It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Devil's Chord: The conspiracy to open the portal of consciousness and mystery of the octave

page: 22
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 10:54 PM

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by metalshredmetal

So, there's a correlation between handedness and being technically inclined as opposed to musically inclined? Are most musicians left-handed?

A hotly debated topic is the possible difference in cerebral asymmetry between musicians and non-musicians. In a pioneering behavioural study50 Bever and Chiarell reported right-ear (left hemispheric) dominance in musicians, left-ear dominance in non-musicians. The first imaging study,38 with positron emission tomography (PET), showed that right>left asymmetries in non-musicians confronted with timbre, chord and pitch tasks, but left>right asymmetries in musicians. The authors speculated that the left-sided dominance in musicians might be related to an analytical process—i.e. they interpret music more deeply than non-musicians. Musicians also showed increased blood flow velocity in the left hemisphere whereas non-musicians showed right hemispheric lateralization only during harmony perception. In a magnetic resonance study,46 musicians showed higher activation than non-musicians in the secondary auditory area and in dorsolateral prefrontal regions of the left hemisphere, whereas non-musicians displayed opposite dominance. Further, in musicians, activation of the left planum temporale, which was also anatomically larger than in non-musicians,52 was found to be stronger. This left lateralization in musicians has been replicated by other groups.47,53 A point to note is that, for musicians, mere passive listening is more difficult because of their spontaneous analytical processing, and this possibly contributes to the left lateralization. The ability of music to induce emotions is universal: simply, we are‘ moved’ by it. A PET study54 showed that activity in several paralimbic regions correlated with emotions (unpleasant or pleasant) generated by musical stimuli with varying degrees of dissonance. While the subjects were listening to their favourite music, brain areas (ventral striatum, dorsolateral midbrain) associated with reward or pleasure were activated.55

So "trained" musicians are left-brain dominant while "passive" listeners are right-brain dominant when listening to music

posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 10:57 PM
reply to post by ThoughtForms

I still can't tell if this guy is intentionally deceptive or just bonkers...

Is there a difference?

If the OP genuinely believes that what he has written makes factual or even grammatical sense then we must conclude that he is profoundly deluded.

But if he does not believe it, and is just getting a rise out of some people here, what does that make him?

Does a sane person deliberately type out long nonsensical screeds (21 pages of them!), packed with irrelevant quotes from obscure sources, just to get a rise out readers he has never seen and who mean nothing to him personally?

If there was a financial incentive it would make sense, but if the OP is promoting a book or anything of that kind, he is certainly going about it the wrong way.

The whole business is crazy, any way you slice it.

posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:06 PM
reply to post by fulllotusqigong


Nope. :shk:

Frequency and wavelength both assume logarithmic values.

Why? What does that mean, anyway? That frequency and wavelength should be written as the logarithms of their values? For what purpose? Why should anybody do a thing like that?

The reality of music is that it is noncommutative or complementary opposite harmonics.

Who – apart from you – ever suggested that music was commutative? What does that even mean? A tune is not the same if you play it backwards, is it? You can't multiply two fifths and get a 1/25 interval, can you? You don't – as UncleV correctly points out – blow into the horn of a saxophone to play it. The only person on this thread suggesting that musical notation can be treated like commutative arithmetic is you.

Just intonation, equal temperament, microtonality and all the rest are simply ways of dividing up the octave so that notes can be played on musical instruments. They are a compromise between the perfect intervals that sound pleasant to our ears and the necessity of building musical instruments that can play music based on more than one root note or key signature. They also vary from culture to culture. What sounds tuneful to a Javanese may sound like somebody strangling a cat to an Austrian.


reply to post by fulllotusqigong

None of your quote-mining alters the facts that

  1. Puharic was not a physicist or a mathematician but a doctor of medicine;

  2. he did not discover magnetic moment;

  3. he did not discover gyromagnetism; and

  4. despite the paper you found with your desperate googling, there is no such thing as the 'magnetic momentum of a proton'


reply to post by fulllotusqigong

Neither can your quote-mining alter the incontrovertible facts that
  1. 'Negative infinity' was not created by Plato;

  2. The square root of two is not an infinite quantity; and

  3. "zero is then the quadratic solution for harmonic mean times arithmetic mean equals geometric mean squared" is a string of words which has no meaning in either English or mathematics.

