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

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by fulllotusqigong

 

If you're doubling the cube then the volume is three times as much not twice as much so if the volume was 2 then it is 8.

Well first I'll say I don't care much either way it's just that doubling the volume seems to be the trick where doubling the length of an edge or doubling the volume of a square shouldn't qualify as any great achievement. If I'm wrong about this I'm not the only one.

Three such problems stimulated so much interest among later geometers that they have come to be known as the "classical problems": doubling the cube, i.e., constructing a cube whose volume is twice that of a given cube;

Source

Also I can see 1 is to 5/4 as 8/5 is to 2 but I don't see how 5/4:8/5 fits the sequence, at least not mathematically. I know 1*5/4*8/5=2 but that seems to work with any "doubled and inverted" fraction such as 3/2 4/3, 11/7 14/11 etc.

And when I asked about F-C being a P5 I meant in standard theory.

The original continued proportion is from my book -- as I have quoted the mathematicians -- it's an unsolved mystery how the continued proportion was given actual number ratios for doubling the cube.

So math professor Luigi Borzacchini has made the same argument that it is due to an error of cognitive science that mathematicians ignore the music theory.

In other words scientists have a mental problem. haha. Math professor Borzacchini stated my math was good but that I had no historical proof and he calls it the "secret of the sect."

Economist Michael Hudson states that this proof of music theory for irrational geometry was used also as a secret of the sect to justify unequal economics as the moral and political standard by Plato.

So obviously Western science works -- but for whom does it work? I am saying that the math is not pure -- that global destruction and the ecological crisis and severe social inequality are built into the mathematics and this is revealed by the secret music theory connection.

When you say "standard" music theory -- yes I am presenting standard music theory. There is absolutely nothing controversial about what I am presenting. It is like saying that because it is not popularly known -- since it is not "popular" then it can be ignored. haha. That has nothing to do with the actual content of the information presented.

What I am saying is that when people learn music theory they don't think about the logic of it very precisely -- and so this error of logic gets covered up and the implications are not considered because people don't think the commutative property is something to be analyzed.

So then the mathematicians realize that there is a secret music connection that is between the continued proportion and the cube root of two geometric ratio but the mathematicians could not solve what the connection was. So when I discovered this math professor Joe Mazur asked me to make sure to consider David Fowler's perspective as he is the expert on Platonic mathematics. Sure enough he states that music theory should provide the secret connection but that it's probably not that important. Professor Mazur stated that I had done very important research and he asked me to submit it for publication.

So when Borzacchini presented his argument for the musical origins of incommensurability -- the square root of two proof -- David Fowler responded that there's no historical evidence so the case can not be made. Nevertheless Borzacchini has so much circumstantial evidence that the argument is self-evident and his results were accepted for publication.

My personal opinion is that reductio ad absurdum 'emerged' slowly together with the idea that incommensurability was not just a numerical difficulty (as it was already in Babylonian mathematics, similar for example to the absence of the inverse of 7), but was a theoretical confirmation of the ontological opposition between discrete and continuous. If this interpretation is not completely unfounded we could say that reductio ad absurdum was a 'work in progress' since the end of the 5-th century, that was completed most of all between Aristotle and Euclid. By the way, I wrote something more on this topic in a paper "Music, incommensurability and continuum: a cognitive approach" on Archive for the history of exact sciences, 61, 273-302 (2007). Best wishes Luigi Borzacchini

O.K. so just using a "divide and average" calculation to get the cube root value is not the issue -- rather it is the issue of the empirical truth of infinity and how that affects harmonics. Science calls this sonofusion or various other attempts to unify quantum and relativity physics. Quantum chaos, quantum gravity, etc.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation

Several super-conducting space-time sheets are probably involved with the control and complex super-conducting circuits are certainly involved. The structure of the cell interior suggests a highly organized ohmic circuitry. In particular, cytoskeleton could be important carrier of currents and atomic space-times sheets of the microtubules could be in crucial role as carriers of the ohmic currents: there is indeed electric eld along microtubule. The collagenous liquid crystalline networks [9, 10] are excellent candidates for the carriers of weak ohmic currents in the inter-cellular tissue. Fractality suggests that also structures like proteins, DNA and microtubules are in a similar ow equilibrium controlled by super-conducting ion densities at protein/DNA/microtubule space-time sheets and probably also larger space-time sheets. Bioelectromagnetic research provides a lot of empirical evidence for the existence of the direct current ohmic circuits, mention only the pioneering work of Becker and the work of Nordenstrom [7, 17] . For instance, these direct currents are proposed to be crucial for the understanding of the eects of the acupuncture. The ancient acupuncture, which even now is not taken seriously by many skeptics, could indeed aect directly the densities and supercurrents of ions at super-conducting space-time sheets and, rather ironically, be an example of genuine quantum medicine.

