Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
coberst

Can we compare physics and psychology?

19 posts in this topic

Can we compare physics and psychology?

Libido is an energy source—Heat is an energy source—there is potential and kinetic energy

Emotion aka instinct is an energy source—

Narcissism is a force—gravity is a force—electromagnetism is a force—within the atom there are the strong and weak forces—there are four physical forces within nature. Narcissism is a force that displays itself in--self-absorption—self-love—sense of immortality—self-esteem—cosmic significance—self-importance—feeds on symbols, on abstract ideas of my own worth

Guilt is a feeling caused by outside resistance

Feeling—the mental experience of an emotion after the body has reacted to the emotion

Neurosis is the control of anxiety by restricting experience—the humanization process is neurosis in action

Anxiety is a feeling, the penalty for becoming human, i.e. for becoming self-conscious; it is not based on instinct but is based upon individual sense of helplessness.

Ego controls responses by delaying action

Hero—the world is a stage for heroism—our main task on this earth—man’s natural yearning for organismic activity, the pleasure of incorporation and expansion, fed limitlessly in the domain of symbols—we compare one another symbolically—we are ignorant of what we want and need, we disguise it in consumption as our badges—desire to be hero is natural and to admit it is healthy—need to make me, man, nation, etc, meaningful—our need for freedom is our need to be a hero—it becomes a blind-drivenness that burns us up—we must feel that what we do is heroic—crises is when youth does not feel heroic, we have a crisis of heroism—religion is no longer a stage for heroism—heroics is a central theme of human action

Culture is a symbolic action system for heroism—to give death its due is perhaps a step back that will permit a step forward—death is reality, when we repress it what happens?—

This is how our brain works. We think with the aid of past experiences. We use linguistic metaphors to give others a direction for understanding. Our brain uses conceptual metaphors this same way; automatically using conceptual metaphors. LIFE IS A JOURNEY. Automatically our brain “copies” what we already know about journeys that help us to better comprehend the task of living.

Abstract ideas are largely metaphorical.

An infant is born and when embraced for the first time by its mother the infant experiences the sensation of warmth. In succeeding experiences the warmth is felt along with other sensations.

Empirical data verifies that there often happens a conflation of this sensation experience together with the development of a subjective (abstract) concept we can call affection. With each similar experience the infant fortifies both the sensation experience and the affection experience and a little later this conflation aspect ends and the child has these two concepts in different mental spaces.

This conflation leads us to readily recognize the metaphor ‘affection is warmth’.

Cognitive science uses metaphor in the standard usage as we are all accustomed to but it also uses a new concept that you are unfamiliar with unless you have been reading this book. This new concept is called ‘conceptual metaphor’. Conceptual metaphor is the heart of this new cognitive science and represents what will be in my opinion the new paradigm of cognitive science.

In my example I speak of two separate mental spaces; one being the experience of being held and the other is the subjective experience of affection. The theory behind the ‘conceptual metaphor’ is that the structure of the sense experience can and is often automatically without conscious intention mapped into a new mental space.

The experience structure can be mapped into a new mental space and thereby becomes part of the structure of that new mental space. In this fashion these conceptual metaphors can act somewhat like atoms that join together to make a molecule.

SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) has developed new and revolutionary theories regarding how cognition works. One way that it works is through metaphor, not just linguistic but also through conceptual metaphor. You ought to give it a study. You might be surprised how many things will become clearer.

I am a retired engineer; that is why I think using physics as an aid in comprehending the world I live in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can we compare physics and psychology?

Libido is an energy source—Heat is an energy source—there is potential and kinetic energy

Emotion aka instinct is an energy source—

Narcissism is a force—gravity is a force—electromagnetism is a force—within the atom there are the strong and weak forces—there are four physical forces within nature. Narcissism is a force that displays itself in--self-absorption—self-love—sense of immortality—self-esteem—cosmic significance—self-importance—feeds on symbols, on abstract ideas of my own worth

Guilt is a feeling caused by outside resistance

Feeling—the mental experience of an emotion after the body has reacted to the emotion

Neurosis is the control of anxiety by restricting experience—the humanization process is neurosis in action

Anxiety is a feeling, the penalty for becoming human, i.e. for becoming self-conscious; it is not based on instinct but is based upon individual sense of helplessness.

