No, frequency IS the INVERSE of time. Just like you said 1 cycle OVER (PER) second...
> In other words you have to have cycles to have frequencies. There are
> no frequencies without cycles. Cycles determines wavelengths. The
> lower the frequency, the shorter the wavelength, the higher the
> frequency the longer the wavelength.
and I take it one step further and say that everything is a cycle, a vibration, a wave at a specific frequency with its associated "time" cycle, wavelength, phase, etc...
> Next you need a medium for those wavelengths to travel like air, water ,
> space and ground.
No you don't! Space is certainly NOT a medium since there is nothing in it!
> Each one has it's own set of hurdles, for air it's the curvature of the
> earth , for water it is temperature and salinity, for space it is gas and
> bodies, for the ground it is density of land mass. These add more
> variables to the equation.
But, it all can be measured and understood in terms of interference and propagation, among other factors. The fact is that waves also travel over "FREE SPACE" (vaccum) and for a long time, people where trying to say that there needed to be some "ether" in there for the waves to travel. Now we know that is NOT the case...
> Lets say there is a radio station broadcasting in Germany, and you live
> in the US, you will be able to hear the station by using a shortwave
> radio, if using a fm radio you will not hear it, because the wavelengths
> are different. The shorter or smaller the wavelength the further the
> wave will travel, the longer or higher the wavelength the less it will
No, this is not accurate. A wavelength ONLY defines the distances (space!)between the cycles and not travel speed or any such thing!
> Frequencies are not independant of each other.
Yes they are. Otherwise, everything would be interfering with each other!
> For example you have a fishing boat on the waters surface, the
> frequency of the propellers is 50 hz (50 cycles per second). The closer
> the source the more harmonics of that frequency, you will see..You will
> see the same signature of 50hz, repeated at 100hz, 150hz, etc....The
> further away the less of the harmonics you will see.
Harmonics are produced by modulating a wave. A perfect wave (carrier) does not have those!
> It's called Doppler.
Doppler is only a modulation, nothing more, but, there are many other types of modulation techniques...
> As sound approaches your position (if you stand still) it will appear to
> get louder and louder, as sound moves away from you it will appear
> to get less and less noisey.
To me that sounds like a form of amplitude modulation...
> Same holds true with light. The frequency of the propellers didn't
> change, it was the aspect from which you heard the source change
> (approaching or departing).
IMHO, you need to review things in terms of what doppler effect really is!
> To use your analogy of the table. The table has a frequency. It is of
> visible light. It lets off wavelengths of visible light . In order to let off a
> wavelength, it has to have a cycle to determine the size of the
> wavelength (as stated above).
No, the light waves from a source like the Sun or a lamp, interfere with the table and reflect/refract the appropriate color back into the eye. That is how it is...
> I think the problem that people run into is that they think what they
> don't observe as reality right now, has to be totally different then that
> reality that currently exists.
It is not a problem! It is a way to look at true reality vs. just physical reality! Since you claim that you know frequencies, you should know that the visible light is only a very small portion of the entire spectrum of frequencies, therefore, by definition, what we can see is ONLY a very small portion of what true reality is. It is a very simple argument actually...
> In other words going to the opposite end of the spectrum with
> specualtion or theory only without realizing that there is a step in
> between that still needs to be observed and proved.
No way. This is where most traditional science is wrong since it is actually very easy to fool the eye. Therefore, observing someting does not make it "real"! It could be an illusion, mirage or just a digital scan like we can laredy so easily do with TV, HDTV, etc.
For example, I have seen 3D holograms that looked to my eye a lot more real than the actual object.
In terms of proving things, I agree with that, but, this has nothing to do with the issue of looking at reality using time vs. frequency.
I am sorry Joseph, but, I needed to clear the record here...