As physicist and Nobel laureate Brian Josephson outlines: “Music is like atoms in terms of quantum theory.” He proposes parallels between DNA and music ideas, and also theorises that music stimulates a primary level of consciousness. Not only that. Josephson likens balance-imbalance conditions in bio-systems to the tension and release patterns found in music -- and, suggests that music "models" can help maintain balance in the human organism.

To sum up, one could see super-conducting space-time sheets as controllers of the evolution of the cellular and other biological structures and the model of organism could be specied to some degree in terms of the densities and currents of the super-conducting particles at various space-time sheets besides the values quantized magnetic uxes associated with various many-sheeted loops. Setting up the goal at controlling space-time sheets would force the atomic space-time sheets to self-organize so that the goal is achieved. This clearly provides a quantum mechanism of of volition. A fascinating challenge is to apply this vision systematically to understand morphogenesis and homeostasis.

The deviation of the external magnetic ux from a quantized value is coded to a small supercurrent. This mechanism combined with stochastic resonance possible for SQUID type circuits [4] makes it possible to 'measure' extremely weak magnetic elds of MEs by amplifying them to biological eects. MEs can also form junctions (possibly Josephson-) between two super-conducting circuits. In this case a constant electric eld associated by ME denes the frequency of the induced Josephson current: the weaker the potential dierence, the slower the oscillation period. This mechanism might explain why the eects of ELF em elds in living matter occur in intensity windows.

O.K. so here we have Bio-Systems as Super-Conductors: Part II M. Pitkanen, January 29, 2011 that relies on Brian Josephson's superconducting quantum junctions and then Brian Josephson states that those junctions are modeled by music theory.

I corresponded with Nobel physicist Josephson about this topic and he stated he didn't know enough about music theory. haha.

Seriously people who learn music theory don't investigate it's origins in Archytas and the great conspiracy that was a cover-up of Pythagorean philosophy as paranormal healing energy from listening to the source of sound as complementary opposites or yin and yang resonating infinitely.

Frequency entrainment for both ELF and high frequency branches can be understood if both the thickness and length of the magnetic ux tubes are subject to a homeostatic control. The assumption that the total magnetic energy of the ux tube remains constant during the frequency entrainment together with the magnetic ux quantization implies that the ratio S=L of the area S of the magnetic ux tube to its length L remains constant during entrainment. Thus the ratios fh=fELF of the magnetic transition frequencies to characteristic frequencies of MEs would be homeostatic invariants in agreement with the empirical ndings. The value of the ratio is in good approximation fh=fELF = 2  1011.

So once again, just as with Puharich, we have the high frequencies of sound creating subharmonics as ELF waves with nonlinear quantum sonofusion alchemy as the result.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


O.K. so here is more on how time-frequency uncertainty is used for holographic brain processing as consciousness.

So the spatial dimension is converted to a frequency dimension of time

To better understand the basics of the above: Mathematics of Music

So essentially the information is stored as holographically so the brain reduces entropy.

One of the mysteries related to Hearing is the ability to hear frequencies much higher than the maximum rate of nerve pulses which is below kHz. The coding by Josephson frequencies and representation of them as quale of the magnetic body resolves this mystery.

Matti Pitkanen

So again we have a nonlinear sound -- based on time-frequency uncertainty -- and the ultrasound as ELF subharmonics....and these resonate for sonofusion of the proton-electron bonds.

