Resonance – Beings of Frequency (Documentary)

page: 4
28
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas

It isn't about digital representations. Take apples for instance, they are red, have a peculiar smell and taste rather sweet. Now the apple represents an object that is perceived using 3 of the 5 senses. Now why can't colors and other similar senses be applied in the same mind set. The color represent a force which can be perceived with the other senses, just like the apple was a force/object that could be perceived using the senses.


What your senses are perceiving with respect to color is the frequency of the EM waves coming into your eyes, as long as these EM frequencies are within the very narrow range in which your eyes can do this.

What your ears perceive with respect to sound are the intensity and frequency of compression waves in air. Sound waves are not related to EM waves in any way. EM is a composite of electric and magnetic fields. Sound is a wave of compression and rarefaction in a medium, which for people is generally air. Your nose perceives chemical stimulation from airborne compounds. Your tongue perceives chemical stimulation in direct contact. They're all different sensory modalities.




posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
You believe the frequencies of sound and color do not have any common properties? What are your degrees in this area?


Well, in my case, I've got masters degrees in engineering and physics. So. the thing in common is the term "frequency", which means the rate at which something repeats in a unit of time. Tha-tha-that's it, folks. Sound and color do not share much of anything past that.
edit on 2-12-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


Still waiting for these deep and informed responses of yours...

2nd line



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by john_bmth
 


What about Synesthesia? How is that related to any kind of digital or electrical device?


Do you understand it at all? It's a mixup in brain wiring. I have it to some degree, it can be very irritating. I "hear" changes in my peripheral vision. Blinky wiggly ads on the edges of web pages cause me to perceive little bursts of noise or scratchy sounds. That doesn't mean that these wiggly ads are EMITTING sound, or ARE sound, it's just that somewhere in my head, there's a bit of crossed wiring. I also can "hear" someone touching my left side if you hit just the right spot. Oh, and there's a place on my left leg where a light stroke downwards will result in my feeling a phantom touch UPWARDS on my right leg at the same place.

You seem to be systematically confusing your internal perception of sensory data with the physical nature of the data.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas

How do you perceive lightning? First you see the flash and then you hear the bang.


Yes! That's because the flash is light, a wave of electrical and magnetic disturbance, and travels at the speed of light in atmosphere (slightly slower than in vacuum), and the bang is sound, a compression wave in air. Mechanical compression waves are much slower. Thus the flash, then the bang. The reason they're not simultaneous, is that they are qualitatively quite different.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 





Well, in my case, I've got masters degrees in engineering and physics.


You must then specify your field and degree of specialization for a limitation disclaimer, because to project yourself as a HAARP "expert" doesn't give confidence to those that really get the contexts in which the proposed mechanisms are given.

You haven't shown a grasp for the physics of atmospheric gravity waves and the context in which Eastlund applied Gossard's 1962 citation to HAARP.

Atmospheric gravity wave flux is expressed in Watts/m^2.

And Gossard gave evidence that at the order of magnitude that HAARP generates gravity waves via HF it is already strong for impacts on weather to occur if the remaining theoretical open questions are proven correct, which are more and more swaying to the 'yes' answers.

HAARP generates gravity waves, what you are stuck with is continuing to refer to radio waves while the gravity waves generated by those same radio waves are the physical mechanism in discussion.
edit on 2-12-2012 by wujotvowujotvowujotvo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by wujotvowujotvowujotvo
 



"Gravity waves are generated in the troposphere by frontal systems or by airflow over mountains." (Wiki)

So does HAARP have enormous blowers in order to generate these gravity waves? If not, how do you propose these gravity waves are generated? Or are you using a different definition for "gravity waves"?



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by wujotvowujotvowujotvo
 

"Gravity waves are generated in the troposphere by frontal systems or by airflow over mountains." (Wiki)

So does HAARP have enormous blowers in order to generate these gravity waves? If not, how do you propose these gravity waves are generated? Or are you using a different definition for "gravity waves"?
The big problem with wujotvowujotvowujotvo's claim as I see it, is that HAARP activity occurs in the ionosphere.

Terrestrial weather doesn't originate in the ionosphere but at much lower altitudes. So whatever waves are generated in the ionosphere from HAARP or solar activity may affect what could be called "space weather", but I don't know of any mechanisms to associate this with what we normally call "weather" meaning terrestrial weather, such as wind, clouds, rain.

Here is a video allegedly of gravity waves in the ionosphere. An altitude of 96km is referenced:



All-sky movie of a naked-eye gravity wave over Texas in November 1999. The wave is actually an undular bore, a non-linear type of gravity wave, moving through the night-time airglow. The airglow emission in the images originates from atomic oxygen at 96 km altitude.
I don't see any link between ionospheric activity like this above 85km, and terrestrial weather like wind, clouds and rain, which primarily occurs in the Troposphere, well below 85km:


The troposphere is the lowest portion of Earth's atmosphere. It contains approximately 80% of the atmosphere's mass and 99% of its water vapor and aerosols.[2] The average depth of the troposphere is approximately 17 km (11 mi) in the middle latitudes. It is deeper in the tropics, up to 20 km (12 mi), and shallower near the polar regions, at 7 km (4.3 mi) in summer, and indistinct in winter.
So even at its highest point of about 20km, the troposphere is nowhere near the ionosphere.

