as I'm aware, Nassim predicted the hexagon on saturn due directly to the black-hole & electromagnetic (double toroid?) theory which I shouldn't have to remember exactly because you are all aware of what I'm referring too....


he predicted this, then the boffins (conventional & 'law' abiding scientists, so to speak) laughed at him & his ideas, excluded him as a nutjob & then went about proving him right when the probe(ship, drone?) sent by NASA or the russians or somebody...provided them with the footage (or still photos?) of the standing wave hexagon on saturn, which none of them expected to be there and for which the conventional scientists working only with established laws, could offer no decent explination for, whereas the sometimes scoffed at schumann resonance, which i'm resonable sure is integral to nassims theories, seems to explain this hexagon, which nassim had predicted as existing proof of his theories.

So then....

your thoughts please, skeptics & believers alike.

P.L.U.R.I
-B.M

P.S) RE: Cymatics.

A member whose name i've forgotten posted a nitpicky comment about why someone didn't say 'wave functions' instead of cymatics

(c'mon now boffins this is not a scientist exclusive thread....)

patterns seen in a salt medium on a vibrating metal plate, vibration either a specific Hz entry or a 'close enough' manual adjustment of a pitch shifter on a tone generator, is a common cymatics experiment is it not?

assuming it is,
regarding these 'patterns',
I'm aware the salt fills in the nodes or 'empty' parts of the wave...

imagine an accoustic/kinetic (realworld) wave as apposed to a "converted-into-electrical/digital representation", a 'real world' wave subject to all the ridiculously broad scope of variables, a complex structure of kinetic energy (force?) using the air particles to travel or should i say travelling through/via the air particles on the way to an ear canal to be damped somewhat & scaled down to interact with the ear drum & on for yet more scaling & converting eventually to arrive at the brain as a fairly basic electrical signal for interpretation (where MOST of the work of 'reality' is done....exactly why assuming established scientific 'law' to be solid is foolish in my eyes...)

if we could visually observe (as an opaque object) the wave described above on its journey; and thinking back to the salt/nodes, the salt would be the 'gaps' in the structure of the wave through which we could glimpse things on the other 'side' of the (3D spiraling & [I assume] expanding/contracting) wave, while the areas of the metal plate with no salt would be the wave itself..also the pattern in the salt is a 2D cross section view of a 3D structure...

yes?

So then, there are also man made (only) waveforms like a square wave or 'white/pink noise' which are not only ugly but relate to no naturally occurring waves in this universe that I know of.

This makes me wonder why when tuning an instrument to just intonation & played through a justonic occiloscope or the like & compared with the modern equal temprement tuning system, the equal makes nasty horrible shapes while the traditional and naturally spiralling (exponentially increasing? accelerating as it raises pitch, like the decibel accelerates as it increases in amplitude..) just intonation way of using pitch creates both geometric forms seen at certain pitches in the cymatic patterns, (the same patterns carved into stones at the roslyn chapel to indicate a piece of music & correct 'tuning') and also perfectly depicting complicated occult sigils dating back to the early 18th century, the sigils representing this particular form, which was somewhat remaniscent of a scribbly messy signature (yet somehow asthetically intriguing and systimatic) suggest that the knowledge they coveted eludes to the importance of these forms, this tuning, these ratios, equations, harmonies, rhythms, math, etc.

the same kinds of forms as the standing wave hexagon on saturn.

the occult and the ancient did not only believe in just intonation; it was/is to be used in conjunction with an a=432hz reference pitch dating as far back as sumerian times (flutes specifically) and elsewhere throughout time and around the world places like egypt, greece, india & peru. Musically, the above combined create all sorts of intriguing effects which is why I personally have taken up its use exclusively in all my works. The sound is warmer & richer, on a guitar the notes 'sing', i.e. the guitar's various mechanical parts contribute a particularly pleasant 'tone' in the sound when resonated by a strummed note tuned to the 432hz system. The wave/vibrations produced are more intense, stronger physically. The string vibrate for longer also producing longer sustain on notes and the accoustic waves produced take longer to decay within the room & 'hang around' in the air for more time.

432hz is the resonant frequency of a coffer in the kings chamber of the great pyramid of giza, the theories on the use of the coffer is still in early speculative days, however there are man made manufactured stone-composite blocks that make up the walls of the chamber designed to resonate the room a certain way, create a particular standing wave, and as we all know the right pitch standing wave can do some very interesting things, levitation for e.g........

