Do Solfeggio Frequencies heal and should we not redefine the prime numbers?

[Artie Fichelle]

Lately I dove into the solfeggio frequencies (f) and the claim they are healing f.
They are in Hertz (Hz):
174, 285, 396, 417, 528, 639, 741, 852, 963.
Some authors say it is only 6 solfeggio f, others more, but nevertheless.
All solfeggio f have in common, that their checksum can be divided by 3, 6, or 9. Let us check:
Checksum of 174 = (1+7+4) = 12, which can be divded by 6.
Checksum of 285 = (2+8+5) = 15, which can be divided by 3.
Checksum fo 396 (3+9+6) = 18, which can be divided by 9.
I took the highest possible divisor.
You can do the other numbers as homework, if you like.
First question: Why do other f, that have the same checksum properties as the solfeggio f not also have healing qualities?
For example f being:
51, 60, 63, 69, 72, 147, 399, etc.
Second question: What other common denominator do the solfeggio f have besides divisible by 3, 6 and 9?
Conclusion: If there isn't a hidden common denominator of these solfeggio f, then those frequencies defy logic, and then the Creator built an unlogical universe and logic must be something he does not like.
I did my research on this and found this:
Thesis no. 1 says:
Dr. Joseph Puleo found in the 1970’s the frequencies with the use of the Pythagorean method of numeral reduction to unravel six mathematically encoded patterns he found in the Bible.
Argument: Puleo takes the Bible as reference of truth, which can and should be questionned.
Thesis no 2. says:
It is the “Schumann Resonance Frequency- This is the measurable frequency around the Earth and is equal to 7.83Hz.
Let us test: To get the lower octaves of a specific f, you have to divide by 2:
Solfeggio 174:
87 (first lower octave) 43.5 (second lower octave), 21.75, 10.875
Solfeggio 285:
142.5, 71,25, 35.625, 17.8125, 8.90625
Solfeggio 396:
198, 99, 49.5, 24.75, 12.375, 6.1875
Solfeggio 417:
208.5 104.25 52.125, 26.0625, 13.03125, 6.515625
Solfeggio 528:
264, 132, 66, 33, 16.5, 8.25
Solfeggio 639:
319.5, 159.75, 79.875, 39.9375, 19.96875, 9.984375
Solfeggio 741: 370.5, 185.25, 92.625, 46.3125, 23.15625, 11.578125
Solfeggio 852:
426, 213, 106.5, 53.25, 26.625, 13.3125, 6.65625
Solfeggio 963:
481.5, 240.75, 120.375, 60.1875, 30.59375, 15.296875, 7.6484375
Conclusion of thesis 2: Not even one of the solfeggio f comes close to the Schumann resonance, at least not when we think in Octaves.Some authors say, the Schumann resonance is between 7.83 Hz and 8 Hz.But then again not even close to our lower octaves. Maybe they are related in thirds or fiths etc. Butb then again, the Creator does not like octaves or he would not have chosen those weird frequencies.
Conclusion no 3: Maybe these given frequencies are fake and don't heal at all?
Stay tuned for part 2.

[Shabdahbriah]

[Artie Fichelle]

Very interesting, I like it. You might like my part 2, where I propose new frequencies and scales.

[Jafo]

You... mean you think the universe was set up to match human senses and especially your preferences? How convenient for you! I mean, I've heard worse hypotheses, so that's no problem. (Heck, some people in my own country think that photoshopping Garbage Pail Kids creates valuable art!) It's just that travel in space is so gosh-darn inconvenient and wow, isn't it strange that this convenience doesn't extend beyond what we've actually evolved for?

And how exactly would you redefine prime numbers? Prime numbers are numbers that other numbers do not divide into evenly. Doesn't that force you into something along the lines of "Well, yeah, these numbers divide into a bunch of other numbers, but they're prime"?

But mostly, your "evidence" boils down to "I multiplied these numbers by five, and they can all be divided by five with integer results." Discrete mathematics only proves you have a rigid mind, alas. You don't perchance have any studies? Such as tissue growth, blood cleansing, disease disappearing...? Anything that we don't have to believe in already, to see?

[Artie Fichelle]

I have not written anything about prime numbers yet, so your comment misses imho the point.

[CinningBao]

Jafo, if all you're going to bring to this discussion is "you don't know what you're talking about", but not actually bring anything else of any value, it's probably best to be quiet. Wouldn't you agree?

You don't understand the universe and it's making any better than anybody else here, and you speak in an incredibly demeaning way; can I suggest you back off and let your own mind wander with the unknown mysteries of life while letting other people discuss things in a way that suits them.

[donkey tugger]

I've done a bit of calculating, and after a lot of work I've got one of them new prime numbers;

bks1.jpg

[CinningBao]

Ah, somebody else who knows everything about everything.

Let people talk about whatever the hell they want to talk about, and unless you know everything about everything, go and declare your genius to someone else. These folks don't care.

[donkey tugger]

Apologies, I must have missed the memo that it's now mandatory to take irrational mumbo jumbo at face value.

[CinningBao]

Take your self-aggrandising piffle elsewhere to people who care about this spew.

It really doesn't show you to be a pleasant human being if you can't respect other people's position. Let people talk about whatever the hell they want, jeesh. I don't believe your voice holds much value in this conversation, do you?

Merry Christmas! but please leave this room

[donkey tugger]

Take your self-aggrandising piffle elsewhere to people who care about this spew.

It really doesn't show you to be a pleasant human being if you can't respect other people's position. Let people talk about whatever the hell they want, jeesh. I don't believe your voice holds much value in this conversation, do you?