Sorry. You have proved nothing except your own ignorance and lack of understanding of the material you quote.

posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:08 PM
reply to post by poetpiet

"Deny Ignorance, don't you know?"

'Deny Ignorance' is the motto of Above Top Secret. I am using it in the sense most members use it, namely that ignorance should be denied any power over us.

is it advice to never admit you don't know?

I don't know if it's 'advice' or not, but I have never been afraid to admit I don't know something, or that I was wrong. For example, please see this post.

posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:17 PM
reply to post by Astyanax

edit on 15-2-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:20 PM
reply to post by rwfresh

lol that was quite amusing, I was going to reply in depth but I realised there's no point..


ETA: oops removed who that was a reply too... my mistake...
edit on 16-2-2012 by ThoughtForms because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:22 PM
reply to post by DenyObfuscation

I have no choice but to take that as an infinite phase amplitude no resonance frequency of superluminal unconciousness generated from the cube root of no. 125/64 will never = 2.....

posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:32 PM

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by DenyObfuscation

I have no choice but to take that as an infinite phase amplitude no resonance frequency of superluminal unconciousness generated from the cube root of no. 125/64 will never = 2.....

Those Aristotelean and Euclidean characters of continuity which became the right embedding of the theory of incommensurability credibly did not appear before Eudoxus and probably were fostered by the discovery of incommensurability, and the Quadrivium in its earlier Pythagorean version (if any) did not know any discrete/continuous opposition. In other words when music theory paved the road toward the discovery of incommensurability the idea of geometric magnitude was too clumsy to develop and even to understand such discovery, and it was exactly the possibility of the geometric drawing of a not-existent music interval to foster the development of the Aristotelean continuity.224

224 Luigi Borzacchini, “Music and Incommensurability,” Historia-Matematica, August 18, 1999.

posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:57 PM

Originally posted by Astyanax

Who – apart from you – ever suggested that music was commutative?
They are a compromise between the perfect intervals that sound pleasant to our ears ....

Noncommutative music is defined by the presence of two or more scales whose lattice of integral combinations defines a dense subset of the tonic continuum. The effect of such a feature is to make it impossible to identify individual notes within the musical piece, rendering traditional musical analysis impossible.

So Western music is commutative.

The tuning of music in terms of time-frequency uncertainty still relies on conversion to a Hertz measurement

I'm not talking about defining time by a spatial length. The "second" as a measurement of time originated from the Solar clock --

Early definitions of the second were based on the apparent motion of the sun around the earth.[2] The solar day was divided into 24 hours, each of which contained 60 minutes of 60 seconds each, so the second was 1⁄86 400 of the mean solar day.

On the other hand, as early as the 27th century B.C.E., the Sumerians had used artificial time units in referring to the tenure of some high official – e.g., on N-day of the turn of office of PN, governor. The Sumerian administration also needed a time unit comprising the whole agricultural cycle; for example, from the delivery of new barley and the settling of pertinent accounts to the next crop. This financial year began about two months after barley cutting. For other purposes, a year began before or with the harvest. This fluctuating and discontinuous year was not precise enough for the meticulous accounting of Sumerian scribes, who by 2400 B.C.E. already used the schematic year of 30 x 12 = 360 days

So the Solar Calendar is directly tied to plow-based farming and the "symbolic revolution" of around 10,000 BC as documented by Jacques Cauvin. There was an attempt to "contain" infinity using geometry and human-centered technology -- plow-based farming and irrigation -- and so time was defined as spatial distance.

I'm talking about time as the source of sound -- as listening perception -- not defining time by spatial distance.

The deal with Puharich is that he worked on the secret of the magnetic moment between the proton and the electron -- using quantum relativity.

On Infinity -- "negative infinity" and the square root of two -- well as I pointed out earlier the mathematicians are still debating this. Bertrand Russell stated that the real numbers are a "convenient fiction" so yeah maybe Plato never invented nor discovered anything. haha.

But Aristotle was against Plato's use of infinity in a materialist fashion -- as a starting point -- call it what you want. This is why zero was not used for another thousand years or so in the West.

edit on 16-2-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-2-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 12:14 AM

Originally posted by Astyanax

  1. 'Negative infinity' was not created by Plato;

Plato and the Academy, the numeric representation of musical scales and harmonic theory were well-known, Plato’s correspondents, colleagues, and followers associated him with Pythagoreanism, and the Neo-Pythagoreans made the scale of twelve, regularly spaced notes part of their studies of the metaphysics allegedly hidden in the dialogues. Methodologically, the inductive arguments for these claims have been secured by presenting extensive, mutually reinforcing lines of evidence. There were two kinds of controls or checks.... The specific measurements of relative location were confirmed to within a half a percent by the passages alluding to the Golden Mean, which generally validates the algorithms and programs employed. Claims like these raise more questions than can be addressed within the confines of an essay. Though the evidence reported here will need to be verified and debated, it does clarify, in a surprising way, Aristotle’s once puzzling view that Plato was a Pythagorean.

