Also the placebo effect.
that is the most easily debunkable pseudo-scientific silliness of the lot - they may be nice to observe, but thatâs it - in my career as a scientific officer initially i did such âtestingâ on resonant frequencies of various structures and it is just utterly disingenuous to trick people with those rigged experiments (and to then package it up further as âscienceâ in a video to prolong the nonsense for the all too gullible people with no understanding of physics or science) - those plates can be configured to resonate exactly at ANY neighbouring frequency (scientific fact)
i am now muting the thread - there is nothing to be gained from indulging this further - if you like the notion or prefer the tuning, then fine, but donât pass it off as a credible theory, it categorically isnât
2 Likes
I think I need to tap out of this one too.
Ultrasound had been used in modern medicine as a diagnostic and therapeutic tool for many years.
It is used to bounce high frequency sound waves off tissue for imaging purposes, or if a high intensity beam is focused it can be destructive (eg. can shatter Gallstones/renal stones). The ultrasound used for lithotripsy uses frequencies 23-25kHz. It is nothing about a specific frequency, but all to do with a frequency range and the intensity of the beam that is focused. Iâm sure sound waves in medicine may have other potential uses yet to be clarified, but Iâm pretty sure they will have nothing to do with rotations around the sun, earth frequencies etc.
I found 437.11 Hz based on earth rotation time (23h56mn+4.1 sec). 
3 Likes
While I respect your position and def see the good intention, Iâd say this is not correct nor helpful nor truly scientific at all.
The assumption that all influence and impact between two bodies must be of material nature is a bias / ideology rather than a sign of rationality and proper thought (which is often a claim that is perpetuated from that particular school of thought).
Donât get me wrong, of course material relationships exist and are observable and are relevant to us, but that shouldnât lead us to the conclusion that these sort of relationships are the ONLY impactful relationships that exist or âmatterâ.
Your own subjectivity is a miracle to behold, and as much as some neuroscientists will want you to believe that your subjectivity is but a mere byproduct of material interactions, the truth is that consciousness and intersubjective resonance cannot, on the basis of what we currently know, be localised or reduced to the brain or its material workings. This is called the âhard problemâ in science.
So our world, and in fact our cosmos (Greek for âarrangement / presence of orderâ) with everything in it (be that objects or subjective dimensions) remains for the most part a massive mystery. How a quantum physicist specialised in quantum gravity once said to me: âwe know not even 5% of the observable universe, and the observable universe only makes up maybe some 7% of the universe as a whole.â
My point is: 432Hz may or may not have an impact on our psycho-spiritual well-being - to dismiss this from a place of principle/bias is not doing true science a favour at all.
I read that study posted here and itâs interesting enough to consider that there was enough observable difference between groups that further study of the topic can be recommended or even considered.
I also want to point out that some of the greatest scientific minds of our human civilisation were profoundly spiritual/mystic/âcosmicâ in their worldview - be that Newton, Einstein, Bohm, von Neumann, Bohr etc etc.
We really have to get off Scientismâs arrogance to believe that its mechanical explanations (an incomplete at thatâŚeg see the three-body problem) represent all of reality or even worse are proof that there is no other reality but the mechanics we observe and BELIEVE to understand.
To quote von Neumann: âyou donât UNDERSTAND things, you just get used to them.â
Now let me sit in my crystal healing chair and chant this rainy weather here away⌠
8 Likes
Iâm not trying to nitpick or anything, but Iâm not quite sure what youâre implying here? As of now, we cannot really exactly determine the workings of the brain, therefore⌠this sciency material-interactions bias is not true? 
It simply shows that some things arenât fully explored yet and claims in either direction are to be made with caution.
Something like:
We donât know enough about brain yet, phew hard to say if subjectivity really is a miracle.
We donât know enough about brain yet, phew hard to say if byproduct of material stuff is true.
No problem, fair point. Iâm implying that our own subjectivity currently cannot be explained through purely material relationships. The subjective experience and intersubjective resonance (almost by definition) is (experientially speaking) non material.
So my point is that we shouldnât dismiss the possibility of non-material interactions by default, just because our prevalent worldview presupposes that relationships/interactions can only be true/real/impactful if thereâs a material basis to them.
Your subjective experience is continuous âevidenceâ for non-material interactions and impacts on your state of being. Of course we try to materialise those by attaching all sorts of mechanical processes to them (eg love = hormones, joy = dopamine, empathy = mirror neurons etc), so my point re neuroscience was that, while we are able to describe bio-mechanical processes that occur in correlation with subjective experiences (and we love to localise and map out all things consciousness to brain maps), the truth of our current state of knowing is that we simply cannot conclude that the mechanics we observe on the biochemical plane are indeed the source(s) of our experience (rather than maybe a consequence).
So Iâm saying: on the basis of what we know, weâre not in the position to flat out dismiss non-material causality (nor attest to its existence in any other form than through our subjective experience which may or may not count for something depending on how you/I/we see the world 
).
The belief of classical physics to assume that its model of the world is correct, âwe just havenât worked out how to squeeze all phenomena into itâ is akin more to the dogma of a church (âthis is our belief and weâll work out how to fit reality into itâ) than to the true scientific ideal.