Thus the phenomenon of octaves could relate to the p-adic length scale hypothesis, which implies that physically preferred p-adic primes correspond to primes near prime power powers of two. For instance, this implies that the massless extremals (MEs) associated with physically important padic primes have fundamental frequencies which are octaves of each other. Therefore a classical resonance via the formation of join along boundaries bonds becomes possible and real space-time sheets corresponding to preferred p-adic primes can form larger resonant structures. This universal resonance could explain why octaves are experienced similarly. The problem of this argument was that primary p-adic time scales would come as half octaves instead of octaves. Octaves seem to have much deeper signicance than I thought originally and seem to emerge at the level of fundamental formulation of quantum TGD rather than characterizing only a very special kind of sensory experience. In the recent formulation of quantum TGD using zero energy ontology [21, 22] one uses zero energy states which have their positive and negative energy parts at the light-like boundaries of causal diamonds consisting of future and past directed light-cones....This assumption allows to deduce
p-adic length scale hypothesis (p ' 2k, k integer), and to identify T as a secondary p-adic time
scale. For electron this time scale is .1 seconds and corresponds to the fundamental 10 Hz biorhythm.
For non-standard values of Planck constant T is scaled by a factor ~=~0. Thus octaves become a
key element of fundamental physics. One can say that causal diamonds as space-time correlates of
self appear naturally as octaves. Also rational multiples of fundamental frequency emerge via the
hierarchy of Planck constants: in principle all rational scalings of the basic hierarchy are allowed.

Perhaps music experience actually involves in a very essential manner also magnetic body. That "eastern" music favors additive instead of divisive rhythm could be understood as higher right brain dominance. The extremely mechanical rhytms characterizing the popular music today, the lack of melodic aspects, and the use of the volume of music as the basic means to induce emotional eect, could in turn interpreted in terms of extreme left brain dominance.

For instance, the ability of good music to generate vibrations in spine could relate to this negentropic aspects. Music as purely intellectual experience could induce essentially an analysis of what was heard based on the use of holistic-reductionistic dichotomy. Chopin's music has especially strong healing eect. Tempo rubato might re ect the profound integration of rhytmic aspects, melodic, and harmonic to single organic whole both at the level of representation and music experience.

Wow that's exactly what I said about Chopin earlier in this thread. Amazing.

The ability of the 'note selves' of the chord to have stable
ux tube bonds between
themselves should depend crucially on the fact that the frequencies of the notes of the basic chords
have simple rational ratios so that the oscillations involved are commensurate and match together.
Hence a resonance phenomenon ins spirit of classical physics involving rational ratios of frequencies
would be in question. During listening the chord self continually decomposes into sub-selves when
listener consciously concentrates attention to some notes in the chord....The ability of the music to occasionally create thrills in spine could correspond to whole-body consciousness in unusually large length scale. Note the this scale could correspond also to the secondary time length scale assignable to CD. It presumably involves a resonant fusion of also other than note sub-selves to larger negentropic sub-selves by the formation of stable join along boundaries bonds identiable as magnetic flux tubes. The ability of certain sounds ('Om') to promote the emergence of whole-body consciousness could be due to the ability to very eectively generate negentropic entanglement direction.

Again this is exactly what I'm talking about in regards to "frission" or the vagus nerve music tingles effect.

From pages 190 plus here pdf

good post.ofhuman....nice comment

reply to post by fulllotusqigong

The original continued proportion is from my book -- as I have quoted the mathematicians -- it's an unsolved mystery how the continued proportion was given actual number ratios for doubling the cube.

I'm not big on Greek history and such so I'm confused by math without numbers as they were apparently doing it.
And now it's a mystery how they doubled the cube? Didn't you claim to have this solved in the OP? What is 1-5/4-8/5-2 supposed to be about then? What of all the talk of the tritone being the square root of 2 LITERALLY? 3/2*4/3=2 is proof of something? 3*5=15,that doesn't mean 4 is the square root of 15.5/4 cubed to 2 when mathematically it's not? And again 1-5/4-8/5-2 is NOT proportional. There are many ways to get from 1 to 2 equally irrelevantly. Too frustrated to go on right now.

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by fulllotusqigong


You say you're too frustrated to go on but to answer you I have to go back into the thread to repeat myself! haha.

At least you're not asking the same question over and over about the Perfect Fifth and Perfect Fourth being non-commutative. Yet again you post the numbers without the letters. Yes I'm sure you took basic algebraic geometry as it's 10th grade math. The Greeks created it with proof by contradiction but they didn't have logarithms for square roots.

In my opinion we can instead explain this as revealing a sharp passage
from the musical to the geometrical framework on the line from Archytas to
Eudoxus, with the vanishing of the earlier approach. The translation was easy because geometric similarity was well known, and the connection between duplication of the square and the mean proportional between 1 and 2 was known as well, if Hippocrates of Chios could reduce the duplication of the cube to two mean proportionals and Archytas accomplished it geometrically.195

195 Historia Matematica listserve [HM] Music and Incommensurability, Luigi Borzacchini, Mon, 12 Jul
1999.

O.K. so I gave the music interval answer for the "mean proportional" between 1 and 2 for doubling the volume.