As J.B. Kennedy notes -- Archytas and Plato were correspondents and Plato hid the 12 evenly spaced (logarithmic) notes as the structure of his dialogues

McClain though, instead focuses on the Western use of this “Great Dragon Tuning” – and in his
book The Pythagorean Plato the hint is given that 9/8, the major 2nd music interval, when cubed,
was the square root of two as the tritone music interval. “Since 9 actually reduces to a wholetone of 9/8, its cube will reduce to (9/8)³ = 729/512, a Pythagorean approximation to the square root of two, a problem which fascinated Socrates in the marriage allegory.”206

So there's Plato promoting the square root of two based on music theory -- the Tritone as the Devil's Interval -- and the first proof for incommensurability as negative infinity.

The crisis of Pythagorean rationality, to which Plato's thought responds, marks the first rigorous appearance of what I call metalogical difference - the disjunction of the metalogical properties of consistency and completeness, arising in the pursuit of their synthesis.... In contrast, I argue that Plato's decision, legible at crucial points of the dialogues, is to accept a fully logical role for incommensurability, and that in consequence his thought is able to absorb as torsion rather than as ontotheological paradox or logical nihilism a large measure of incommensurability's negation of received philosophical and prephilosophical ideals of perfection - and even of the primacy of Being.

Negation and Incommensurability: On the Metalogical Kernel of Platonic Dialectic by John Bova, Villanova University, USA March 28, 2010
edit on 16-2-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)

In Physics, book IV, Aristotle considered a possibility of adopting a zero number. "Now there is a ratio in which the void is exceeded by body, as there is no ratio of 0 to a number (τ_ μηδέv πρ_ς _ρι'μόv). For if 4 exceeds 3 by 1, and 2 by more than 1, and 1 by still more than it exceeds 2, still there is no ratio by which it exceeds 0; for that which exceeds must be divisible into the excess + that which is exceeded, so that 4 will be what it exceeds 4 + 0." (15) There is no doubt that the name of "zero" appearing in the above quotation from Physics means "a number zero" and is evidently connected with a notion of "nothing" or "nothingness". It is also indicated by the term of μηδέv used by Aristotle. This term does not belong to a dictionary of basic terms of Aristotle's system for obvious reasons. The Philosopher employed it when he analysed views of his predecessors while writing about beings coming to be from nothingness (16) and according to the ex nihilo nihil fit principle he rejected non-being conceived of as nothingness.

Aristotle rejects zero as invented by his predecessors

Aristotle's predecessors were Plato and his Academy, therefore Plato's Academy invented zero and Aristotle rejected it.
edit on 16-2-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 01:46 AM
Back to the OP source

This proportion is important because it represents half of the total resonant region around a major sixth in the spectral interference pattern over an octave. As a practical matter, this dimension in the stone chapel allows sound to resonate maximally without the reflectiveness of a pure 5:3 major sixth proportion. As I came to explore Rosslyn further, I began to understand how this “magic ratio” could have been symbolic of enlightenment or even a portal to heaven. When we look at proportions below a major sixth, we find that they get closer and closer to the resonance cancelling golden ratio of 1.618033, but when we look at the proportions above a major sixth, they converge upward to the octave. Given that the golden ratio is a perfect damping proportion and symbolizes the Underworld of Earthly structure, the proportion above a major sixth could have been taken to represent enlightenment and a path of entry into the spiritual realm.

The answer is they used a musical interval the Roman Church had outlawed in 1234 at the start of the Papal Inquisition and Holy Crusades. This was the interval of a half-octave or “tritone”, nicknamed Diabolus in Musica due to various pagan associations. But Sinclair and Haye knew it was the key to understanding the balance of resonance and damping in Nature - so, they preserved it in the chapel’s architecture as musical patterns, dreaming of the day it would be discovered.

