Page 2 of 2

### Re: The Myth of Frequency

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 2:42 pm
daniel wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 10:46 am
Frequency still exists for basic mechanical concepts (like a pendulum), but it is misapplied to the photon. What you actually have for color is "broken light"... when light hits an edge (like in a slit) it basically cracks and you get colors for the fragmented parts.

An associate by the name of Doug got curious and passed a spectrum of light through a prism. Now if color were frequency based, then we'd expect the colors to again bend at a specific angle depending on their color, producing a stairstep of colors on the screen... but guess what? All the colors bent exactly the same angle forming a straight line, saying that they are all the same frequency! Nature defies man, again.

This is brilliant, nice one Doug!

Aha this will be Doug Marsh of the Tao of Colors that Gopi got in touch with, greetings Doug!

https://reciprocal.systems/phpBB3/viewt ... t=20#p3697
Lonebear wrote: I looked online for people duplicating this, but all you find is "computer simulations" of colored beams passing through a prism, deflecting just as Newton predicted--since the simulations are programmed that way. And there is no edge distortion on the models--just pure color.
https://reciprocal.systems/phpBB3/viewt ... t=10#p3645
I've had a good look too and can't find any images or videos replicating this. The closest I found was this:
If instead of "white" light we illuminate a prism with laser pointer, a monochromatic (one frequency) light, we can follow how the ray is refracted and ...

Sound as the composition of multiple frequencies - inverse = light as the colour of one frequency

Everybody knows the rainbow!!!! When raining, the "white" light from the sun is passing through the drops of water. Each drop acts as a prism. Then we can see that the white light is entering the "prism" but on the other side it is possible to see that rays from different colours (frequencies) emerge other side.

What does it mean? The short answer is that the phenomenon we understand as "white" light is in reality, the combination of all the colours as shown in the picture below.

http://sftvideotutorials.org/patterns/patterns2.htm
We've seen the original Goethe video but I found this lecture on him which is great, ask Doug to look through his prisms and he will see lines of colour but only at the edges where light and dark meet, especially at the window frames (3:39):

As he says in his Theory of Colour video a light ray needs darkness to stand out and a dark ray needs light to stand out, you can't have colour without both dark and light.

At 4:50 his rotating of the prism to show the warm/cold colours when you rotate different ways is just like your photon 2.0 model!

The Occulted Plane:

It's worth linking to the RS2 page on Photon 2.0 and Goethe's Colour Theory and model for those here that may not have seen the progression of the natural research in motion. :

Photon 2.0
https://reciprocal.systems/phpBB3/viewt ... ?f=7&t=597

https://reciprocal.systems/research/photon/

So what happens when you pass a spectrum of light through a prism then add a second prism in the way of the longer beam with the colours shearing off? The same thing I reckon, a single frequency with incremental colours?

When I look at that longer beam, if you were to rotate the prism very quickly like a helicopter blade then you would have a pretty good rainbow and of a similar size to a real one! Why does the colour change at that particular distance or interval, something to do with refraction from the prism? I'm thinking it's this as the second smaller beam pointing down and left has a longer blue before it starts turning green.

If you extended the distance of these beams would they eventually go into infra-red and become less visible?

### Re: The Myth of Frequency

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:43 pm
tymeflyz wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 3:26 pm
- inference patterns of darkness and light... unity of nox and lux as one or as a whole or hole?
where to begin the search..hm?! Just a thought is a common denominator unity ?
is nox subtractive or lux canceling ,ie nox[-1] vs lux[+1] and measured by what metric?
thx
Look to the Reciprocal System... by default, the Universe wants to fly apart at the speed of light (+1, the progression). Gravity wants to do the inverse, making it crunch together at the speed of light (-1). Light is doing the SAME thing... lux (+1, white) versus nox (-1, black). We've just been "kept in the dark" about black photons... and the interesting things that they use, like the obsidian mirrors of the sorcerers! When you start to think about it, the whole concept of the "inverse" or occulted spectrum MUST exist... and the NWO had done a lot to keep it their ritualistic secret. But now we have the physics to understand it--and probably better than they do, as it won't be something passed down by generations--it will be "natural consequence" of RS2!

If you like Babylon 5, the Minbari had it almost right with their "grey council"... half way between darkness and light stands grey. That is the balance of harmony.