Ego controls responses by delaying action

In this context anxiety doesn't seem like a negative thing.

—we compare one another symbolically—we are ignorant of what we want and need, we disguise it in consumption as our badges—

I agree. There's a song about this ( lyrics are on the right ):

This conflation leads us to readily recognize the metaphor ‘affection is warmth’.

I have read some other things to this effect, but this adds a greater understanding to it.

SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) has developed new and revolutionary theories regarding how cognition works. One way that it works is through metaphor, not just linguistic but also through conceptual metaphor. You ought to give it a study. You might be surprised how many things will become clearer.

I plan to, thanks coberst, another good post :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can compare them metaphorically, but that's about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The purpose of my post was to illuminate how my past experiences provide the background for comprehending my new experiences.

I have for many months been studying the new theories of cognitive science detailed in the book “Philosophy in the Flesh” by Lakoff and Johnson. I am convinced that these theories will change dramatically our comprehension of how human cognition functions.

We have in our Western philosophy a traditional theory of faculty psychology wherein our reasoning is a faculty completely separate from the body. “Reason is seen as independent of perception and bodily movement.” It is this capacity of autonomous reason that makes us different in kind from all other animals. I suspect that many fundamental aspects of philosophy and psychology are focused upon declaring, whenever possible, the separateness of our species from all other animals.

This tradition of an autonomous reason began long before evolutionary theory and has held strongly since then without consideration, it seems to me, of the theories of Darwin and of biological science. Cognitive science has in the last three decades developed considerable empirical evidence supporting Darwin and not supporting the traditional theories of philosophy and psychology regarding the autonomy of reason. Cognitive science has focused a great deal of empirical science toward discovering the nature of the embodied mind.

The three major findings of cognitive science are:

The mind is inherently embodied.

Thought is mostly unconscious.

Abstract concepts are largely metaphorical.

“These findings of cognitive science are profoundly disquieting [for traditional thinking] in two respects. First, they tell us that human reason is a form of animal reason, a reason inextricably tied to our bodies and the peculiarities of our brains. Second, these results tell us that our bodies, brains, and interactions with our environment provide the mostly unconscious basis for our everyday metaphysics, that is, our sense of what is real.”

All living creatures categorize. All creatures, as a minimum, separate eat from no eat and friend from foe. As neural creatures tadpole and wo/man categorize. There are trillions of synaptic connections taking place in the least sophisticated of creatures and this multiple synapses must be organized in some way to facilitate passage through a small number of interconnections and thus categorization takes place. Great numbers of different synapses take place in an experience and these are subsumed in some fashion to provide the category eat or foe perhaps.

Our categories are what we consider to be real in the world: tree, rock, animal…Our concepts are what we use to structure our reasoning about these categories. Concepts are neural structures that are the fundamental means by which we reason about categories.

Quotes from “Philosophy in the Flesh”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, gravity isn't considered a "force" in contemporary physics. It's a curvature of space-time. Also, mathematics are abstract, and it's hard to see how they are metaphorical. Of course, science does employ metaphors, but usually asa shorthand designation for mathematically derived theories. Finally, I'm not disposed to award psychology the name of science, not if we mean by the term "science" objective, mathematically-supported knowledge. Psychiatry--which is a medical degree--is much closer to science than psychology is. Psychology is really only the old philosophy of mind with a scientistic method grafted onto it. In other words, do get too giddy about the "findings" of self-proclaimed "cognitive scientists." Psychology has a lousy track record in curing mental diseases, despite expanding that category to increase the clientelle. As long as psychology remains largely heuristic, or descriptive, rather than propedeutic, or therapeutic, it will remain pseudo-scientific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, mathematics are abstract, and it's hard to see how they are metaphorical.

It is a hypothesis of SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) that the sensorimotor activity of collecting objects by a child constitute a conceptual metaphor at the neural level leading to a primary metaphor that ‘arithmetic is object collection’. The arithmetic teacher attempting to teach the child at a later time depends upon this already accumulated knowledge. Of course, all of this is known to the child without the symbolization or the conscious awareness of the child.