To clarify this tricky business of compounding ratios, here's how Wilber Richard
Knorr's The Ancient Tradition of Geometric Problems (1986) describes the equation: If for any two given lines, A and B, we can insert the two mean proportionals, X and Y, then A:X = X:Y=Y:B. Thus, by compounding the ratios, one has (A:X)cubed = (A:X)(X:Y)(Y:B), that is, A cubed:X cubed = A:B. Thus, X will be the side of a cube in the given ratio (B:A) to the given cube (A cubed).

O.K. so that's without the actual numbers plugged in. Here's one mathematician wondering what the numbers are:

Professor Ken Saito in his essay “Doubling the cube: a new interpretation of its significance for early Greek geometry,” Historia Math. 22 (2) (1995), 119-137 notes that “Strangely enough, in contrast to the abundance of solutions for inserting two mean proportionals, we have little testimony on how Hippocrates' reduction was proved in antiquity.”

The secret of the sect music equation for the compounding proportions of the side lengths is this: A:X::X:Y::Y:2A = 1:5/4::5/4:8/5::8/5:2. That's the secret of the Greek Miracle -- converting Pythagorean harmonics into the irrational geometric continuum. In contrast the Kaplans just give the geometric phonetic values for this equation: X = the cube root of two multiplied by A.

So that's me giving the answer from music theory. Now here's the expert mathematician stating he thinks music theory provides the answer but he doesn't know how: David Fowler:

Earlier in David Fowler’s definitive book on the subject, The Mathematics of Plato's Academy, he wrangles with this music issue, stating: ...the manipulations of music theory seem to depend fundamentally on the operation of compounding, an operation which seems to pose some serious problems for mathematicians. My purely speculative suggestion...is that music theory might plausibly give some help with this problem.196

O.K. so compounding is referring to the compound ratios or proportions of Hippocrates.

Now you say -- o.k. but how do you use that to find cube roots in general. Again the ancient Greeks did not have logarithms but they did use "divide and average" math for convergence -- and this process only worked with a symmetric gematria using the commutative property -- the Attic number system. So that was used to solve the square root of two as a proof by contradiction for the Greek Miracle continuum.

The recognized geometry proof for doubling the cube of Archytas relies on geometric mean from circles so it assumes that the harmonics of infinity are enclosed by geometry and the proof is dynamic -- think of it as going the opposite direction in the circle of fifths. In this thread I have pointed out that pitch perception changes based on the direction of time. Time is non-commutative as I have revealed. That was covered up by Archytas when solving algebraically for the cube root of two from music theory. In other words three dimensional "contained" geometry does not take into account relativity and quantum physics.

reply to post by fulllotusqigong


C4-G4 is 2:3 freq ratio with C=2 G=3. G4-C4=3:2. That much is commutative. What difference does it make what G4-C5 is? If that can be explained then I can stop asking.

1+1/4 of 1 =5/4. 5/4+1/4 of 5/4 =25/16, not 8/5. 8/5+1/4 of 8/5 =2. So my question is in what way is 1-5/4-8/5-2 proportional? Same deal, explain it and I can stop talking about it.

In order to double a cube, 1-2 is not the issue. Anyone can multiply 27*2 to get 54. If I'm to be as anal as the Greeks were about precisely doubling a cube I need to know how to use music to determine by what proportion to increase the sides of my cube which currently measure 3 units. I'm just trying to apply the theory.

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by fulllotusqigong

 

C4-G4 is 2:3 freq ratio with C=2 G=3. G4-C4=3:2. That much is commutative. What difference does it make what G4-C5 is? If that can be explained then I can stop asking.

O.K. frequency is inverse to wavelength -- so it's a fraction of time as wavelength in the opposite direction. That's why G to C is a Perfect Fourth and not a Perfect Fifth -- because it's an operation in time as frequency and the frequency would be 4/3 because it has to be doubled to be in the same octave of 1 to 2. So it is doubled from 2/3 but this is F to C since it is going in the opposite or reverse time -- it has the inverse wavelength. That is why the Perfect Fifth and Perfect Fourth are "superparticulars" -- they do not divide evenly into the octave using rational fractions and so only by doubling the 2/3 as F to C do you get the 4/3 as the Perfect Fourth for the next octve.