### Re: The Myth of Frequency

Posted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:27 pm
Trying to get a visual on what you mean when you say "Now if color were frequency based, then we'd expect the colors to again bend at a specific angle depending on their color, producing a stairstep of colors on the screen." Is this accurate representation of what you mean or not?

### Re: The Myth of Frequency

Posted: Sat Jun 08, 2019 12:37 am
Andrew wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:27 pm
Trying to get a visual on what you mean when you say "Now if color were frequency based, then we'd expect the colors to again bend at a specific angle depending on their color, producing a stairstep of colors on the screen." Is this accurate representation of what you mean or not?
Yes, but as you can see from the original photo, they did not bend in a fan--they all came out in a straight line, one on top of the other. Another "oops" for conventional science."

### Re: The Myth of Frequency

Posted: Sun Jul 28, 2019 8:02 pm
I've been wondering about this phenomenon when light reflects off of modern day LCD TV screens, and I noticed that it produces magenta, cyan and coral. I think there is a relationship between light, silicon and exospace being shown here.

### Re: The Myth of Frequency

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 3:52 pm
daniel wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 1:55 pm
What you actually get is this, demonstrated by Goethe and others:
goethe-spectrum.gif (7.07 KiB) Viewed 1789 times
[...]
You don't have to believe me... these are things you can try at home for very little expense!
For those who are too lazy or simply not willing to spend this very little expense, you can also watch other people doing the interesting, experimental stuff--"without even leaving the bed", as Gopi would say.

Here is a good video, perfectly demonstrating that the colors do indeed initially emerge on the edges of a prism-reflected light beam: El prisma de Newton - White light through prism

Here are some relevant excerpts:
In the first picture you can see that cyan and violet are only faintly distinguishable and make up the utmost ridge, with blue and indigo filling the gap between.

### Re: The Myth of Frequency

Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:29 pm
Frequency must be the net motion.
Frequency being the combination of oscillation (rotation about a point) and rate of vibration (linear movement).
Rotation is the Yin; Vibration is the Yang.
The field is unified; we just haven't realized fully what frequency IS.

### Re: The Myth of Frequency

Posted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 8:24 pm
user737 wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:29 pm
Frequency must be the net motion.
Frequency being the combination of oscillation (rotation about a point) and rate of vibration (linear movement).
Rotation is the Yin; Vibration is the Yang.
The field is unified; we just haven't realized fully what frequency IS.
You should read Prof. KVK Nehru's paper on birotation, The Law of Conservation of Direction. In it, Nehru shows that there are only two, primary motions in the universe: linear/yang and angular/yin. When two angular rotations combine in opposite directions, a birotation is formed (based on the Euler relations), dimensionally reducing the rotations into a cosine wave, which is vibration. Since that vibration is then carried linearly by the progression, then the vibration is technically a yin-yang motion, where the frequency component is yin and the linear velocity is yang.

With any vibration (or oscillation), there are three factors to consider: frequency (or wavelength), magnitude and phase. I've noticed that in New Age application, the latter two are ignored. The phase relationship is of major importance, and is why green and magenta can exist AT THE SAME FREQUENCY, because they are out-of-phase with each other. (The Internet will claim that magenta has no frequency, since it is a combination of blue and red... yet, as seen in Chris' post above, green is also a combination of yellow and cyan, so why DOES it have a frequency???)

What is being found in RS2 is that the photon is a 3D rotation, basically a "baby atom" (making a photon of light the core of everything). It has an angular velocity in each of the three dimensions, which we see as RGB when spinning one way, and YMC when spinning the other. You don't actually GET a frequency out of it until it interacts with something, and that shear strain IS the frequency we are measuring. (Think of someone running a bow across a violin string... neither makes a sound until they interact.)

And the photon does have an onion-skin structure; visible light is the inner layer, which is why we can plot it on a color wheel. But ever wonder why infrared and ultraviolet aren't on the color palette of your favorite Paint program? Well, they are the next layer of that onion, that surrounds the visible light one. For each visible color, there is also an infra- or ultra- color. This is where we find that occulted spectrum, things like infra-yellow and ultra-cyan (I still have not figured out which adjective is applicable, could be ultra-yellow and infra-cyan... both indicate you are on that 2nd layer of the photon, but the naming convention is inconsistent).