Resonance – Beings of Frequency (Documentary)

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by john_bmth

 

Talk less trash and more evidence, if you would. If you feel this topic is not worth the time spent starting it, then state your case and support it. Lead by example.

He's correct. The term "frequency" is an attribute. It's not a tangible. I can't throw a bucket of frequency at you.

You always have to define "frequency of what", implicitly or explicitly. When you see people use it as a tangible, it's a woo sign. Sort of like "vibration", "field" and "energy", I'm waiting for those to show up as well.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas

See now that is where you are just plan wrong. I have researched their 'theory' on my own, through first-hand experience. Ever heard of Astral Projection? Have you ever read the Kybalion?

Aaaand we have a winner. It's VA by a nose.

Is your body not made up of particles endowed with the principle of vibration?

They're in motion, because I'm not at absolute zero. However, which "principle of vibration" are you referring to? Does this principle involve "nice" things having a different vibration than 'not nice' things? If so, the Theosophy line is over that way.

Light, color, and sounds are all vibrations. Now wouldn't vibrations have different wavelengths and frequencies as evidence in the ROYGBIV scale?

No. Light is an electromagnetic wave phenomenon. Color is a perception of the frequency of light. Sound is a compression wave in a material. Thus, light can HAVE a place on your "ROYGBIV" scale, color IS a designator in your "ROYGBIV" scale, and sound isn't EM so it doesn't apply at all.

reply to post by Bedlam


m.cbsnews.com...

Colors do have sounds. 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?

Also a direct quote

detects the color frequency of the item that is passed in front of it, turns it into a sound frequency and passes the information to a chip installed at the back of Harbisson's head. He then is able to hear the color through bone conduction, or sound waves that are created as they pass through the bones of the skull to the inner ear.

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

reply to post by Bedlam


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

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Bedlam

 

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

edit on 1-12-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)

All that link says is that you can arbitrarily assign a specific sound vibration to go off when an em detector registers a specific wavelength/frequency of light. You could pick any sound for any color and it would still work. By telling the color blind man which arbitrarily assigned sound goes with each specific color he can now identify individual colors. It does not in anyway say that colors have sound. If we changed the sound associated with each color he would still be able to identify the colors, but if color had a sound we wouldn't be able to change the sound at all in the first place.

It's like saying pain has a sound because you make different kinds of yelps when I prick you softly or when I jab you. Just like not everyone's yelps are going to be the same relative to the prick strength we can change which tones are associated with which colors. But pain doesn't have a sound.

reply to post by framedragged


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

Color Frequency

This should educate you. If you have any more questions, Google will be more than happy to assist you in your endeavors.

reply to post by framedragged


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

m.bbc.co.uk...

Senses are how we perceive something in reality, so why would they not be linked?

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by -PLB-

 

Ahh. The skepticism; and so it begins.

edit on 1-12-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)

Ahh. The ignorance; it never ends.

Seriously, "natural frequencies"? Chuck in the word "resonance" and "vibrations" and you've got the ingredients for a hearty woo hoo word soup.

So you need information wrapped in a pretty bow with safe & simple words that you're familiar with in order to be willing to check it out?

Mentalities like that are why we are in the crisis we're in now. It's the NWO's dream citizen, easily manipulated & pre-programed to respond negatively to foreign information outside their safe zones.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


No. Reinterpreting a digital representation of colour as a digital representation of sound does NOT mean that "colour has sound" or that the two phenomenm are in any way magically linked. And at what point did anyone say "frequency has no correlation to wavelength"? Frequency is a property, just like length is a property. That does NOT mean that my hair and the wavelength of a sound pressure wave are mystically linked by some eoo hoo because they both have a human attributed property called 'length', both of which have a different meaning for the different contexts.

reply to post by JibbyJedi


I like my information backed up by empirical evidence by people who are knowledgeable on the given topic but I guess I'm in the wrong thread for that.

reply to post by john_bmth


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.

If we were all to hear the frequency of red, for example, we would hear a note that is in between F and F sharp. Red is the lowest frequency colour and the highest is violet.

That doesn't sound very subjective; he isn't just talking about him. Colors do have sounds. 7 colors of ROYGBIV and the 7 notes of the chromatic scale? I mean let's not forget the 7 days of the week, or 7 Chakras in Hinduism which the Mantras respond to the same 7-note scale.

reply to post by john_bmth

No. Reinterpreting a digital representation of colour as a digital representation of sound does NOT mean that "colour has sound" or that the two phenomenm are in any way magically linked.

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

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


You should follow your own advice and keep reading because it specifically states that the device translates colour into sound. Sound is air pressure waves. Colour is EMR. Both can be represented numerically thus one can be subjectively "translated" into the other. Notice the bolded term. The frequency property of sound is measured up to kilohertz, light in terahertz. They are human ascribed properties, that they share a common name does not magically link them of anything else with such a human ascribed property.

By your logic, I can translate sound into hair. I hear an oscillator and grow my hair to the wavelength of that oscillator's pitch. Hair is sound! Sound is hair! They're connected by frequencies because hairlength = wavelength!!! You heard it here first

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I have a Phd in computing and have limited experience with digital signal processing so yes, you could say I am somewhat familiar with numerical representations of sound and light signals. Seeing as we're playing this childish pissing up the wall game of credential chest puffing, what "degrees in this area" do you have that make you above reading a Wikipedia article on either topic and actually informing yourself before propagating such woo nonsense in the OP?

reply to post by john_bmth


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

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Why is it that you must have a 'degree' in order to have a legitimate say so? Forgive me if I don't want to be indoctrinate just like they tried in public schooling? They discourage free thinking and that is the antithesis to philosophy.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

It IS about digital representation because the device is digital. It is Digital Signal Processing. Even putting this aside, all this is is reinterpreting a numerical property. Continuous or discrete, it does not matter. I can reinterperate the numerical representation of the number of cents in my pocket into colour if I so chose. Ill even call this figure the "frequency" of cents in my pocket. Does this mean these two properties of frequency are now magically linked? Of course not.

As for subjectivity, the concept of F or F# is another human ascribed attribute. ANY scalar property can be reinterpreted as musical note pitch or any other scalar property you fancy. Why pitch? Why not height? Or weight? Or the diameter of my little finger? But all this is beside the point... are you tell me you can hear sound wavelengths measuring in the TERAHERTZ range?

reply to post by john_bmth

I have a Phd in computing and have limited experience with digital signal processing so yes, you could say I am somewhat familiar with numerical representations of sound and light signals. Seeing as we're playing this childish pissing up the wall game of credential chest puffing, what "degrees in this area" do you have that make you above reading a Wikipedia article on either topic and actually informing yourself before propagating such woo nonsense in the OP?

Limited experience? That's impressive. No, I don't intend to start any chest-beating around here. Anyone familiar with ATS knows how that sort of business ends up.

Tell me - did you bother watching the documentary and compiling a list of contradictory facts proving the premise to be flawed? Maybe, instead of barking around in this thread, you should do that so we can look it over and not have to confront your ugly temper.

reply to post by john_bmth


No. Senses are different ways of perceiving the same thing, but perceiving that thing with more than just one at a time is the key.

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

reply to post by VeritasAequitas
I have mild synethesia in that I see sound as colours and shapes. That's just the wiring of my brain. I have a collegue who has the same thing. Guess what? We don't "see" the same shapes and colours. None of this has anything to do with converting a representation of colour into a representation of sound or visa versa.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


Yeah? Care to back up you claim that our hearing is another way of sensing EMR? Or that our vision is another way of sensing air pressure? Because you couldn't be any more wrong.