Freemasonry -- the Separation of Heaven and Earth and the Golden Ratio hiding complementary opposites in music through "sacred geometry architecture"
edit on 16-2-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 02:13 AM

Originally posted by Astyanax

Who – apart from you – ever suggested that music was commutative? What does that even mean?

The keyboard is partitioned into equivalence classes that are labeled by the designating symbols of the chromatic sequence. Assuming Octave Equivalence, there are only 11 distinct transpositions and one identity transposition. The set of transpositions is now a cyclic (commutative) group of transformations of order 12. Think of the transpositions as being affected by repeated application of the operator '#' or of 'b'. The full group is generated by powers of either operator, which is what is meant by a cyclic group. We have considered in this aside, the concept of group only as it relates to the conceptually equivalent notions of the modern keyboard and the well tempering that defines it.

Mathematically the 12 tone equal-tempered music scale is commutative music

from Bill Hammel:

EDUCATION: Ph.D. Theoretical Physics - University of Wisconsin. Major areas: General Relativity, Quantum Field Theory, High Energy/Particle Physics and Statistical Mechanics Minor: Mathematics M.S. Mathematics - Long Island University. with Graduate study in Physics, and Music with Stefan Wolpe B.A. Mathematics - Long Island University. Minors: Physics, Music, Philosophy, Comparative Linguistics with Graduate study in Mathematics, Physics, and graduate Music with Raoul Pleskow

edit on 16-2-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 02:19 AM

Originally posted by Astyanax

  1. 'Negative infinity' was not created by Plato;

The first notion of an abstract zero, that is a number zero, in the history of human thought appeared in Aristotle's philosophy in the 4th c. BC

Again zero was the invention of Aristotle's predecessors -- Plato's Academy -- and was rejected by Aristotle.

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 02:59 AM

Originally posted by Astyanax

  • Puharic was not a physicist or a mathematician but a doctor of medicine;

  • Puharich was investigating quantum chaos singularities in biology and his patents were classified by the military. 50% of physics is funded by the military. Puharich was part of the mind control research for the military.

    In Quantum Mechanics In quantum mechanics Thomas precession is a correction to the spin-orbit interaction, which takes into account the relativistic time dilation between the electron and the nucleus in hydrogenic atoms. Basically, it states that spinning objects precess when they accelerate in special relativity because Lorentz boosts do not commute with each other.

    This is the factor Puharich is dealing with in terms of the magnetic moment of the proton's precession and the orbit of the electron. Puharich states:

    Protons moving at relativistic velocities are profoundly influenced by the magnetic field while their rest mass is not signficantly altered, their total energy, particularly the magnetic component is increased.

    So that's why I used the term "magnetic momentum" instead of "magnetic moment" even though Puharich uses "magnetic moment." Puharich relies on Schwinger:

    Schwinger points out that even though the Maxwell equations call for a symmetry between electric charge and magnetic charge, the cold fact is that no magnetic counterpart to the electric charge is known.

    So then Puharich says:

    ...the proton now has a frame of reference which (depending on its energy) may have a wave length which is equal to the radius of the solar system.

    Then Puharich says:

    ...the 1 KHz signal, the acoustic phonon displacement....will set up a magnetic will be picked up by the hydrogen proton....the higher the magnetic field the higher the frequency of precession.

    edit on 16-2-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)

    posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 04:45 AM

    Originally posted by UncleV
    Um...thanks for the reply, I think....still not too sure what all this is supposed to mean.

    This is what I don't understand about the OP's original posts, what is it you are suggesting should change? Again, very simple please.

    O.K. so here's the harmonic series shown in string wavelengths and frequencies for a "Doe a Deer" diatonic scale showing the Bait and Switch I'm talking about

    Now it fits with what you're saying -- as the harmonic series goes up in frequency then the spacing gets less -- as an inverse relation. We can say it is even logarithmic -- but it's not because it is not using logarithmic tuning.

    Now you may think that doesn't matter because they are very similar in tuning -- but there is a subtle yet powerful difference. The "bait and switch" I'm exposing is the commutative property which relies on changing the order of the harmonics.

    So the person here first considers the harmonic series -- from the right -- going down! In other words to develop his tuning scale he has to reverse the order of the harmonic series. Only then can he get the frequency ratios to create both a Perfect Fourth and a Perfect Fifth that are not below the value of the octave frequency.

    So he starts going the opposite direction so that 1/4 is the third octave but then has goes in the opposite direction so that 0/4 wavelength is the Perfect Fourth frequency (as 3/4).

