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
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.
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
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...