Hyacinth::article    Sound::cymatics    August::special    Added::class    Small::sound    Which::oscarg

Science? 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 (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 has something. Certainly there's a large body of annecdotal evidence to back holistic cymatics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (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. (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)

Talk:Cymatics sections
Intro  Sound Not A Wave  Image  Context?  Science?  Standing waves   Slashdot link   New Discoveries in Cymatics  Medical Aspects  Article needs revision   Pseudoscience    visible sound co vibration   

PREVIOUS: Context?NEXT: Standing waves