- #36
pallidin
- 2,209
- 2
Well, having listened to this discussion I suppose it could be said that everything has a vibrational aspect.
After all, zero-degree's Kelvin has never been(nor expected to be) experimentally achievable, and has never been observed in nature.
Given that, I suppose that most(if not all) everything has a vibrational component to its existence.
I further assume that when you mention "sound", you are referring to generalized vibration, not specific to the common phenomenon of sound as we are most accustomed to(requiring a physical medium to propagate).
If that's the case well, OK, most would agree and have known that for a long time. Nothing new.
Does gravity have a frequency? Probably so, since everything else seems to. As you may know, experiments have and will be underway to determine this. Or perhaps gravity is a fundamental "flat-line". Who knows? I quess time and experimentation will tell the story.
Your "theory" seems more of an ideology than a scientific theory, as you have clearly failed to establish an environment of testability, and offering nothing new to our current understanding, conjectures or endeavors; as if your are trying to get others to believe in something simply because you say it is so, offering no new real values for others to maturely examine.
After all, zero-degree's Kelvin has never been(nor expected to be) experimentally achievable, and has never been observed in nature.
Given that, I suppose that most(if not all) everything has a vibrational component to its existence.
I further assume that when you mention "sound", you are referring to generalized vibration, not specific to the common phenomenon of sound as we are most accustomed to(requiring a physical medium to propagate).
If that's the case well, OK, most would agree and have known that for a long time. Nothing new.
Does gravity have a frequency? Probably so, since everything else seems to. As you may know, experiments have and will be underway to determine this. Or perhaps gravity is a fundamental "flat-line". Who knows? I quess time and experimentation will tell the story.
Your "theory" seems more of an ideology than a scientific theory, as you have clearly failed to establish an environment of testability, and offering nothing new to our current understanding, conjectures or endeavors; as if your are trying to get others to believe in something simply because you say it is so, offering no new real values for others to maturely examine.