Talk:Cymatics

message: I would like to make an addition to the "In Healing" section of this article.  
There is a section from the book entitled "Healing Sound" by Jonathan Goldman, published by Healing Arts Press that is about cymatic therapy.  It talks about practioners of cymatic therapy and how the science of cymatics is used to heal certain conditions and illnesses in the body.  It may be an updated, or more current, account of how cymatics and the science of the transformative nature of vibration is used in healing and music related physical therapies.  
I will begin working on this addition tonight and tomorrow and will post it before the end of the week.  Please let me know if you agree with the content I wwill contribute, or if you contest the changes I plan to make to this already well-written article.  
Thank you.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesRhodes425 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

message: Nigel Stanford. He seems to use a lot of cymatics in his music videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3oItpVa9fs  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.180.139.162 (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: another example

message: The image does not display correctly on my work computer.-Hyacinth 18:55, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No longer an issue as the image(s) have been removed. Hyacinth (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: What is this article about? A clearer intro would help. Zocky 23:44, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Context?

message: 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 83.67.101.82 (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 71.56.240.110 (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.80.229.20.182 (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Science?

message: 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)
thread_title: Standing waves

message: Linked from this article on Slashdot. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Might be interesting material for an "In Art" section NoahWH 07:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slashdot link 

message: 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"?
Nervinjapan (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New Discoveries in Cymatics

message: The medical aspects of cymatics needs to be stated within this article.
SierraEchoBravo (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Medical Aspects

message: 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)
replies: text: How would you suggest changing the article to improve these faults? Hyacinth (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article needs revision

message: 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.
117.14.96.231 (talk) 08:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: What you have to understand is that the vibration of membranes has been studied for a long time and falls under acoustics, whereas "cymatics" is a new term that people have hopped on because they think these membrane standing wave patterns look cool and want to ascribe spiritual properties to simple things like resonance. It's nothing new. What IS new is the pseudoscience stuff and this appears to be the primary reason the term "cymatics" is becoming popular to describe old physics.71.65.244.201 (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience 

message: There is typo: "visible sound co vibration" (co), but I'm not sure to what it should be changed. 'And'?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenorb (talk • contribs) 15:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  visible sound co vibration 

message: After doing a brief survey of medical literature (which I have now edited the article to include), there appears to be no evidence to back up the idea that "Cymatics" (standing waves) have any healing powers. In addition, the first citation in this section (Sound Healing Classes) leads to an extremely non-scholarly source (indeed, it seems to be an advertisement for an expensive con-artist), which I believe does not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable, authoritative sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars
DeltaF (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Healing Powers Bogus Citation 

message: The article really should say more about modern research into cymatics, especially that deriving from the cymascope of John Stuart Reid, which is not mentioned at all. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you think this is "modern research"? It's not even science, just a sound visualizer, pretty patterns generated from sound data.71.65.244.201 (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Cymascope 

message: The article makes no mention of "cymatics". I think people are finding articles for any research involving standing wave patterns and claiming they are successes of "cymatics" to ultimately legitimize it's pseudoscientific aspects. On the other hand, here is an actual scientific paper using the term: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep23929. If anything, this paper should be discussed instead of P.Chen's. 71.65.244.201 (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influence in Engineering and P. Chen article