If the wavelength is 1 to 2 then the frequency is 3/2 as C to G but the subharmonic of C to G is the frequency 2/3 as F to C. So it's not a geometric inversion -- it's an inversion of frequency and wavelength in time. So 2/3 as F to C does not work for the commutative "divide and average" means -- so this reverse time is covered up by doubling it to 4/3 as C to F -- again as the other side of octave 1 node of the wavelength.

4/3 divided by (9/8 x 9/8) (the difference between the fourth and the third made from 2 whole tone notes) = 256/243. (256/243) squared (the two semitones) does not equal 9/8 (the whole tone) and therein lies the problem for creating polyphonic harmonics using chords, key changes, etc.

So the Perfect Fourth and Perfect Fifth are both commutative and inherently rely on the irrational geometric mean if they are to line up with the octave. But empirically -- as subharmonics and overtone harmonics they are non-commutative and complementary opposites that resonate infinitely as yin and yang free alchemical energy.




O.K. so there's the image again of the frequency 2/3 -- as the Perfect Fifth as F to C -- not as C to G. Now if you look at the image it shows C to G as 3/2 but it does not show G to C' -- the higher octave C -- why not? Because it is also 4/3.

1+1/4 of 1 =5/4. 5/4+1/4 of 5/4 =25/16, not 8/5. 8/5+1/4 of 8/5 =2. So my question is in what way is 1-5/4-8/5-2 proportional? Same deal, explain it and I can stop talking about it.

Ancient Greece used "proto-algebra" as a divide and average means. So I have already shown that 5/4 is the cube root of two and 9/8 cubed is the square root of two.

(8 / 5) cubed = 4.09600

In order to double a cube, 1-2 is not the issue. Anyone can multiply 27*2 to get 54. If I'm to be as anal as the Greeks were about precisely doubling a cube I need to know how to use music to determine by what proportion to increase the sides of my cube which currently measure 3 units. I'm just trying to apply the theory.

Music is the "secret of the sect" so the math starts with a continued proportion as proto-algebra and then moves to pure geometry. The question is the same as for the square root of two. The mathematicians do not know what is the connection between the proto-algebra continued proportion and the pure geometry but they acknowledge that was music ratios. The reason the music ratios are "covered up" is precisely why it is a conspiracy -- because the ratios are non-commutative and diverge as infinity -- they can not be "contained" as an irrational geometry logarithm.

As I mentioned -- Professors Charles Sayward and Philip Hugly have an article in the 1999 Spring issue of the academic journal Philosophy -- "Did the Greeks Discover the Irrational?" Their answer is no. Why isn't the irrational discovered if it is used all the time in Western technology? Because it is not logically true. My point is that not only is it not logically true - since it confuses geometric length with arithmetic distance -- but it's also not empirically true due to quantum time-frequency non-commutative uncertainty, first shown with the Pythagorean Tetrad of 1:2:3:4 and the Tai Chi symbol of yang-yin-Emptiness and the three gunas of India.

So to "use" the precise logarithmic measurement requires "divide and average" arithmetic and irrational geometry. The music is the "vanishing mediator" that connects the two -- through the proto-algebra compound proportion using symbols. So if someone wants to find the value of a side for doubling a cube then it is "A" (the length of the side) in proportion to (the cube root of three) x the length of the side as 1A. The question is how was this cube root of three value originally established from the proto-algebra compound proportion? The answer is music ratios.

So for your question the length of the side is 3 multiplied by 5/4 as the cube root of two is 3.75 and as the side length 3.75 cubed is 52.73. So it's again proto-algebra -- it's not 54 but it gives the formula from the music ratio.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


O.K. so as I stated the ancient Greeks used "proto-algebra" and not logarithms -- and the question unanswered by the mathematicians was how did the Greeks get actual number ratios to plug into the proto-algebra equation?

the answer is music ratios that I have provided.

So for the practical use of precisely doubling the cube the Greeks relies on pure geometry -- not using the "proof by contradiction" or irrational geometry -- as a magnitude continuum. Archytas' geometry proof uses the circle to find the geometric means but this assumes that the harmonics are contained as trigonometry -- just as Fourier analysis uses sine and cosine. So in that case you would have a 3-4-5 triangle as part of the proof.

