Everything on this site about sound, frequency and tradition carries a small badge. The badge doesn't tell you whether something is true. It tells you what kind of claim it is, so you can decide what to do with it.
I do this because most of what circulates about frequencies arrives with no address: no name, no date, no way back. Once you know where a claim came from, you can weigh it yourself. That's the whole job of this Journal, and I do it myself.
Measured with instruments, by someone who wrote down how. Reproducible in principle: if you had the equipment, you could check it.
Example: the fundamental Schumann resonance sits at about 7.83 Hz.
It comes from a tradition, and I can say which one, roughly when, and through whom. A tradition is not a measurement, and it isn't trying to be. It is a body of practice, and it deserves to be read in its own words.
Example: the solfège syllables and Guido d'Arezzo's eleventh-century teaching method.
Derived from arithmetic or geometry. The calculation either works or it doesn't, and you can redo it. Note that a calculation working does not mean the world behaves that way — it means the arithmetic is correct.
Example: 432 = 2⁴ × 3³.
One person's vision, stated as such, with a name attached. Something that came in a dream, a practice, a personal cosmology, or a flash of insight. These belong here when I can say who, when, and from where. They don't get dressed up as measurements.
Example: an author's own geometric derivation of a reference pitch.
A claim in wide circulation whose root I couldn't find. Everyone repeats it; nobody can say who said it first, or where the evidence is. I publish these because the absence of a source is itself information — and often the most useful information on the page.
Example: “528 Hz repairs DNA.”
I report; I don't assert. If a claim isn't mine to defend, I tell you whose it is. “Horowitz argues X” and “X is true” are different sentences, and I mean the difference.
I say how much evidence there is, in numbers. Not “growing research suggests” — but “one study, nine participants, no blinding”. A pilot is a reason to run a bigger study, not a reason to conclude anything. That is a useful thing to know, not a dismissal.
I correct in public. If you can source something I've marked ⑤, write to me: I'll change the page and credit you by name.
I don't rank the lenses. Physics is the sharpest instrument of our time and I use it hard. It is not a court with jurisdiction over the others. A tradition that ran for a thousand years was doing something, and reading it in its own words is more interesting than grading it.
The instruments I build are on the other side of that line: they compute physics, and I describe them in physics only. What you read here is inquiry. What you buy there is an instrument. I keep the two registers apart on purpose.
Questions, corrections, primary sources: write to me. I read everything.