What the point of all this is cymatics, 432, just intonation, the occult societies & mystery schools, ancient cultures religions archetecture, all ellude to the importance of properly understanding what the connections mean & that if you can do that you will know the true nature of reality, the universe & everything in it.

Nassim's work resonates with me because of the saturn link & his unrelenting need/purpose to question all that is established. Which I believe many truth seekers to not appreciate the necessity of, perhaps out of impatience...

I accept that nassim's work is flawed, but I believe at the very least in a cooky accidental kind of way, he is definitely heading in the right direction with some of it, if he has not already got there...

-B.M

[edit on 25/6/10 by B.Morrison]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.Morrison
the occult and the ancient did not only believe in just intonation; it was/is to be used in conjunction with an a=432hz reference pitch dating as far back as sumerian times (flutes specifically) and elsewhere throughout time and around the world places like egypt, greece, india & peru. Musically, the above combined create all sorts of intriguing effects which is why I personally have taken up its use exclusively in all my works. The sound is warmer & richer, on a guitar the notes 'sing', i.e. the guitar's various mechanical parts contribute a particularly pleasant 'tone' in the sound when resonated by a strummed note tuned to the 432hz system. The wave/vibrations produced are more intense, stronger physically.



There are plenty of musicians who would disagree with you:
www.uk-piano.org...



1640 Vienna Franciscan Organ A457.6
1699 Paris Opera A404
1711 John Shore's tuning fork, a pitch of A423.5 He invented the tuning fork, one of which still exists today.
1780 Stines, for Mozart, A421
1780 Organ builder Schulz A421.3
1714 Strasbourg Cathedral organ A391
1722 Dresden's chief Roman Catholic church organ A415
1759 Trinity College Cambridge organ A309
1762 Stringed instruments at Hamburg A405
1772 Gottfried Silbermann built the organ in the main Roman Catholic church in Dresden, and it had a pitch of A 415 at the time.
1780 Organ builder Schulz A421.3
1780 Stein's tuning fork A422.6
1751 Handel's own fork A422.5
1800 Broadwood's C fork, 505.7, which is about half a semitone lower than that of today
1811 Paris Grand Opera A 427
1812 Paris Conservatoire A440, as modern pitch
1813 George Smart adopted for the Philharmonic Society the pitch of A423.3.
1820 Westminster Abbey organ and possibly Paris Comic Opera used a pitch of A422.5.
1828 Philharmonic Society A 440
1834 Vienna Opera A 436.5
1835 Wolfels piano maker A443
1836 Pleyel's Pianos A446
1846 Philharmonic pitch was A452.5 (very high) which lasted till 1854
1846 Mr Hipkins piano tuner (Meantone) A433.5 (Equal) A436.0
1849 Broadwood's medium pitch was A445.9 which lasted till 1854
1858 New Philharmonic pitch C522
1860 Cramer's piano makers of London A448.4
1862 Dresden Opera A 440
1871 Covent Garden Opera House A 440
1877 Collard's piano maker standard pitch was A 449.9
1877 St. Paul Cathedral organ A446.6
1877 Chappell Pianos A455.9
1877 Mr Hipkins piano tuner A448.8
1878 Her Majesty's Organ A436.1
1878 Vienna Opera A447
1879 Covent Garden Opera A450
1879 Erard's factory fork 455.3
1879 Steinway of England A 454.
1879 British Army regulation pitch for woodwinds A451.9
1880 Brinsmead, Broadwood, and Erard apparently used a pitch of A455.3
1880 Steinway may have been using a pitch of A436. According to Steinway of New York, 1880 is right around the time they switched from three piece rims to the continuous rim that is used today. So it is unlikely the pitch was any higher before 1880, yet Steinway of London had a fork A454.7.
1885 In Vienna a pitch of A435.4 was adopted at a temperature of 59 degrees Fahrenheit for A.
1885 At an international exhibition of inventions and music in London a pitch of A452 was adopted.
1896 Philharmonic pitch A439, giving C522
1925 On the 11th of June the American music industry adopted A440.
1936 American Standards Association adopted A440.
1939 At an international conference A440 was adopted.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by B.Morrison
The sound is warmer & richer, on a guitar the notes 'sing', i.e. the guitar's various mechanical parts contribute a particularly pleasant 'tone' in the sound when resonated by a strummed note tuned to the 432hz system. The wave/vibrations produced are more intense, stronger physically.

There are plenty of musicians who would disagree with you:
www.uk-piano.org...