The pile of objects became ‘bigger’ when the child added more objects and became ‘smaller’ when objects were removed. The child easily recognizes while being taught arithmetic that 5 is bigger than 3 and 3 is littler than 7. The child knows many entailments, many ‘truths’, resulting from playing with objects. The teacher has little difficulty convincing the child that two collections A and B are increased when another collection C is added, or that if A is bigger than B then A+C is bigger than B+C.

At birth an infant has a minimal innate arithmetic ability. This ability to add and subtract small numbers is called subitizing. (I am speaking of a cardinal number—a number that specifies how many objects there are in a collection, don’t confuse this with numeral—a symbol). Many animals display this subitizing ability.

In addition to subitizing the child, while playing with objects, develops other cognitive capacities such as grouping, ordering, pairing, memory, exhaustion-detection, cardinal-number assignment, and independent order.

Subitizing ability is limited to quantities 1 to 4. As a child grows s/he learns to count beyond 4 objects. This capacity is dependent upon 1) Combinatorial-grouping—a cognitive mechanism that allows you to put together perceived or imagined groups to form larger groups. 2) Symbolizing capacity—capacity to associate physical symbols or words with numbers (quantities).

“Metaphorizing capacity: You need to be able to conceptualize cardinal numbers and arithmetic operations in terms of your experience of various kinds—experiences with groups of objects, with the part-whole structure of objects, with distances, with movement and location, and so on.”

“Conceptual-blending capacity. You need to be able to form correspondences across conceptual domains (e.g., combining subitizing with counting) and put together different conceptual metaphors to form complex metaphors.”

Primary metaphors function somewhat like atoms that can be joined into molecules and these into a compound neural network. On the back cover of “Where Mathematics Comes From” is written “In this acclaimed study of cognitive science of mathematical ideas, renowned linguist George Lakoff pairs with psychologist Rafael Nunez to offer a new understanding of how we conceive and understand mathematical concepts.”

“Abstract ideas, for the most part, arise via conceptual metaphor—a cognitive mechanism that derives abstract thinking from the way we function in the everyday physical world. Conceptual metaphor plays a central and defining role in the formation of mathematical ideas within the cognitive unconscious—from arithmetic and algebra to sets and logic to infinity in all of its forms. The brains mathematics is mathematics, the only mathematics we know or can know.”

We are acculturated to recognize that a useful life is a life with purpose. The complex metaphor ‘A Purposeful Life Is a Journey’ is constructed from primary metaphors: ‘purpose is destination’ and ‘action is motion’; and a cultural belief that ‘people should have a purpose’.

A Purposeful Life Is A Journey Metaphor

A purposeful life is a journey.

A person living a life is a traveler.

Life goals are destinations

A life plan is an itinerary.

This metaphor has strong influence on how we conduct our lives. This influence arises from the complex metaphor’s entailments: A journey, with its accompanying complications, requires planning, and the necessary means.

Primary metaphors ‘ground’ concepts to sensorimotor experience. Is this grounding lost in a complex metaphor? ‘Not by the hair of your chiney-chin-chin’. Complex metaphors are composed of primary metaphors and the whole is grounded by its parts. “The grounding of A Purposeful Life Is A Journey is given by individual groundings of each component primary metaphor.”

The ideas for this post come from “Philosophy in the Flesh”. The quotes are from “Where Mathematics Comes From” by Lakoff and Nunez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as all concerned I wanted to make sure we were on the same page....

Quantum Mind

Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Psychy is a matter of chemical reactions in the brain that produces actions. Physics are used to place a title chemically to whats firing and whats not. "I think", Yeah. :unsure2::blush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

xCrimsonx check this out....

David Bohm

Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

xCrimsonx check this out....

David Bohm

Any thoughts?

WOW! That the tickled the brain quite alot.

I so regret not taking physics! :wacko: Im not real academic but bare with me.

