Computing 'Sound' Frequency of a Planet: Possible Methods?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of computing the 'sound' frequency of a planet, specifically using Jupiter as an example. Participants explore the relationship between a planet's orbital path and audible frequencies, questioning the validity of methods like those proposed by Bohr or Rutherford. The conversation touches on the intersection of music, psychology, and physics, as well as the implications of associating sound frequencies with planetary movements.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested, Conceptual clarification, Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the connection between a planet's orbital path and an audible frequency, suggesting that calculating a frequency based on a 12-year orbital period may be fanciful.
  • A music professor shares their experience with a tuning fork labeled as a Neptune tuning fork and expresses skepticism about the mathematical basis behind such claims.
  • The professor wonders if Bohr's method of calculating electron orbits could be relevant in this context, while acknowledging the challenges in defining a sound frequency for a planet.
  • Concerns are raised about the scientific validity of associating sound frequencies with planets, with some participants labeling the discussion as pseudoscience.
  • Participants express a consensus that the claims about planetary sound frequencies lack scientific grounding and are considered nonsensical inventions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the concept of assigning sound frequencies to planets is not scientifically supported, with multiple views on the validity of the initial claims and methods discussed. The conversation reflects a strong skepticism towards the idea, leading to a consensus that it falls into the realm of pseudoscience.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the ambiguity in defining what constitutes a 'sound frequency' in relation to planetary motion and the challenges in applying physical theories to this concept. There are unresolved questions regarding the mathematical and scientific foundations of the claims made about planetary frequencies.

Nineways
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Is there an accurate method in computing the 'sound' frquency of a planet? For example, taking the orbital path of say Jupiter for one year, and computing it into an audible frequency? I'm looking for ways to compute this, but I am at a loss to where the best starting point is. Could Bohr's or Rutherford's methods be applied?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
I'd suggest you're having trouble calculating it because you haven't defined what it is. What does an orbital path have to do with an audible frequency?

I suppose, on the face of it, if you were to calculate one period as one beat, then Jupiter's frequency is one beat per 12 years.

But it's kind of fanciful, since it's impossible to hear it.
 
Thanks for adding commentary Dave. This all started in one of my music classrooms, when someone brought in a tuning fork they said was a Neptune tuning fork - 211.44Hz. My first reaction was "what the heck is this". First let me be clear, I'm a music professor, and a psychologist, not a physicist. But I figured that by going to someone with a more profound depth than myself in Physics, would provide more insight.

I agree with you, "What does an orbital path have to do with an audible frequency?" - I looked at this in investigating the source of the tuning fork. There seems to be some 'screwy' math at work. The planets in our solar system all have one thing in common, they all go around the Sun in an orbital path. They also revolve on their own axis, but with different time ratios, and that could be said for the orbital path as well, because some are orbiting faster than the others around the Sun. I looked at Bohr's method of calculation regarding electrons orbiting an atom, having to do with something stable with objects moving around it, and wondered if this could be applied in this case? This tuning fork theory derives from a concept trying to equate a sound frequency (I suppose hypothetical) to a planet, and the math is tied to it's orbital path, which they call as a reference orbital frequency. Possibly we have reached a new level pf pseudoscience here. But I am trying to apply some logic that I can use to address this tuning fork.

The fact that sound has no medium to travel through in a vacuum, or the mistake that some people have that Schumann Waves are somehow the 'sound' of planet Earth, seems to defy some people's logic. What I am wondering, is there any science supporting this Neptune Tuning Fork, or have we simply fallen into a black hole of nonsensical thinking? Defining this is awkward at best. Can we assign a sound frequency to a planet at all? In any way possible?
 
Nineways said:
Possibly we have reached a new level pf pseudoscience here. ... have we simply fallen into a black hole of nonsensical thinking?
Yes. Pure woo-woo-ism.

From BioSonics.com:
Aligning to the energy of specific planets, the Planetary Tuners activate those qualities by creating a sympathetic resonance between the planets and yourself.
By consciously directing the energy of each planet for healing and well-being, the Planetary Tuners brings new dimensions to your Astrology readings, enhance bodywork and acupuncture sessions, or use for personal meditation and growth.
[Link deleted]

If you're looking to explore such an association, PF is probably the worst place to do so. :wink:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DaveC426913 said:
Yes. Pure woo-woo-ism.
Indeed. There is nothing scientific about this. It is pure nonsensical invention.
DaveC426913 said:
If you're looking to explore such an association, PF is probably the worst place to do so. :wink:
Indeed again. Discussion of pseudoscience is not allowed on PF, even for debunking.

Thread closed.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Nineways

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 86 ·
3
Replies
86
Views
9K
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K