Resonance – Beings of Frequency (Documentary)

page: 3
28
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


And I can fly circles around the empire state building... Pics or gtfo, as they say.




posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Dodger13
 


So are we supposed to abandon technology in favor of nature? Are we supposed to forsake everything we have fought to create and revert to the Stone Age? Is that supposed to restore the balance of frequencies?


Yup. I think that's the wish, just like the Unabomber, who killed a few scientists because they did not agree with him. But I wonder if "natural" is a tad bit overrated:




posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Its a damn sight more than you but by all means let's hear of your exhaustive experience of DSP, or any qualifications and expertise in pertinent fields. You decided to open this box so don't try and back out now. I reiterate my original retort: what "degrees in this area" do you have that make you above reading a Wikipefia article on either topic and actually informing yourself before propagating such woo hoo nonsense in the OP?



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


Is this your idea of an intelligent response? Seriously?

I know substantiating your claims with evidence really isn't your thing but how about you find some academic literature that demonstrates synesthesiacs a) share identical experiences and sensations b) is anything more than cross stimulation of neurological sensory paths and c) how ANY of this is even on-topic.

Edit: and I've noticed you haven't directly addressed a single one of my rebuttals, only shifted the goalposts some more by moving into a new unrelated topic in the vain hope that if you throw enough mud at the wall then something will stick and form a coherent argument. Unless you care to address my responses directly with academic literature that supports your position and directly refutes mine then I have no intention of continuing this fruitless and frivolous discussion.
edit on 1-12-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Why should I address you with dignity and respect, much less maturity if you resort to calling others with different beliefs and opinions of your own, woo (woo) hoo's? I mean seriously? It actually has a lot to do with the OP, I have pictures on my computer I would like to present as 'evidence' or subject matter, but I am currently on iPhone. There is nobody to argue with and contradict you in a society where everybody is taught the same beliefs in a school system. That's called indoctrination you know?

Why shouldn't I demand proof of you being able to be a semi-synthes? That is a little convenient don't you think? So forgive me if I don't pull the same 'show me the money' underhanded trick that the left brained society pulls so very often.
edit on 1-12-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


There are more pieces to the puzzle so to speak. I haven't shifted any goalposts. I'm sorry that I am on mobile current and properly address your posts, but I love the way you attack character, that tells a lot about yourself. You haven't treated a single person in this discussion with respect. Slinging debaseful names, ad hominem attacks, character assassination; you're just a stand up guy aren't you?



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


1) Yet again you have not directly addressed a single rebuttal, only made excuses. I'm posting on a mobile yet I'm having no problem directly addressing the claims you have been making.

2) How could I prove synthesia? More importantly, why would I even care to prove it to you? It's completely inconsequential to my argument. I asked you to provide evidence that synethesia is an objective experience, that's what is pertinent to your unsubstantiated claim. Instead you choose to dwell on an inconsequential anecdotal (and ultimately unprovable) experience that was nothing more than a side note to my direct rebuttals. You're just wasting time and band width with your responses thus I have no intention of being dragged down this road with you any further.

Edit: my oh my you really are clasping at straws now. "If in doubt, just keep screaming AD HOMINEM! until they stop challenging your claims".
edit on 1-12-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


Good job not reading my post at all.

They chose C to be dark blue and B to be light blue. If they flipped the spectrum it would still work.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


I find it aggravating to attempt proper rebuttals when I'm on mobile. Highlighting text to copy with your fingers on a sensitive screen is BS. If you would be a bit more patient, polite and respectful I will properly address you when I am on my pc.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by framedragged
 



They chose C to be dark blue and B to be light blue. If they flipped the spectrum it would still work.


So you're saying if the colors got scrambled, infrared goggles would see heat as purple and cold as green? Because that's what they red. They read the energy signatures - and they read it IN COLORS. Nifty, eh? So if colors and frequencies don't correspond, then how does infrared work?



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   
I have reiterated similar thoughts in this thread
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Perhaps we are not looking deep enough into our own inventions, or the principals they work on?
The proliferation of EMF in our atmosphere is probably the biggest difference weve produced from the "natural environment?
In our entire history on earth.....



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


en.wikipedia.org...

Thermographic cameras work by photographing wavelengths of light that can't be seen by our eyes - those given off in the thermal part of the spectrum - and showing them to us in wavelengths that we can see. They could use any colours to represent hot/cold - there is no natural mapping from the invisible to the visible.

The general problem with talking about 'frequency' and 'vibrations' ( and fields, dimensions etc.) is that they are well studied and well understood phenomena. Both visible and invisible light is understood as a
(transverse, reciprocating) vibration in the electromagnetic field. Sound is understood as a (longitudinal, compression/rarefaction) vibration propagating through physical matter.

Whether mobile phones cause cancer depends on whether they operate at a frequency ( electromagnetic vibration) which couples to any of the vibrational modes of our important constituent molecules.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 


I think that's it, actually. All of our electronics emit an electromagnetic field - I would not be surprised if that field somehow interferes with the earth's field in some way. Even if it doesn't, our emotions and thoughts actually project an electromagnetic field. So maybe it's our personal fields that cause the problems.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


i don't remember Jesus saying rape thy neighbours wife how you would rape yours.

that's got to be one of the most ignorant comments ever made since al gore invented the internet.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 

If you scrambled the corresponding voltages the same way you'd get the same colors out.

How do you not get that?



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 01:44 AM
link   



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas

Colors do have sounds.


Um, no, no they don't. Did you bother to read your link?



But nice ad hominem attacks. It shows your maturity level to ostracize others with different beliefs as woo's woo's. I will take it you've never astral projected or read the Kybalion, right?


Nope.



...detects the color frequency of the item that is passed in front of it, turns it into a sound frequency


It's a really awful description of what's going on. Basically the thing detects a color and emits a tone to match.

I'd have to say you probably don't understand either color OR sound, at all, do you?



There goes your theory that the word frequency has no correlation to vibrations of wavelengths.


You got me crying here. Seriously. You can't get stuff like this everyday.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Haven't you ever heard that words can have more than one meaning?


In science, they generally don't. That's so we can all agree on what we're talking about.

Now, back in the late 19th century, you got your Madame Blavatsky types who wanted to arrogate the vocabulary of science to her rather slipshod philosophy, because science was A Big Thing at that time, and she wanted her mediums and crystal balls crap to sound sciency. Thus do you get horse puckey about vibrations, frequencies, fields, energy and the like from New Agers, which are the descendants of Theosophists.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by framedragged
 


Okay, then what makes different colors?


Your eyes can detect three wavelengths of light. Depending on the proportional response from these three receptors, your visual centers assign a perception of color.



If no frequency is involved, then how do colors change? Color requires light, light moves in wavelengths, wavelengths require energy, energy vibrates.


Color is a perception of EM waves within a very narrow range of wavelengths, or frequencies if you prefer. In this case, the frequency in question is the frequency at which the E and H components of the EM field are alternating. Light doesn't "move" in wavelengths, it has a wavelength. Wavelengths do not require energy, they are, for EM, inversely proportional to the energy of the photons. Energy does not vibrate.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
Keep reading; that's not what happened. They even have a nice little chart to show us the appropriate sounds to colors.


Not at all. The nice little chart shows you what sound that design assigns to each color. It's not inherent in the color. The gadget is just presenting the guy with an analog.

Similarly, my car beeps at a rate that's proportional to the distance from the back bumper to an object. There's no inherent "beeposity of distance", it's an arbitrary assignment some designer made.





new topics
top topics
 
28
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join