So if the Greeks did not use irrational numbers in their geometry except for the square root of two -- and for the secret music ratios as I have shown - then how was the "doubling the cube" proof given in pure geometry for practical use?

J.G. Landel’s writing on torsion-spring catapults “classified in terms of the missile they were
designed to shoot” informs us on the particulars....The third method, described by Hero and Philo, is much more accurate. It starts from the known spring-diameter of a successful catapult. For this purpose, let us take a ten-mina machine, where M’ x 100 = 1000, and D = 11 dactyls.” (mina is just under 1 lb and dactyl is about 3/4 inch). Suppose M” = 40, we then require two numbers, x and y, such that 10 : x = x : y = y : 40. The simplest way of finding these is by a geometrical construction, which would be within the scope of all but the very dimmest artificer. Measure with a ruler…. We draw two lines AB and BC at right-angles, their lengths proportionate to M’ and M’‘ (i.e. the ratio 10:40). Complete the rectangle ABCD, and draw its diagonals AC, BD, intersecting at E. Produce DC and DA for some distance. Then place a straight-edge, pivoting on B and cutting the extensions of DA and DC. Rock the straight-edge about B until each of these points of intersection is the same distance from E, measured with a ruler, and call these points F and G (i.e. FE=EG). It will then be found that AF and CG are the mean proportionals between AB and BC — that is, AB:AF = AF:CG= CG:BC. It also follows that the ratio AF/AB is the cube root of the ratio BC/AB, and that the spring diameter suitable for M’ (11 dactyls) multiplied by this ratio (AF/AB) will give the correct spring-diameter for M”. Once this basic dimension D has been calculated, the rest becomes easy. Both Philo and Vitruvius give a long list of other dimensions, all expressed in terms of this diameter.

J.G. Landels, Engineering in the Ancient World (University of California Press, 1978).

So then the catapult power could be doubled using pure geometry to find the cube root of three.

The question again is how was the value of this cube root of three geometry originally established in relation to the algebraic compound proportion formula?

The answer is music ratios.

reply to post by fulllotusqigong

as the Perfect Fifth as F to C -- not as C to G

So F to C is A P5 like C to G is A P5. Remember your response when I asked if F to C was a P5? Think I'm gonna take a break from this mess.

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by fulllotusqigong

 

as the Perfect Fifth as F to C -- not as C to G

So F to C is A P5 like C to G is A P5. Remember your response when I asked if F to C was a P5? Think I'm gonna take a break from this mess.

Remember which response? You've asked the question probably a dozen times! haha.

O.K. this is very easy -- if you want to repeat back half of the answer and then say it's wrong -- then that is "willful ignorance."

C to G is 3/2 as the Perfect Fifth and the subharmonic of C to G is F to C as 2/3 which is the Perfect Fifth and this is doubled as 4/3 or C to F, the Perfect Fourth.

Is that too confusing for you? haha.

If you can show me any different answer I've given -- please do so.

Too bad you didn't check my error - I gave you a chance but you missed it! haha.

In contrast the Kaplans just give the geometric phonetic values for this equation: X = the cube root of two multiplied by A.

O.k. so you said a side of 3 - and how would the music ratio be applied. So A = 3 and X in the continued proportion equation of Hippocrates = 5/4 x 3 = 15/4 as the side length.

So 15/4 cubed = 52.73

Oh wait -- that is what I stated. I thought I had said A plus the cube root of three or 5/4.

So for your question the length of the side is 3 multiplied by 5/4 as the cube root of two is 3.75 and as the side length 3.75 cubed is 52.73. So it's again proto-algebra -- it's not 54 but it gives the formula from the music ratio.

Yeah so I didn't error.

O.K. let's go back and see all my responses to your question about the Perfect Fifth and Perfect Fourth. This should be hilarious!!

O.K. so you asked the question a month and half ago:

posted on 11-2-2012 @ 08:34 PM this post reply to post by fulllotusqigong Do you believe 5/4 is the cube root of 2? Also,

So the Perfect Fifth is 3:2 as C to G and the Perfect Fourth is G to C as 3:4 but this is noncommutative mathematics!

I can't see why you expect it to be commutative as presented. What similarity is there between Perfect Fifth and Perfect Fourth? In this example doesn't C ascend to G and then G to C an octave above the original C? For Western symmetric logic C to G is 2:3 and G to C is 3:2. If they're the same C and G wouldn't that be true?


