Mind blown away- Atomic particals, Resonant frequencies, Sound, Light, All combined
 

https://x.com/LibertyLockPod/status/1792735159172710872
Terrence Howard is either having a schizophrenic break or he's the smartest man alive and I'm too dumb to know which

Mr. Howard goes pretty deep.
He talks quite a bit about the periodic table based on resonance frequencies.
Amazing stuff.
Most will dismiss him because he's an actor, not on substance.

Using a lot of fancy words to swoon Joe. Howard does not know quantum mechanics. Molecular orbital theory blows that rant out of the water. Heck, even the valence bond theory disproves everything as well…


Atoms and molecules can absorb or emit em radiation at specific wavelengths (atomic spectra), these quantized energy levels are related to electronic transitions, not the continuous scale of musical notes.

As for frequency breaking bonds, it comes down to energy. Exciting a molecule is completely different than breaking bonds. He fails to understand that molec are kinetic.

I really don’t feel like arguing the rest of his claims as it’s all based on the energy levels and electron interactions. He falls in the aspect of the dunning krugger w/o realizing there’s a lot more to this.

He is repeating a theory by Walter Russell. One should dismiss him based on *science* (see above).

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1759068994.jpg

Howard thinks 1 x 1 = 2. 'nuff said.

It’s a shame they wasted time on this nonsense and didn’t discuss real unknowns in science/research.

Don't dismiss everything he says because you disagree with part of it. Most of this stuff is way over ALL of our heads.

Right. There’s a reason why it’s a theory. The issue? Quantum mechanics through molecular orbital theory disprove everything he stated. I hate to throw equations out but this is the basics.

I can write a full rebuttal but I’ll be happy to deep dive any aspect for you.

So, the alternative is to believe all of it because you understand very little to none of it?

Who said I believe ALL of it?
Definitely some, as in the resonant frequency behaviors.

Squawk Squawk!! :D

Are you familiar with the fundamental theory of a MRI or NMR equipment?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Xu39ljc7qQk?si=AhDB3CjDSGuLdq5A" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Thanks for posting that. I agree with what was said. He’s using established terminology incorrectly. Howard is using geometric shapes and symmetry to solve certain systems. In chemistry, valence bond theory would be the equivalent to what he is doing, which is higher level of pattern recognition in 3D. Howard is also relying on assumptions that should not be made. He would be an asset in any research group as he poses a unique perspective that not many formal researchers ever venture into.

Sounds like the biggest issue was terminology.
The resonant frequency periodic table is discussed by others and is getting a bit of traction.
IMO it's being held back as forbidden knowledge.
Once folks start this research it will absolutely change the game.

Nope

Resonant frequency in chemical systems is the specific frequency of an atomic nucleus or molecule absorbs energy most efficiently when exposed to an external oscillating field. This frequency corresponds to the natural frequency of the system's oscillations, which leads to the maximum energy transfer and amplitude response.

In quantum mechanics, it is the frequency at which the energy difference between two quantum states matches the energy of the incident photon. This is defined with the Planck-Einstein relation equation.

Cool right? But what does it mean... It's constructive interference. All molecules have natural movement within their systems, such as nothing is static. Now, we take some energy through frequency to excite the molecule and it vibrates w/o breaking apart. This is basic principle behind NMR and MRI with a little more math and some other tricks that were discovered in the 1940-50's.

Now, Howard does not mention resonant frequencies in his argument. He seems to be discussing the potential of frequencies to either harmoniously construct or disrupt molecular structures (disruptive frequencies or transmutation). I don't really understand where he is going with his rant. If you are in interested in some cool aspects to chemistry, I find photochemistry and nuclear chemistry (transmutation of mercury into gold) fascinating fields.