Merry Christmas! but please leave this room

Last I heard it was a public forum? I'm not stopping him posting anything (or is some mystical message in my writing having a miasmic deleterious effect..? )

I'm just not terribly keen on spurious unsubstantiated cobblers. Still, given old Art's previous cogently argued positions vis a vis public heath and political theory/international relations, I have every confidence he'll be along in a jiffy with all the relevant evidential data..

[imrae]

I don’t recall a part of the Bible or other more ancient text that provides an accurate definition of frequency measurement in Hz.

So all those numbers in Hz could/should equally be read as some other number in e.g. thousand oscillations per lunar month. Which I think you’ll find breaks the interesting decimal properties?

If you’re looking for numbers encoded in the fabric of the universe it would make most sense to use the Planck time - but unfortunately this is rather short compared to anything we can perceive or even measure.

[BertKoor]

Lately I dove into the solfeggio frequencies (f) and the claim they are healing f.
They are in Hertz (Hz):
174, 285, 396, 417, 528, 639, 741, 852, 963.

It's a claim without base, without proof, without any logic.

Number soup, that's all. Being multiples of 3 (which 6 & 9 also imply) is not coincidental.

The pattern is 123456789 for the first digit, 789123456 for the second digit and 456789123 for the third digit. Sudoku! And not even a difficult one.

So all digits have the same offset from a multiple of 3. There are three digits, so the sum of digits (checksum) is divisable by 3 as well.

I have made a soundfont of these frequencies, if you want to hear them.
https://www.bertkoor.nl/Angelic.sf2
Sine tones sound relaxing, and relaxation is not bad for your health.

Why do other f, that have the same checksum properties as the solfeggio f not also have healing qualities?

First you prove me that the listed 9 ones do have special properties. Only then we can delve into why others don't.

Note: all previous discussions on this topic ended being moved to our HPC section: Hyde Park Corner. The soap box on which people rant about ... things like politics & religion, things we cannot agree upon because of the nature of topic. Only accessible to members with 50+ posts.

So if this topic vanishes, you know where it went.

should we not redefine the prime numbers?

To be frank: nope. You may come up with a new set of special numbers, but the term "prime" is already taken.

[cron]

I don’t recall a part of the Bible or other more ancient text that provides an accurate definition of frequency measurement in Hz.

So all those numbers in Hz could/should equally be read as some other number in e.g. thousand oscillations per lunar month. Which I think you’ll find breaks the interesting decimal properties?

If you’re looking for numbers encoded in the fabric of the universe it would make most sense to use the Planck time - but unfortunately this is rather short compared to anything we can perceive or even measure.

This is exactly I feel the unsolveable problem with the application of number theory to music. The second is implicit in all measurements of frequency, and before you can start calling numerical relationships of frequency interesting, you have to say why the second isn't an arbitrary, man-made division.

Even so, I'm not sure that there's anything particularly interesting about integer division anyway. I rarely see the cheaper divide-down organs and string synths of the 1970s described as the most spiritual instruments of all time, and they really should be given that every pitch is produced by integer division of a single high frequency master oscillator.

Lastly, the harmonic series is right there. Division is just the inverse of multiplication, and interesting effects that really are related to the physics of nature happen when you multiply by integers. Indeed the major scales in ET are (IIRC) derived from overtone structures with a little artistic license to maximise flexibility, but if you want to get freaky with strict integer operations I'm sure there are loads of interesting just temperaments to be found here. Taking ET and further tweaking so it looks nice as per number theory is essentially adding a second round of artistic license. Why do this when you can go back to the source?

[maschinelf]

I think the fundamental issue with various sound healing theories involving particular frequencies is conflating ordinal and cardinal concepts in terms of math and ideology/cognition. This I believe is down to cognitive biases resulting from certain patterns that may have given humans an evolutionary advantage at different stages in our evolution but has left behind relics or "old code" that are in many ways incompatible or need reconciliation with new knowledge and experience gathered over the ages. It is this resulting inability to differentiate the ordinal and cardinal that leads to the confusion, and this goes way beyond just sound healing to all manner of magical thinking.

For example, the concept of frequency/hz depending as it does on an arbitrary definition of 1 second is ordinal, but we learn in every day usage to apply it as cardinal. This possibly extends to all of mathematics and definitions of quantities as a whole. One pertinent question is whether math itself is wholly ordinal or cardinal. I would argue that it is neither, it's more like the balancing factor between the two and even the root of both concepts. In a way, one could also infer a relationship here to duality and non-dualism. If I had to pick one though I would lean towards the ordinal, as I can see arguments to prove that the cardinal does not infact exist but not the other way round. I believe it has more to do with things like linear quadratic, logarithmic, differential, and simultaneous equations, and other concepts like probability etc, than with whole or finite numbers. And certainly I believe that the "math of the universe" works in ways that are more akin to these definitions of math, or possibly an even higher order (not sure that's the correct term) that we are yet to decode.

Getting back to the point though, ordinal math essentially comes down to a scaling factor. If the scaling factor were to change then the assumptions about divisibility in OP would also fall apart. It also raises other questions, and could do with a better explanation of what exactly it is that he/she is trying to establish. For example, why 3, 6 and 9, why did they take the highest possible divisor and what exactly does that mean, what is the reasoning for the relation between no common denominator and an illogical universe, what is the basis for concluding that the creator is a "he", how does this relate to the Schumann resonance etc. As is, either the info is already there in OP and I failed to understand it or it seemed apparent to me that the hypothesis was based on too many assumptions and over-simplification.