EDITED 7/23/17

Look at your question logically:

You have inadvertently written a syllogism that is faulty. Syllogisms make two statements, a and b. If these two statements are true, we may be able to prove that a third statement, c, is also true. But we run into trouble when one or both of our first statements is false. [For more on syllogisms, see the "Appendix" below if you cannot understand them. Then you can come back here.]

First, you say this:

A.) "i understand that love vibration means freedom."

Is this really true? Maybe it is. But, is it absolutely true? Does is follow that exuding love means you are free? I am sure that the former slaves of America would have begged to differ. Many of them loved a great deal, but they were not free. Perhaps you may actually feel free if one is full of love, but that may not actually translate into physical freedom!

Now, your B statement... It says this:

B.) "...all suffering and attachments cant touch us when we're on the love frequency"

Is this absolutely true? Perhaps. But imagine this: You are all love. You are walking down Fifth Avenue in New York City, and a bus hops the sidewalk and hits you. Suddenly, you are all love, and all pain, too. (I know. Everyone will start arguing about this poor soul attracting this pain, but please, let's not do this now, okay?)

In other words, I am suggesting that your A and B statements may or may not be true. Even if they are, one can still come to faulty conclusion [see the mini-course below]. You said that they are true, yet your conclusion is faulty! Here is your C statement:

C.) "if i put a+ b together i get loneliness when I'm in love."

Why does your syllogism fail? Because of the various definitions in English for the word "love".

Being in the state of love is different than being in love.

This is the problem with your logic. Being in love, and having a relationship is very different than being in a state, or vibration, of love. We have only one word for "love" in English- "love". But the Greeks called love for "all" agape and physical love between two people- romantic love-Eros. People who are "up there" in a state of love are not in need of a relationship to complete themselves. They are really happy just as they are. If it were to come, great. If it doesn't, no matter! Longing to be in love is different than being at a frequency of love. Longing for love indicates a "lack" and will only create lack. Raising yourself to the state of love would mean that you would never feel a lack of love.

Being in the state of love means that you would not impose yourself on anyone else, nor would you have a need for a companion. This is, yes, the beginning of freedom. It is a freedom of spirit that supersedes the physical. A slave can feel free while in this state- I believe Jesus called this "The Kingdom of Heaven". Some historians feel that Jesus invented the base for true democracy, despite other civilizations that claimed to be democratic. One must respect and love one's brother or sister in a true democracy. For example, if you have such love, you cannot condone slavery. This was the reasoning that started the American Civil War.

The high frequency, or state of love, does ensure freedom; it does not mean that one would feel lonely. That feeling would only come from a lack of love on a relationship level.

Jaianniah

Here is a mini-course on syllogisms. This was originally part of my answer, but I decided that it is more of an appendix to the question. Doing it this way means that if anyone does a search for "syllogisms" on IQ, this will be here for them. This appendix is vital to understanding my answer.

Syllogisms make two statements, a and b. If these two statements are true, we may be able to prove that a third statement, c, is also true. Here is an example of a true syllogism:

A.) David is on the white team.

B.) The white team won the game.

C.) David is on the winning team.

If one or both of the a and b statements is false, we can never prove anything true from just those two a and b statements.

Here, A is false:

A.) Only boys play basketball.

B.) A basketball team won a game this week.

C.) Therefore, the boys won the game.

This is a false syllogism because girls play basketball too!

In the following syllogism, B is false:

A.) The white basketball team won the championship.

B.) The white team is called "white" because all the players are racially white.

C.) Michael Jordan could never have been on the "white" team.

The "white" team was called that because of their white jerseys, not because they were racially white. [BTW, the Chicago Bulls wore white jerseys when they played at home in Chicago. Can you say, "Three-Peat!"???? Boy, this goes back a ways!]

Finally, our two first statements may be true, but we may not come to an incorrect conclusion; i.e., our C statement can be false:

A.) The United States spends more money on Health Care than any other country.

B.) Jaianniah lives in the United States.

C.) Jaianniah enjoys great health care.

I can tell you that the C statement is absolutely false! (Please pardon the personalization!)

Syllogisms are tricky, but really fun, and an essential part of thinking and reasoning clearly. I hope this little course will inspire you to read more about logic and syllogisms elsewhere!

Jai