The 1/2 has nothing to do with precession.

Can you proof this mathematically????

I'm sorry but I hold firm on this 1/2 "makes" something missing..

That is a simple math fact below.

1/2 = 0.5

2*0.5 = 1

1^2 = 1

UNLESS of coarse you mean that .5 = a ratio

"**torque-free precession**"

Then I can understand this.

Could this be conservation? E=mc squared then?

Lorents transformations uses 1 as a numerator, but still does not explain what this 1 is = too.

It simply divides this by a denominator denominations.

http://hyperphysics....tiv/ltrans.html

I think it is very clear to many that 1/2 is not fully understood.

However science __does __deal with precession, predictions and closer than average accuracy at the mercy of

"WAVES."

For this it would then be deductive and logical to "assume" " precession" for this 1/2 usage as waves.

There is a larger part missing in the whole of cycles which = some type of precession.

Rather this be harmonic ocsillation, music theory, color theory or what ever..

There is some thing...