In the 1960s Bohm began to take a closer look at the notion of order. One day he saw a device on a television program that immediately fired his imagination. It consisted of two concentric glass cylinders, the space between them being filled with glycerin, a highly viscous fluid. If a droplet of ink is placed in the fluid and the outer cylinder is turned, the droplet is drawn out into a thread that eventually becomes so thin that it disappears from view; the ink particles are enfolded into the glycerin. But if the cylinder is then turned in the opposite direction, the thread-form reappears and rebecomes a droplet; the droplet is unfolded again. Bohm realized that when the ink was diffused through the glycerin it was not a state of "disorder" but possessed a hidden, or nonmanifest, order.

This is very interesting. Somehow It reminds me of the earths axis. You know the experiment of a spinning wheel and how Its immposible to turn It horizontally whilst in motion.

Is It possable that the gylcerine test has a connection to the earths poles?? Not a direct correlation to say the e.g compus but similar.

Another metaphor Bohm uses to illustrate the implicate order is that of the hologram. To make a hologram a laser light is split into two beams, one of which is reflected off an object onto a photographic plate where it interferes with the second beam. The complex swirls of the interference pattern recorded on the photographic plate appear meaningless and disordered to the naked eye. But like the ink drop dispersed in the glycerin, the pattern possesses a hidden or enfolded order, for when illuminated with laser light it produces a three-dimensional image of the original object, which can be viewed from any angle. A remarkable feature of a hologram is that if a holographic film is cut into pieces, each piece produces an image of the whole object, though the smaller the piece the hazier the image. Clearly the form and structure of the entire object are encoded within each region of the photographic record.

Mirrors is what came to mind when I read this, obviously photography and also Im not sure why Graphic design ect.

Bohm suggests that the whole universe can be thought of as a kind of giant, flowing hologram, or holomovement, in which a total order is contained, in some implicit sense, in each region of space and time. The explicate order is a projection from higher dimensional levels of reality, and the apparent stability and solidity of the objects and entities composing it are generated and sustained by a ceaseless process of enfoldment and unfoldment, for subatomic particles are constantly dissolving into the implicate order and then recrystallizing.

This intreaged me, for all we know stars themselves could be holograms.

Bohm believes that life and consciousness are enfolded deep in the generative order and are therefore present in varying degrees of unfoldment in all matter, including supposedly "inanimate" matter such as electrons or plasmas. He suggests that there is a "protointelligence" in matter, so that new evolutionary developments do not emerge in a random fashion but creatively as relatively integrated wholes from implicate levels of reality. The mystical connotations of Bohm's ideas are underlined by his remark that the implicate domain "could equally well be called Idealism, Spirit, Consciousness. The separation of the two -- matter and spirit -- is an abstraction. The ground is always one."

Random, (chance) converts into statistic (correlation and numbers). "Idealism, Spirit, Consciousness"

Idealism tempts the spirit to question Consciousness, chemical and atomic proof, (science). One must see to believe. Without the potential of wonder scientist would have nothing to play with.

Bohm believed that the general tendency for individuals, nations, races, social groups, etc., to see one another as fundamentally different and separate was a major source of conflict in the world. It was his hope that one day people would come to recognize the essential interrelatedness of all things and would join together to build a more holistic and harmonious world. What better tribute to David Bohm's life and work than to take this message to heart and make the ideal of universal brotherhood the keynote of our lives.

Here, here and too right I say.

I really did enjoy the read Triad, thank you much for sharing.

I think want to take some classes now. :blush:

Edited by xCrimsonx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the 1930s he attended Pennsylvania State College where he became deeply interested in quantum physics, the physics of the subatomic realm. After graduating, he attended the University of California, Berkeley. While there he worked at the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory where, after receiving his doctorate in 1943, he began what was to become his landmark work on plasmas (a plasma is a gas containing a high density of electrons and positive ions). Bohm was surprised to find that once electrons were in a plasma, they stopped behaving like individuals and started behaving as if they were part of a larger and interconnected whole. He later remarked that he frequently had the impression that the sea of electrons was in some sense alive.

Plasma im familiar with. So e.g The human body is made up of an average of 8ltrs of plamsa without electric impulses from the brain haemo gases would not flow.

So on its own a plasma without a source is nothing, correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yes when holograms were first made they used glass to maintain the images ,if you were to break one the effect mentioned above would be easy to see.

Try this one....