O.K. so the only clarification here is that G to C is 4/3 and not 3/4.

So you're asking the same question of G to C as 3/2 instead of 4/3 -- but the difference again is that it is not just a ratio but a fraction of the octave node as a wavelength of one -- as I have pointed out numerous times.

O.K. let's see what you're next response is.

So my response to your above question over a month ago was this:

The example is noncommutative because it's from F to C as 2:3x and then C to G as 3:2x but it's never stated what "x" is -- that's the "bait and switch" tactic. So then F to C is squared as 4:3x but since it's within the same octave it is actually 3:4 as G to C and C to G as 2:3. Archytas had to use only 3:2 and 4:3 based on the double octave whereas the frequency harmonics use the octave as 1:2 and the perfect fifth as 2:3 and the perfect fourth as 3:4. This is the natural resonance harmonics instead of trying to extend a scale using logarithmics.

So the 3:4 as G to C is actually again the subharmonic. So C to G is the overtone harmonic as 3/2. The subharmonic is 2/3x as C to F in the opposite direction of time but this can also be derived from F to C as 3/4.
So why can't we use the 4/3 overtone of G to C? Because only the octave can be doubled as the denominator for the overtone value. Again this is why they are non-commutative.

So your response:

Why is F in the response which is in no way an answer to my question? C to G, interval. Same G to higher C, different interval. C to G and back to same C is analogous to A x B = B x A.

Yeah so if the fraction is changed this means the frequency is inverted as the wavelength -- it's not just a geometric inversion but it's the reverse time. So 2/3 is going in the opposite direction of time as the frequency whereas if we just inverted the C to G it would give the wavelength as 2/3. Since it's the frequency as 2/3 then it is C to F and not C to G.

O.K. so now let's see your response again.

Should A to C interval = C to A interval? Maybe this question will give insight as to the source of my confusion.

O.K. again you're giving only half the information -- it is the connection of geometry to number - so it's not just geometry nor is it number.

I don't know the ratios for A to C or C to A but I would not expect them to be commutative. Do you?

So you ask this - again to make the ratio commutative it has to be a value above one. So if you have a frequency of 1 as a zero to one wavelength and then a frequency of 2/3 -- the wavelength is greater than the total wavelength of 1 -- since the wavelength value is 3/2. This is why 2/3 frequency has to be doubled to 4/3 and this doubling process is non-commutative and also goes against the frequency as inverse to the wavelength.

O.K. so you're next question on this topic:

You do repeat many things but never explain anything. You continually ignore the discrepancies in your logic. You condemn western everything while stating tai chi and the yin and yang are literally the P4 and P5 you rail against. Can you demonstrate the complementary opposites with their ratios? Can you explain how anyone can arbitrarily assign invalid values to sounds when the sounds are what they are? Does anyone get what I'm asking?

O.K. so yin and yang do not use the "divide and average" means based on the commutative property -- so there is no harmonic mean times arithmetic mean equals geometric mean squared equation since Chinese is not a phonetic language and does not use the Brahmin cipher value. So the Chinese music did not try to change the tuning which is non-commutative -- so instead they used a pentatonic scale based on the actual Perfect Fourth and Perfect Fifth ratios as complementary opposites -- time going in the reverse direction.

Then you ask:

reply to post by fulllotusqigong west bad. western 4th 5th bad. 4th 5th yin yang good. HOW?

My response is too lengthy to quote in full

Your response:

reply to post by fulllotusqigong how is the 3:2 4:3 problem different in nonwest tuning

reply to post by fulllotusqigong

But it's not -- it's F to C as the Perfect Fourth.

There's one.

reply to post by fulllotusqigong

F to C as the Perfect Fourth is created from the subharmonic of G to C as 3/2. So F to C is 2/3.

Not confusing at all.

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by fulllotusqigong

 

But it's not -- it's F to C as the Perfect Fourth.

There's one.

Yep -- F to C is 2/3 as the subharmonic which is then doubled as 4/3 the Perfect Fourth -- this violates the frequency as inverse to the wavelength. This is the non-commutative contradiction.