If there is a link between space weather in the ionosphere above 85km, and terrestrial weather in the troposphere below 20km, I'd be interested to learn more about it, so wujotvowujotvowujotvo or somebody, either educate me, or else stop claiming there's a link if you don't have any evidence for it.
edit on 2-12-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by randomname
 


www.evilbible.com...

Old Testament; not the New.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


And I agree on what you just said; however, I still go back to my statement that senses are different ways of perceiving the same thing. So I believe there may be a corresponding color to a sound, etc. I still haven't gotten to my computer yet because it doesn't stay at my house.

For instance though; my neighbor has a child with a toy xylophone. There are 7 keys on it, each one being represented by ROYGBIV. So is that a coincidence?



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
For instance though; my neighbor has a child with a toy xylophone. There are 7 keys on it, each one being represented by ROYGBIV. So is that a coincidence?
It's arbitrary. You can paint any color on any part of the xylophone. You can change the painted colors and it won't change the sound.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   
People are stupid and corporations are greedy. These two ingredients guarantee nothing will be done until it's too late for many / most.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


The different keys on my nephew's toy typewriter have different colours. Is this a coincidence?

Another non sequitur that avoids substantiating your claims with evidence by moving the goalposts onto something completely unrelated and equally unsubstantiated with evidence. You have still yet to explain how:

A) Sound (waves of air pressure) have colour (our brain's perception of EMR)
B) EMR has sound
C) These two different properties are in fact the same and linked in any way
edit on 2-12-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Because I can't post what I want from my iPhone? I have a chart that corresponds to colors and notes. However, it is on my PC my Phone. You are twisting my words around, by the way.

www.colorconnections.com...

www.colorconnections.com...

www.colorconnections.com...

www.colorconnections.com...

www.colorconnections.com...

www.colorconnections.com...

www.colorconnections.com...

m.dukechronicle.com...

psychology.about.com...

I wonder if the music notes can match the same emotions as colors, hmm?



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 





A) Sound (waves of air pressure) have colour (our brain's perception of EMR)


Oh congratulations! We know this; but I guess that must mean we know everything about color/light and sound! Nevermind studying the underlying phenomena that is what we perceive itself as sound or light. This could be likened to to temping a glass of water, "It's cold and wet, we know everything about water now!"
edit on 2-12-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


Sure we do not know everything, but are you suggesting that whenever there is a (presumed) gap in our knowledge it is ok to just make up anything that pleases us and then act as if it is real? Or do we test our new ideas the same way as we did with the things we already know?

This whole idea of sound and light being the same is based on nothing more than ignorance of both physics and the scientific method. I think the first is no problem, but the second is. Learn how science works and why it works so extremely well.
edit on 2-12-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Because I can't post what I want from my iPhone? I have a chart that corresponds to colors and notes. However, it is on my PC my Phone. You are twisting my words around, by the way.

www.colorconnections.com...

www.colorconnections.com...

www.colorconnections.com...

www.colorconnections.com...

www.colorconnections.com...

www.colorconnections.com...

www.colorconnections.com...

m.dukechronicle.com...

psychology.about.com...

I wonder if the music notes can match the same emotions as colors, hmm?


1) I ask for academic literature linking physical phenomen and you point me to a website advertising "gem stones" and "spiritual influences"? No, please substantiate the specific claims you have made using academic literature, nor another non sequitur.

2) What does a study on people's subjective interpretation of sound have to do with anything? People interperate sounds differently, this does not mean that sound has an objectively measurable and persistent property called "colour". Yet again you commit the fallacy of connecting subjective sensory interoperation with objective physical phenomen. How about you demonstrate that synethesiacs experience the same sensations like I asked? After all, if your assertions were correct then this would at least be the case.

3) Again, what does colour psychology have to do with anything? It's another completely subjective sensory interperation. You could do a study in people' emotional responses to different trees, does this mean that certain trees have a physical property called "sadness"?

You have still yet to demonstrate scientifically how air pressure can have objectively have colour as a physical property and visa versa. You have specifically stated:

A) Colours have sounds
B) Sounds have colour
C) Colour and sound are interchangeable (allong with anything else we describe with a property called "frequency")

You have then used some device which artificially reinterperates sound as colour as evidence that air pressure waves have a physical property called "colour". I have rebutted this claim which you have still yet to directly address.

You then attempted to use synethesia as evidence that synethesiacs are directly sensing this additional objective physical property of sound called "colour" and visa versa. I have rebutted this claim which you have still yet to directly address.

