Einstein confirmed that mass and energy are different forms of the same thing. everything in our existence is contained within a web of electromagnetic vibrational frequencies.

Vibrations refer to vibrating movement of atoms and particles caused by energy. Metaphysically this could be thought.

Frequency is measured in Hz, the rate at which vibrations occur.

Humans operate best at a frequency where each of the cells in our body vibrates at the frequency it was designed to.

Research on the topic can be found published by Bruce Tainio or Makao Usui for example.

This post was edited by SSBBWGiantessLover on Dec 23 2021 09:59pm

"Humans operate best at a frequency where each of the cells in our body vibrates at the frequency it was designed to."

This is gibberish. Human cells do not vibrate in unison. The constituent parts of cells vibrate randomly but the overall cell does not vibrate to any significant degree, and cells absolutely do not vibrate in unison.


Your reference to einstein added nothing to your argument. It was 100% just there to snipe credibility from referencing science even though it wasn't actually used. Then your statement about "electromatic vibrational frequencies" is a poor attempt to take credibility from quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics without understanding it on any level.


If you have specific research you want me to read then link it. I'm not going to research an entire body of somebody's work. Aint nobody got time for that.

I'm limiting my methods to empiricism and rationalism. To avoid any conversation about metaphysical attributes that cannot be proven through the scientific method 100% I will simply point out scientific principles to remind yourself of the next time you're so arrogant about your world view

-you can only learn when you're listening, everything you say is what you already know
-scientific ideas are subject to change, what is unmeasurable today could be measurable in the future
-science cannot provide complete answers to all questions
-science is often a blend of logic and abstract imagination before it is fleshed out and proven

In the world of science, a theory is “better” if it makes more general or more startling predictions, or if it contains as few elements as possible i.e. Occam's razor (simplicity is good)

Since doubt is so central to the scientific method and tangible/material proof is required to confirm hypothesis

Given that the concept of spirituality involves very pointed questions directed at what the scientist perceives to be the weakest link in the chain of reasoning; it's inevitable that the ideas will be discarded due to logical holes in existing theories

One of the very positive aspects of the scientific world view is embracing new ideas, so long as they have been demonstrated as better than what has gone before. In matters of spirituality, the objection of many people, whether substantive, psychological, or both is “why isn’t what was good enough for my father good enough for me?” In matters of science, at least after the scientist gets over the initial shock, one never hears “it was good enough for the Romans to believe that the sun revolves around the earth, so it’s good enough for me.” This fundamental open-mindedness of scientists provides the opportunity for meaningful spiritual dialogue. I hope that one day you will be more conducive to open dialogue that doesn't begin with "this is what I know today, so everything you have to say that doesn't align with that is presumed to be wrong"

I'm using basic skepticism here, not rejecting the possibility of your claims outright. You refused to even define what you were talking about, and when I pointed that out and asked for specific research you declined.

As you just said, doubt is central to the scientific method. Show me why you think what you do, and if it doesn't stand up to basic scrutiny I will tell you as much.

I'll reflect on it to give a deeper understanding of what I'm saying. I'll have to use philosophical reasoning combined with scientific elements to make my case, as there is not a scientific means of measuring for example spiritual pressure

If you can't measure it then it probably doesn't exist.

Keep in mind that not all measures are quantative. There are qualititative assesments that can be reliable if the experiment is designed appropriately.

Karl Popper pointed out that we can never be certain or prove anything scientifically because at some time in the future, an instance can negate a given hypothesis

Yeah, but that doesn't mean we should accept things as existing without evidence.

If your theory relies on electromagnetic waves and it can't be measured it's probably garbage, because we are excessively good at measuring electromagnetism.

We are dealing with a group of psychopathic "elites" who would love nothing more than to enslave the entire human race.

It's great, ain't it?

Would you say dark matter is garbage because it can’t be measured?