    Now I pointed out that the harmonic series has the third harmonic as 2:3 creating the Perfect Fifth -- C to G. Then the fourth harmonic creates the perfect fourth as G to C. That's going in the same direction -- with no reversal of the fractions to keep the frequency above the wavelength.

    It's a harmonic based on listening to overtones and it's noncommutative 2:3 is C to G and G to C is 3:4. That's noncommutative.

    But when the order of the wavelength is reversed -- then the 0/4 is a different value than the harmonic series. It's not the same fraction of 3:4 as G to C -- in other words it's a different music interval so instead it's C to F as the Perfect Fourth.

    Do you now see the "bait and switch" that I am talking about? So this hides the noncommutative value of C to G is 2:3 and G to C is 3:4. He has to reverse the order of the wavelength but the Harmonic Series diverges as infinite sound consciousness through complementary opposites.

    O.K. to go back to the first "Doe a Deer" scale I posted --
    as I've mentioned the F to C is listed as 2/3x and the C to G is 3/2x. So it's the same "C" just like with the harmonic series but it is noncommutative.

    So it would appear that this is fine except that the fractions are the frequency -- not the wavelength! So the frequency of the first Perfect Fifth as 2/3x is actually the wavelength and then it is doubled to 4/3x as the Perfect Fourth frequency.

    Again that is the bait and switch I am talking about -- instead of an inversion of the frequency and wavelength there has to be a doubling of the fraction first to hide the noncommutative relation of the Perfect Fifth and Perfect Fourth.

    So then as I mentioned before -- this person who has shown the harmonic series as wavelength frequency inversion by reversing the order of the harmonic series -- and only by reversing the order -- is he able to then set up the arithmetic mean and harmonic mean equations that are from Archytas. So this "bait and switch" was done originally by Archytas -- in other words doubling a wavelength instead of inverting it in order to hide the noncommutative relation of the Perfect Fifth and Perfect Fourth. What is left out of this description of the harmonic mean and arithmetic mean is the Babylonian equation that I got from musciologist Ernest McClain:

    Arithmetic mean times harmonic mean equals geometric mean squared.

    That was how the Tritone as the Devil's Interval as the Square root of Two was originally devised.

    Barbera does note that Archytas used the Babylonian tetrachord, an extension of the tetrad, 6:8::9:12 whereby 8 is the harmonic mean and 9 is the arithmetic mean between 6 and 12 with the above changed meanings as discussed.236 So 1, 4/3, 3/2, 2 were converted to 6:8:9:12. So 8 x 9 = 72 (harmonic mean x arithmetic mean = geometric mean squared) and the square root of 72 in simplified radical form is 6 times the square root of 2 – or the equal-tempered logarithmic tritone music interval, the 6th semitone of the 12 note scale aka the Devil’s Interval.

    235 André Barbera, "The Consonant Eleventh and the Expansion of the Musical Tetractys: A Study of
    Ancient Pythagoreanism," Journal of Music Theory, 1984.

    Another thing to keep in mind is that the ratio 9/8 is not even allowed in Orthodox Pythagorean tuning.

    As Professor Andre Barbera exposes: Orthodox Pythagorean theory recognizes five consonances: fourth, fifth, octave, twelfth, and double octave; and these are represented by the multiple and superparticular ratios [n + 1 : n] from the tetrad. The number 8 obviously does not belong to the tetrad.235

    edit on 16-2-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)

    edit on 16-2-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)

    O.K. so if we want to get real technical about the Harmonic Series -- the 3:4 as G to C is a subharmonic of the harmonic series and then it states this is implied by the third harmonic of C to G as 2:3. In fact the Perfect Fourth is not a direct harmonic at all -- because the Perfect Fourth as the supposed 11th harmonic is not even a real Perfect Fourth.

    So if we consider 2/3x as the subharmonic of 3/2x, the diatonic frequency of the Perfect Fifth, as the third harmonic -- 2:3 -- then that means the subharmonic as the perfect fourth is given the complementary opposite interval to the octave since it is now going the opposite direction to the octave.

    And then the subharmonic as 2/3x can be doubled to 4/3x as the Perfect Fourth frequency with the 3/4 wavelength, instead of a 2/3 wavelength.

    By assuming that the 2/3x is not the frequency nor the wavelength but instead a subharmonic of the 3/2x C to G Perfect Fifth diatonic frequency then the "Doe a Deer" scale is logically consistent.