You have also sneakily edited a post where I responded to AfterInfinity's challenge to state my credentials (which, surprise surprise, he didn't reciprocate) to insinuate that I was attempting to use my stated credentials to stifle debate. This is both false and intellectually dishonest of you.

Furthermore, you have the audacity of crying wolf about "ad hominem attacks" when I have neither insulted you, called you names or, as with the actual definition of an ad hominem, attacked you character instead of your argument. Ironically, you have made ad hominem attacks by calling me a liar, indoctrinated and a stifler of debate instead of directly addressing my rebuttals. You are, by definition, a hypocrite.
edit on 2-12-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   
By the way, all of this completely disregards the amount of internal processing your brain does to auditory signals. Even what you "hear" of sound pressure waves is a complete resynthesis of the raw data. Do you own a stereo? There's no such thing as stereophonic audio, it exists soley in your head. The sound stage you are hearing doesn't exist, it is a reproduction that is entirely the work of your brain. If you were to hear the raw signals it would sound a confusing mess.

This is but one example. How about the way your brain uses the numerous indirect sound waves reflected off surfaces to give you spatial cues? Your brain has a cutoff point where it merges reflected signals into one or treats them as separate, independent signals. How does this tie in with the notion that what we hear objectively correlates directly to light and vision (with the latter undergoing a similar filtering and resynthesis process), that we're "hearing" colour and "seeing" sound because thry are the same thing?



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


If a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? The point here being, just because it doesn't affect our senses directly, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just makes it that much harder to isolate. So what we're saying here is that the vibrations of color, sound, etc all have an effect on us because our biology uses the same system in order to function.

And because technology is adding koolaid to milk, so to speak, it's ruining the natural harmonies that keep our bodies in prime vibrational condition. Meditation works on the principle of tuning our vibrations into the ether, slowing down the processes so we're not taking in so much negative feedback from the world and our reactions to it. That's why it calms us. Positive thinking aids with healing because it speeds up the vibrations, and therefore the natural recuperative processes. Love makes us feel alive because it's a higher vibrational emotion, and depression drains us of all that energy.

We are composed of frequencies. Naturally, outside frequencies will either help or hurt us. Because of universal design, our world automatically develops that which it can sustain. Anything else does not develop because it doesn't have a place in that particular area. A fish will not grow from a tree, and potatoes will not be born from eggs. And so our bodies are automatically designed to feed from the frequencies around us, but now we're developing other tools that interfere with said frequency. As a result, you're washing vitamins down with urine, or some similar equivalent. And it starts a snowball effect. We will either break from the cycle, or just break, period.

That's the point of this thread, if I am not much mistaken. We are playing god, and we are doing a horrible job of it. We just can't see it because we live in the moment. The only people looking ahead are the people encouraging us to go day to day.

Do I have a solution for this maelstrom of frequencies? Nope. Do I want us to focus on that instead of on infringing upon other countries because of our oil addiction? Sure. Do I consider finding a solution to be necessary? Absolutely.

Your opinion is your opinion, but I can't make our viewpoint much clearer than I have in this post. Sorry if you don't get it, but maybe that means it's time for you to do your own research or remain forever ignorant on the subject. If that's the case, then I am genuinely puzzled as to what you're even doing in this thread.

That concludes my say on the matter. Any questions are more than welcome. If there's nothing else I can do for you, then have a wonderful and enlightening day. And keep smiling. Smiles always make it easier to laugh at life's speedbumps.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Is this the way it's going to be now? Just posting completely unsubstantiated conjecture and calling any scientifically-based rebuttals "a difference of opinion"? You have not backed one word you've said in this post with evidence nor have you directly addressed previous rebuttals I or anyone else has made. Am i supposed to blindly accept what you say or carry on this wild goose chase of rebutting even MORE baseless assertions? Because I'm doing neither.

Not only that but you made pompous demands about stating my credentials only to make a childish and condescending remarks regarding the limits of my experience yet have completely ducked requests to reciprocate the demand you made. As with other posters in this thread, you avoid directly addressing people's arguments when they challenge you and instead keep making more baseless "hit and run" assertions expecting people to just accept what you say (rather ironically, this is an explicit form of closed mindedness). But of course you never address the challenge to your assertions, you simply move onto a new baseless assumption ad nauseum. You expect others to simply accept what you say yet refuse to listen or address any opposing views? How conceited of you. And you have the nerve to paint the entire human race as "arrogant" and "full of ourselves"?

This is the pattern here. There is no scope for an intelligent and informed discussion in this thread when one side refuses to address rebuttals or substantiate their claims with evidence but instead cries "Ad hominum! You're indoctrinated! You're part of the NWO! The science is just your opinion!". Nothing fruitful can come from a discussion where one side refuses to address or directly challenge opposing viewpoints. Oh, the arrogance of man, as you so put it.





new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join