|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cymatics article.|
|WikiProject Physics / Acoustics||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Sound Not A Wave
What's with the paragraph describing how sound is not a wave? I'm pretty sure it's accepted knowledge it is, Can I get some info on this? Davidsmind 08/27/09 —Preceding undated comment added 07:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC).
- If sound was a wave, and not a sphere, you wouldn't be able to hear people speak when you where standing behind them. Thinking of sound as a 2D wave is an (sometimes overly) simplistic model which in some situations provides (a lot) insight because it is much easier to think of and picture than a 3D sphere. Hyacinth (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- um, I think that's flawed logic...radio waves aren't spherical are they? They shoot in all directions. Light waves also go in all directions, but they are impeded by certain material. Explain this, or I'll just go ahead and remove the note:
"Sound is a travelling wave which is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through a solid, liquid, or gas, composed of frequencies within the range of hearing and of a level sufficiently strong to be heard, or the sensation stimulated in organs of hearing by such vibrations."
Davidsmind 11:34pm 08/28/09 (PST)
Just to bring a bit of Clarity... Sound travels through air as a longitudinal wave. Explained very well here; http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/tralon.html I encourage anyone looking at cymatics to look into Acoustics and Physics. Its far more detailed (and gives precise explanations for the pretty cymatics patterns). Usually waves (sound included) are presented as transverse in discussions graphs, because it is much easier to present on a 2D surface of paper, otherwise you would need to be endlessly cutting up golfballs inside tennis balls inside basket balls to accurately depict wave propagation, but fortunately the maths is the same :)
Oscarg 11:34am 09/16/14 (PST)
A sound is a wave. A pressure wave. Some of the claims made of Cymatics are in the pseudoscientific realm. Can we please put this article under "pseudoscience"? 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
The image does not display correctly on my work computer.-Hyacinth 18:55, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
What is this article about? A clearer intro would help. Zocky 23:44, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I am interested in this area but after doing some quick research i am unsure how well established and accepted cymatics is within the wider scientific world. It is not linked to any other well known areas of study and therefor does not contextualise itself. Sites on the www which talk about it appear to be more spiritual and mystical than scientific, can anyone resolve this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs)
- I have heard that clinical trials have, in fact, been run that show that cymatics has helped to restore people's natural healthy processes. I don't have references here, but maybe acutronics.com has something. Certainly there's a large body of annecdotal evidence to back holistic cymatics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs)
As the first poster in this section has pointed out, there is a lot of mysticism and spurious claims regarding cymatics. It is NOT a science, it has no real application, and the 2nd poster (above) has even stated that he/she has NO references. Anecdotal evidence is NOT evidence. It's anecdote.22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Cymatics in of itself seems to be the innocent observation of acoustic effects on physical objects. Many of these are visually compelling, and could be the source for any number of worthy art projects, but there seems to be a push towards theraputic uses. Any links I have found about cymatics on the web reference pure pseudoscience (ie 432hz is more "natural" than 440hz etc). There is no peer reviewed work supporting it, any claims it makes are at best non-sequitur, while the language and references it makes, seem totally oblivious to basic acoustic theory. More concerning is that there seems to be a healthy "natural remedy" conversation/business model aligned with it, (a classic sign of pseudoscience) and this Wikipedia entry may seem to be a promulgation/justification of cymatics as a consistent scientific theory/discipline (which it clearly is not). Summary: This article should clearly state that cymatic therapy is unproven, and scientifically baseless. --Oscarg (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a nice example of a standing wave. There is no magic here, no abrakadabra healing. Just physics, beautiful physics if I might say. :) Endimion17, 22:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Might be interesting material for an "In Art" section NoahWH 07:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
New Discoveries in Cymatics
From a brief perusal the external link for John Stuart Reid, he does not appear to be a scientist. Also, there are no citations for this section. The section appears to have been added by Jack Kassewitz, who is also mentioned in the section. I am a brand new at participating in Wikipedia, so apologies if I have misinterpreted this, but doesn't that qualify it as "original research"?
Article needs revision
I am curious as to why this article is more about the history of Cymatics than the topic itself, and reads much like a student essay. I also noticed it includes "text to follow soon". This article needs major help to get it up to standards. Astræa (talk) 06:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- How would you suggest changing the article to improve these faults? Hyacinth (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia claims to be neutral, but it isn't and here is an excellent example.
The bottom of this page suggests several relevant links, one of which is "Pseudoscience." (Or maybe that is an example of subtle cyber vandalism?)
In any event, that is a pretty harsh editorial decision. There are more than a few "science" articles on Wikipedia for which I would like to provide that link, but will refrain from doing so.
Of course, any text will have a non-neutral point of view or it wouldn't be worth reading! So I don't really fault Wikipedia for that- only for dishonestly claiming that neutrality is possible.
- I assume you mean it is not neutral because it is an internal link. Remember Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that almost anyone can edit." Hyacinth (talk) 06:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)