I think Einstein was quoted to have said in a conversation where colleagues were commenting on the ignorance of generations before them to have believed that the sun was circling earth: âyouâre right, but I do wonder what it would have looked like, if they would have been rightâŚâ
2 Likes
Thatâs exactly my point. And you will notice that this caution not rarely is thrown over board by âmaterial scientistâ (especially classical physicists) without much consideration as well - when really it shouldnât be.
Example: someone above wrote (I DONâT quote): âthe cycles of celestial bodies are the reason why all/any of our reality exists.â
This sort of statement will draw responses of dismissal and ridicule often, but quite matter of factly speaking, that statement is probably not untrue, even from a material viewpoint.
The moment any thought or idea implies that our model of reality might be substantially incomplete (not just âmissing a few discoveries here or thereâ), material âscientistâ will shoot that down ferociously as âesotericâ or âunscientific.â - when actually that very thought is one of the key drivers of science and should NOT be surrendered so easily to a model that has OBVIOUS issues, just because we have significantly leveraged our ability to manipulate physical reality on its basis.
Donât get me wrong, itâs a valuable, USEFUL model of reality (classical physics), but to insist that, because it succeeds in one plane (read: manipulation of material reality on the basis of material interaction) it must thus be the Whole Truth is presumptuous.
1 Like
Eh I donât know, I guess itâs as easy to paint the science side as simple-minded as most scientists paint the other side as esoteric and that sort of thing.
I have a feeling that the above statement equally hints to an incomplete model, all the fighting is mostly about whose model is lacking more I guess â either side has their methods and weapons in this fight.
You know, âesotericâ, âcharlatanismâ, âwhere is the proofâ, âlack of methodâ on the one side, but also ânarrow-mindedâ, âknowitallâ, âstrictly following rulesâ, âthere is more to this realityâ, that sort of thing.
But yeah youâre right, itâs kinda strategically unwise for the science side to so quickly play out their name-calling card so quickly, kinda makes it look like theyâre not following their own rules.
Couple of questions, sincere and tongue-in-cheek variety: I havent read the whole conversation but i remember reading about 432 coming from relationships between distances and measurements of sun and earth and moon and Giza pyramid (!). Doesnt that whole 432hz thing fall apart when you bring in units like seconds (s). Also what is this 528hz? And, if I go on to tune my instruments to A=432hz but play only black keys as in E flat minor (tritone from A), does that make my music super-satanistic?
1 Like
Letâs take 365.2425 days per year, closer to reality.
1/(365.2425x24x3600)x2^32=136.1021
We get 432.58 hz, which is closer to 433 hz.
A planetâs orbit is quite complex and there are several different ways to describe how long it takes a planet to orbit the Sun. We use the word year to describe the duration of a complete orbit of the Earth around the Sun. A year is about 365.25 days long, but there are four different definitions of a year, each is slightly different in length.
A sidereal year is 365.256363004 days long. It describes the duration of one orbit with respect to the fixed stars.
The vernal equinox is the moment in time when the Sun crosses the equator heading north which occurs around 20 March.
A tropical year is 365.24219 days and is the time from one vernal equinox to the next.
A calendar year is 365.2425 days where the .2425 fraction is because of leap years and leap centuries.
An anomalistic year is 365.259636 days and is the time from perihelion to perihelion.
The reason for the difference in the year lengths of the different years is due to the fact that the Earthâs orbit is constantly changing due to precession and the gravitational pull of the other planets
Apparently a C with A 444 Hz with an equal tempered scale, or a C with A 440 Hz with a perfect minor third.
With A 444hz an E is 666hz! 
1 Like
1000 x 11 á 25 = 440 hz
The B.B.C. tuning-note is derived from an oscillator controlled by a piezo-electric crystal that vibrates with a frequency of one million Hz. This is reduced to a frequency of 1,000 Hz by electronic dividers; it is then multiplied eleven times and divided by twenty-five, so producing the required frequency of 440 Hz. As 439 Hz is a prime number a frequency of 439 Hz could not be broadcast by such means as this.
From
1 Like
I donât know if anybody has already mentioned this in this thread: the second as a unit of time is arbitrarily defined, therefore there cannot be any âcorrectâ absolute number of oscillations per second derived by some cosmic calculusâŚ
4 Likes
Yeah, sometimes this problem is tackled by linking the oscillation to something else, like the earthâs rotation or some special distance measure. You know, itâs gotta be something with meaning!
This thread is a mess. 
True for people who say a C with perfect 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 hz is better, but not true if everything is calculated with the same relative units (earth rotation, frequencies, etc).
1 Like
Had to check it. E in A444hz is 665.25hz with equal temperament. Neighbour of the beastâŚ
3 Likes
Oooh, nice thread. Thanks for re-opening that old can of worms. 
Just to add on a thought I just had and not really thought through, seeing as this came up again. As most instruments and music in the so-called West are tuned to A=440Hz, could the novelty factor of 432Hz produce the differences seen in some of the studies, re concentration and things like that? I.e., weâre so used to 440Hz tuning that anything else is just plain interesting and/or contrasting? 
1 Like
Key point.
When you practice homeopathy, how can you tell your experimental treatment worked outside of normal noise? Sussing out what and wasnât simply regression to the mean takes a big sample size and careful analysis.
Iâve read legal case studies about Christian Science followers praying over (and neglecting) their children who simply need common medication or a simple surgery. It will enrage you (especially when the children die).
1 Like