    This scale though does not rely on the equal-tempered tuning concept that Archytas relied on -- using geometric mean.

    So here we have the six means used with the geometric mean included

    These are the three means of Archytas. Eudoxus introduced his three means as the conceptual complements to the means of Archytas.

    Eudoxus was the student of Archtyas. So again Archytas figured out the secret of the square root of two from the music ratios:

    Ptolemy's evident perplexity over Archytas' system is in keeping with this supposed mental style of Archytas, for whatever text of Archytas Ptolemy was working from contained what for Ptolemy seems to have been a puzzling statement, to the effect that between the F# of Archytas' chromatic, and the G of his diatonic scales, there occurs the ratio 256 : 243. Ptolemy finds fault with this ratio for not being an epimore - but evidently he doesn't understand which epimores are the ones which define Archytas' system, (i.e. the epimores composed of the numbers one through ten, generated by the tetractys, and not primarily those which appear between neighboring notes of his scales.)

    O.K. so subharmonics saves the diatonic "Doe a Deer" scale --

    For example, the musical distances of 2/1, 3/1, 4/1, etc., in the ascending series are mirrored perfectly by a descending harmonic series from the same note: 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, etc. The musical distances are identical, and of course the intervals are inverted (3/1 gives SOL, while 1/3, its inverse, gives FA). The two sets of harmonics are complementary, and the multiplication of any harmonic interval by the corresponding subharmonic intervals always gives 1/1 (3/2 x 2/3 = 3/3= 1/1, for example).

    I kept repeating this discrepancy in logic but no one on this thread even would acknowledge it! The frequency /wavelength inversion does not work for the Perfect Fourth unless there is a doubling first -- not just an inversion.
    So the doubling is as a subharmonic.

    Archytas instead used the doubling as wavelength and this leads to the square root of two geometric mean from music.

    edit on 16-2-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)

    edit on 16-2-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)

    edit on 16-2-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)

    edit on 16-2-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)

    edit on 16-2-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)

    edit on 16-2-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)

    posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 04:59 AM

    Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
    O.K. on the right-handed technology that refers to "racemization" of molecules.

    This is for the benefit of members who don't have the the time or energy to use the dictionary:

    racemization - noun Chemistry
    the conversion of an optically active substance into an optically inactive mixture of equal amounts of the dextrorotatory and levorotatory forms

    dextrorotatory - adjective Optics
    turning to the right, as the rotation to the right of the plane of polarization of light in certain crystals and the like

    levorotatory - adjective Optics, Chemistry, Biochemistry
    turning to the left, as the rotation to the left of the plane of polarization of light in certain crystals and compounds

    posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 07:46 AM
    reply to post by fulllotusqigong

    Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
    This qigong healing is real.

    I think you’re right about that.

    It is interesting to read's “Look Inside” for Stuart Isacoff’s book Temperament: How Music Became a Battleground for the Great Minds of Western Civilization:

    How can one argue with "some of the most exquisite music ever written"?

    edit on 02/16/12 by Mary Rose because: Punctuation

    posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 08:28 AM
    reply to post by Mary Rose

    I have asked him before to define frequency as he uses the term. This was in the response.

    O.K. so what I am really doing is writing from music but music is right-brain dominant. Musicians are actually more left-brain dominant when they listen to music since they have the school training but music itself is a right-brain dominant perception and this is what I am communicating. It's not about literal word definitions -- words are a left-brain dominant perception.

    posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 08:55 AM
    reply to post by DenyObfuscation

    To be sure, we must define our terms if we are going to communicate with one another successfully.

    In my case, I had no clue what racemization is. I forced myself to look it up in the dictionary, and after I did, the dictionary definitions made his post make sense to me.

    But in the case of "frequency" it may simply be that new science is confusing the issue of what the various dictionary definitions are, or should be, for the word.

    Definitely this topic needs work.

    posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 08:58 AM

    Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
    Sweet! Yes my friend was in the Peace Corps in Morocco . . .

    For those of you who may be confused about the above post, it is in reference to my private message concerning the Berbers:

    I saw the Berbers while on a drive in the mountains of Marrakesh and I was really impressed. I loved the colorful clothing the women wore. We stopped the car and got out, and when we did we were led into one of the homes where they showed us a wooden mill, I guess it was. That was a cool experience.

    new topics

    top topics

    << 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

    log in