EPR and Bells Theorem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The type of plasma he is looking at is what happens to matter when it reaches temperatures equal to that on the surface of the sun. He observed that at such temperatures electrons behave like they

are no longer individual atoms. As with the other link I posted Bohm realized then that everything that exists is interconnected at the Quantum Scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Bohm informs us that in early culture we humans exercised “participatory thought”; this form of thinking is still common today—people felt that they were participation in the big picture—plains Indians felt that there were many buffalo that were displays of the spirit of buffalo and that in hunting and eating this buffalo the Indians participated in this world spirit—likewise the Eskimo felt similarly being a participant of the spirit of seals—these people felt that in their thoughts they participated in these worldly spirits.

Modern man has converted somewhat from such thoughts “We want to have a thought about something where we don’t participate, where we think about it and know just what it is.”—the form of thought which we modern man prefers are what is called “literal thought”.

Literal thought is intended to reflect just reality as it really exists—it is thought that focus on “just the facts mam”—technology aims for literal thought--the scientific method enthrones literal thought

Some compare this attitude about literal thought as being a form of idol worship—when we construct an idol it is a representative of some force, after awhile the idol becomes in our thoughts that force—example is when the flag becomes a literal thought of a nation—thus we overvalue the symbol—literal thought and participatory thought stand side by side but generally those things that we value most involve participatory thought—“the tribe and the totem—we are identical”—when my country is attacked, I am attacked; when my conclusions are attacked I am attacked.

Explicitly we give supreme value to literal thought—tacitly we give supreme value to participatory thought—literal thought makes technology possible and participatory thought went underground, the crazy aunt in the attic.

Participatory thought creates a sense of belonging; it does not create a separation of subject and object. “That way of thinking would not lead anybody to plunder the planet.”

Participatory thought however has some dangers. When Indian tribes thought of them selves as human beings and ‘human being’ became a word for tribal members then when engaging other tribes in battle that tribe were not ‘human beings’. Likewise in Hitler’s Germany a similar situation prevailed.

As society began to develop larger groups literal thought became more prevalent; these societies need much better organization. They organized society by saying “You belong here, you do this, and you do that…They began, therefore, to treat everything as a separate object, including other people. They used people as a means to an end.”

How do these characteristics of thought affect our ability to communicate and to “just get along”?

Quotes from On Dialogue David Bohm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Psychy is a matter of chemical reactions in the brain that produces actions. Physics are used to place a title chemically to whats firing and whats not. "I think", Yeah. :unsure2::blush:

Nice teeth, you can bite my neck anytime. :lol:

But yeah, it's more for titles. When it comes to chemicals in the brain, certain chemicals have reactions to other chemicals as they are produced in the brain. These reactions care commonly called synapses which are the basis for all thought patterns, and emotions. Personally I don't see how this relates to physics since physics is the law of the physical world. A better word to have used by the OP would have been Biology, or even physiology.

OP, if you really want to throw a monkey wrench into your thinking, study Black Holes. But take a breather every now and then or your head will explode. :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the 1930s he attended Pennsylvania State College where he became deeply interested in quantum physics, the physics of the subatomic realm. After graduating, he attended the University of California, Berkeley. While there he worked at the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory where, after receiving his doctorate in 1943, he began what was to become his landmark work on plasmas (a plasma is a gas containing a high density of electrons and positive ions). Bohm was surprised to find that once electrons were in a plasma, they stopped behaving like individuals and started behaving as if they were part of a larger and interconnected whole. He later remarked that he frequently had the impression that the sea of electrons was in some sense alive.

Plasma im familiar with. So e.g The human body is made up of an average of 8ltrs of plamsa without electric impulses from the brain haemo gases would not flow.

So on its own a plasma without a source is nothing, correct?

