I include two messages about this subject from Michael Heleus, now a member of
the Truthsound forum and biosonic can continue to tell us about this
discussion... Please, all others that now much about it continue...
thanks, MS

> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Michael Heleus
>> To: Marysol Gonzalez Sterling
>> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 12:16 AM
>> Subject: Re: Fw: message for biosonic list I can't directly post from
>> yahoo as reply to forum--please post
>>
>>
>> Marysol,
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the charts--they will require magnification, explanation, and
>> study before I can say more about them.
>>
>>
>> I've discussed the molecular weight to sound issue on the forum more than
>> once. Please run a search on the forum messages for deBroglie to find these
>> occasions. As I see it, using a molecular weight in grams per Avogadro Number
>> of molecules gives a number that the human mind can associate in the
>> unconscious part with that number as hertz well enough radionically to get a
>> slight result in the physiology. It is an arbitrary association with no
>> logical connection between weight and frequency. They could be seen by the
>> mind as parallel since it could associate ascending frequency with ascending
>> weight--the parallel motion allows a slight translation senses/mind/general
>> physiology, the numbers' relations are arbitrary nonsense. I offered that the
>> deBroglie mass equivalent frequency was the only logical conversion available
>> from physics I could find, and that had wildly varying and unhandy frequency
>> ranges for sound therapy. I explained this on the forum to Jonathan Goldman
>> in particular. There was external interference with the forum and the
>> messages about deBroglie were pretty well removed--try a search now to see if
>> I am currently correct, since sometimes the removed stuff is restored or
>> unblocked.
>>
>>
>> Michael

>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Michael Heleus
>> To: Marysol Gonzalez Sterling
>> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 3:41 AM
>> Subject: Sorry to shake you up, but deBroglie makes more sense
>>
>>
>> YES, and yes because here mass is equivalent of weight and mass to frequency
>> has real physics behind it, unlike the ad hoc apples=pears sort of arbitrary
>> juxtaposition of weight/mass to frequency. It's as confusing and innaccurate
>> as saying your car moves at 60 grams an hour! Sorry to sound so critical, but
>> I think a more natural and sensible mass to frequency converserion by
>> deBroglie law beats an arbitrary assignment completely and would be vastly
>> more effective in sonic treatments. Heaven help me to find the info on the
>> net anymore, either in forum records or net calculators for deBroglie--the
>> good stuff just keeps vanishing off the net faster than people put it up
>> anymore.--M
>>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]