Quote:
Originally Posted by BK911
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.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BK911
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.