Not exactly. Plasma moves through the body carrying blood that is the life of the human body. The brain controls to a limited degree the pumping of the heart. The brain doesn't exactly send the synapses directly to the blood. The synapses travel through the nervous system from the brain to the heart and the rest of the bodies systems. When it sends to the heart, the heart then pumps the plasma and blood cells through the vessels. Some parts of the body doesn't need as much blood as other parts, that's why if you take blood from one part and go to another part, the number of blood cells and the amount of plasma changes. One part may have more blood cells, less plasma. Another part may have more plasma, less blood cells. Plasma basically carries the blood cells and oxygen(among other things), throughout the body. But really it's not directly affected by synapses. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really the only problem I have here is relating psychology with Quantum Physics. They really have nothing to do with one another. Quantum Physics isn't New Age, but a study of physics outside normal physics. Take a Black Hole for example. Inside a black hole, all physics become backwards which is why it is a challenge to currently understood physics. It was once thought that black holes were a hole into nothing, but that is far from the truth. I'll start by saying there are 2 types. A White Hole. and a Black Hole. The center of the Milky Way is a white hole that throws out cosmic matter as it burns brightly. That is why it produces light. A black hole is the reverse. It pulls in all cosmic matter and light. But it doesn't go nowhere, it simply breaks it back down smaller than atoms into what it was before it became planets, stars, and everything else in the galaxy. If you want me to continue on, you'll have to ask me, because this goes way beyond psychology.

You see how different this is compared to psychology though? They're not even close. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really the only problem I have here is relating psychology with Quantum Physics. They really have nothing to do with one another. Quantum Physics isn't New Age, but a study of physics outside normal physics. Take a Black Hole for example. Inside a black hole, all physics become backwards which is why it is a challenge to currently understood physics. It was once thought that black holes were a hole into nothing, but that is far from the truth. I'll start by saying there are 2 types. A White Hole. and a Black Hole. The center of the Milky Way is a white hole that throws out cosmic matter as it burns brightly. That is why it produces light. A black hole is the reverse. It pulls in all cosmic matter and light. But it doesn't go nowhere, it simply breaks it back down smaller than atoms into what it was before it became planets, stars, and everything else in the galaxy. If you want me to continue on, you'll have to ask me, because this goes way beyond psychology.

You see how different this is compared to psychology though? They're not even close. :tu:

I agree, psychology and physics are separate subjects. Quantum Physics is very important and studying this in depth will go a long way to determine what reality is exactly. We're finding out more and more about the universe these days, and getting closer to answers which is very exciting. Psychology is more internal to a person, quantum physics can be viewed as external, encomapassing the world and wider universe.

I want to hear from Sideshow Bob! (sorry, Simpsons quote, couldn't resist!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know that whole issue concerning science and probability? The one which presents that nothing is impossible only improbable? Historically speaking a very relevant aspect of rule, as for the most part the effort to interfere with "Free thinking" (for lack of a better term) has been extreme. :no: one could also add words like torture, mass graves, inquisitions to name a few. Here is the thing, the most anyone could legitimately say about

an idea which has the support of legitimate scientists (like David Bohm and Sir Roger Penrose to name a few). I understand Meiliken that as you say, you feel you know allot about modern physics and what you think is really important to take into consideration. But and also clearly we are discussing the fundamentals here in relation to modern science. Something, which has worked since the beginning of the scientific method and the end of the past unsuccessful methodologies.

Clearly Meiliken you feel that, it is highly improbable for the electro-chemical processes inherent in the human condition (brain activity, mind-body connection and so on) to effectively engage and or interact. With inherent quantum processes. I also feel with some degree of certainty

quantum mechanics

Function:noun plural but singular or plural in construction

Date:1922

: a theory of matter that is based on the concept of the possession of wave properties by elementary particles, that affords a mathematical interpretation of the structure and interactions of matter on the basis of these properties, and that incorporates within it quantum theory and the uncertainty principle —called also wave mechanics

— quantum mechanical adjective

— quantum mechanically adverb

I disagree and for several reasons. Amongst them, is the simple fact that your qualifications to arbitrarily deny, ad hoc, any conclusion which is supported by reputable members of the scientific community is mute. I apologize if that offends you but I am sure you can see where I am coming from here. I myself am somewhat offended that you have chosen this path, given what is explained above gives you an idea of why.

I also feel that when it comes to wave properties words such as frequencies and oscillations come to mind as well as does the word octave.

And more of course.

It is very possible in my mind Meiliken and not just because of physicists who have stepped up to the plate.......it has to do with experiences. In my experiences what these prominent scientist are presenting seems worthy of discussion.

Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.