# Question about Inverse SQRT of Amplitude

1. Aug 29, 2006

### zarkorgon

Before we begin, recall the simple formulas;
for reference see http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/wavelength.html

Velocity / Wave Length = Frequency (Hertz)
Speed of the wave = Frequency x Wavelength
Wavelength = Speed of the wave / Frequency

AND Where

TIME is the RECIPROCAL of ENERGY

as

SPACE is the RECIPROCAL of MATTER

An obvious relationship exists between time and space

So

IF A = Rife frequency (1.) and
B = Rife frequency (2.)

where both A and B are unique, individual frequencies;

if we perform the following;

C = SQRT ( A * B )

Then 'C' simply represents the root of the product of the two frequencies

HOWEVER

X = 1 / SQRT ( A * B )

Then ' X ' must actually represent some form of ENERGY domain or equivalency

BUT, if we change this scenario just slightly so that

IF A = Rife frequency (1.) and
E = Phase

where A is an individual frequency and where E is a given Phase of A;

D = ( A * E )

D = Amplitude

So

Y = 1 / SQRT ( D )

If wave length corresponds to the span of space traversed over that time period, hence the completely different units of measure used to describe each, i.e.;

And if Wave amplitude describes a span of time.

Here, then does Y equate to a SPATIAL domain or equivalency, i.e. a derivative of wavelength???!!! IF so what would 'Y', BE exactly!!!!

2. Aug 29, 2006

### Integral

Staff Emeritus
How did you arrive at this conclusion?

Likewise this one? These are your invention and have no meaning to anyone else.

A. Einstein very carefully derived a relationship, you pull it out of the air???

What in the world are you talking about?
By the commonly accepted method of dimensional analysis. C is also a frequency

Interesting bit of speculation, but you have pulled it out of the air. It does not follow from anything you have said.

Once again you materialize a result as if it had meaning. By the commonly accepted method of dimensional analysis, I get D as radians/sec this is not normally a amplitude.

Lots of words but I could not find any meaningful content.

Be very careful where you take this thread.. I suspect a lock or delete is not to far off.

3. Aug 29, 2006

### Staff: Mentor

I vote for deletion. His other post in the particle physics forum was much more straightforward. This post of his here makes no sense, and is a waste of time to try to read and respond.

from the pl physics forum:

4. Aug 29, 2006

### zarkorgon

INTEGRAL - Regarding 1/SQRT(a*b)

Thank you very much for your timely, thoughtful and instructive response.
I am new here, I realize your patience with me and will do my very best to behave and communicate in a manner that is inline with this communitys protocols and comfort requirements.

What I expressed in my past post, I fear, was poorly described by me.
I am ignorant in a number of the areas that I seek information for. I very much appreciate any insights and constructive critiques. I can see why you felt that many of my assertions were "out of the air". I had been digesting online notes that were partially speculative in nature about these topics and I did not mention that this is where much of my statements were coming from. Apologies for the confusion.

In your last response you said something that really got my attention and it seems that you may have answered the most important part of my inquiry;

"Once again you materialize a result as if it had meaning. By the commonly accepted method of dimensional analysis, I get D as radians/sec this is not normally a amplitude."

Integral, could you please extrapolate on this? You are saying that D simply represents a value of radians per second? Anything further you feel free to share? Please note, I am simply wishing to learn....

>BUT, if we change this scenario just slightly so that
>IF A = Rife frequency (1.) and
>E = Phase
>where A is an individual frequency and where E is a given Phase of A;
>D = ( A * E )
>D = Amplitude