1722 Dresden's chief Roman Catholic church organ A415
1759 Trinity College Cambridge organ A309
1936 American Standards Association adopted A440.
1939 At an international conference A440 was adopted.
Thanks for teaching me something, and I'm an amatueur musician, well I got paid $100 to play in a 30 second commercial but that's the extent of my "professional" work LOL, and I didn't know about this history. One year at the university, I was in rehearsal so often as a member of 4 different bands/orchestras I temporarily developed "perfect pitch", I could hear the 440 A in my head, before it was played at the beginning of a tuning session. That was unexpected. But as my coursework got harder I scaled back my music participation to spend more time studying, and lost the perfect pitch ability when I wasn't in rehearsals as much.

Do you think there's any chance that "Trinity College Cambridge organ A309" is a typo and is supposed to be 409 instead? 309 would be pretty low for A. Well I had to Google it and found in fact there's an error in the data (Errors or outlier data points like that seem to jump out at me when I look at data).

www.duresme.org.uk...

In his usual effervescent style, Allan Chapman described how Robert Smith, the Master of Trinity College. Cambridge measured the frequency of a Dallam d′ pipe in the college chapel. His value of 262 cycles per second is somewhat low by modern standards (equivalent to A=409)

And yes I was even guessed correctly about the nature of the discrepancy, a typo! Someone should correct that source.

Little did I know what I was missing by not using 432 hz for the A! I'll have to try that just for kicks. If I find out that international conference deprived me of a healthier, happier, more harmonious life by setting A at 440 instead of 432, I'm going to give those decision makers a piece of my mind....wait...that was in 1939, they're probably dead by now.


[edit on 25-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

There are plenty of musicians who would disagree with you:
www.uk-piano.org...

1722 Dresden's chief Roman Catholic church organ A415
1759 Trinity College Cambridge organ A309
1936 American Standards Association adopted A440.
1939 At an international conference A440 was adopted.


wow way to attempt to mock me buddhasystem......

I knew all that already... and where is this group of plenty who would disagree? all your link displayed was a limited history of pitch, which incidentally disproves NOTHING that I wrote....

Pitch......I researched it continuously for close to a year and have been a lifelong musician myself I played with A=440hz my whole life thinking it was great, started using 432hz would not turn back if you paid me, the only times i work with 440 is for ease of use playing with bands who do not tune 432 & when producing other artists work.

If you go to this thread I authored, Musick Me Nutrit - The Book Of 432Hzall my research is available in easily digestable & organised PDF files for you to pick over like the 'know it all' you are.... Btw, I am a certified sound engineer.....

-B.M

P.S) buddhasystem your link just proved how little you understood what I was talking about, you referred to the modern birth of the 'modern' understanding/definition of the 'concert pitch' & to several of the pitches as if because they were not 432hz that I was wrong....432hz will sound exactly how I described it too when played on a guitar no matter WHAT pitches OTHER orchestras/people are using....wtf kind of arguement were you trying to make you tripper!

ALSO... do you honestly think that just because there is a date of official invention that the concept of music, pitch, rhythm, harmony & sound didn't exist before that......?


the instruments were uncovered in the last 50 years for starters, long after the 'history of pitch' reached a climatic end with the standardization of 440Hz at the opposition of well over 20,000 of the worlds top classical musicians and largely due to the pressure of american jazz musicians.

A=432hz is the natural resonant frequency of the average human voice, the orchestras in Europe tuning even higher than 440Hz as to 'brighten' the brass section, are likewise destroying the throats, vocal chords of the opera singers.

the instruments I refer to of Sumerian times were measured & tested, likewise with the Peruvian whistle, and found to be tuned 432Hz, OR create an 8Hz phantom tone within the players head which is the difference in Hz between 432 & 440.

When one meditates on both the impossibly heavy monolithic stone statues, monuments & structures constructed in ancient days seemly impossibly so, and also on the ancient knowledge of resonance, standing waves & sound technology, for e.g. the ancient chinese water spouting bowl, it seems possible that acoustic levitation may have played a role in construction.

Mind you the ark of the covenant which is a real object in existence & of which Nassim also recognises as a giant electrical capacitor, could have been used to achieve the same thing. The only thing I'm aware of that prevents the appropriate testing & experiments being done by those that want to do them are the restriction put in place by so many private interests. Even non-destructive ways of exploring sites are blocked. there is something being hidden.

P.P.S) EDIT to remove the things said in anger...I get a little hot headed sometimes....

[edit on 26/6/10 by B.Morrison]



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join