So it's time in the opposite direction. C to C as 1/2 and C to F as 1/3 which is then 2/3 using the octave. Then F to C as 3/4. So just as with the overtones -- the F is not allowed as the demoninator since it is not just inverted as a fraction. If it was inverted that would be frequency inverted to wavelength. So the Perfect Fifth as C to F in the opposite time direction is 2/3 and then doubled to 4/3 as the Perfect Fourth. It is 3/4 as F to C for the subharmonic value but it has to be used as 2/3 in order to double the octave. Similarly the overtone C to G is used as 3/2 but can not be used as G to C as 4/3.

So as the subharmonic frequency F to C is 3/4 but as the normal frequency C to F is 4/3 with the octave doubled. This is not commutative because C to F as 4/3 is derived from C to F as 2/3 , the subharmonic of C to G as 3/2 with the reverse time value -- it's not just an inversion. C to F as 2/3 is doubled to 4/3 the Perfect Fourth but F to C is 3/4 as the Perfect Fourth subharmonic.




So in the image of the scale it shows the Perfect Fourth music interval as F to C 2/3x which is then doubled to 4/3x as the Perfect Fourth. It starts out as the Perfect Fifth as C to F but it is going in the opposite direction. So C to F is normally a perfect fourth but since it's in the opposite time direction C to F is a Perfect Fifth.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation

3:2 and 4:3 are alchemically transmuted to mystical indefinite values upon departure from the west. How in the name of dragonball z is nonwestern string division by the same ratios an explanation of the question? The answer is not in a vid, it is not in me and apparently it can't be found in you.

See above response.

All I'm asking is why anything you say about western tuning is not then applicable to your yin and yang. The noncommutative bait and switch on the 4th and 5th seems to be a basic premise of the theory. It's a very simple and obvious question.

Again it's very simple. 2/3 as a frequency is not allowed in the Western tuning because it does not give the commutative value for the "divide and average" equation. The same is true for 3/4 as a frequency.

Yet the Perfect Fourth is derived from 2/3 frequency as the Perfect Fifth -- so this is non-commutative. The Perfect Fifth in the opposite time direction is turned into the Perfect Fourth. C to G is 3/2 and C to F is 2/3. Same C -- it's an inversion of frequency and time that is non-commutative. This is covered up by doubling the C to F so that it is now 4/3 as the Perfect Fourth -- in the opposite time direction.

What is the signifigance of "noncommutative" as applied to your theory?

I think your question has been answered by now. haha.

What is the SIGNIFIGANCE of noncommutative as applied to your theory? Yin and Yang are noncommutative but that doesn't appear to be any problem. You know very well that A x B = B x A IF A = A and B = B. In C to G and then G to C, C does not = C, as they're separated by an octave..The symbol is the same but the value is different. A 4th and 5th are different intervals so why would they ever be expected to be commutative?

But alas -- you repeat the answer with half of the information. C to F is a Perfect Fourth as 4/3 but F to C is 3/2 as the Perfect Fifth. So it's different intervals but the same geometric symbols -- that's why it's non-commutative. You say -- yes but they are different octaves for the "C." So then the non-commutative value is applied to the same octave but with different geometric symbols and the same music intervals -- C to G is 3/2 and C to F is 2/3.

Again my response is too lengthy to quote

Your response:

The commutative property in math has nothing to do with intervals in a musical scale. To call the relationship between two different intervals noncommutative is as relevant as pointing out the fact that neither interval possesses even a single flavor of the skittles rainbow. Why would you do this?

This again is hilarious. That's on March 8th.

Never once did I say the scale is commutative. I'm trying to understand why that seems to be so important to you.

O.K. so that's March 10th.

So you have repeatedly stated C to G is 3/2 and G to C is 2/3 and you have stated this is commutative.

So do you agree this has nothing to do with the scale since the music scale is created from frequency as inverse to wavelength? So 2/3 frequency is C to F -- not G to C.

I mean we can say G to C is 3/4 but it's actually 4/3 and C to G is 3/2 and not the inversion of 4/3 as 3/4.

So it is non-commutative because the numbers refer to the frequency as the inverse of the wavelength. So 3/4 is F to C in the opposite time direction.

I'm just trying to point out why it "doesn't work". Noncommutative seems an illogical description TO ME which is why I keep trying to find out the signifigance of that label. In light of the fact that you call yin and yang noncommutative and I assume yin and yang are important to your beliefs I'm completely confused by what appears to be a criticism when it's western but somehow a positive thing for eastern.

Right -- it doesn't work because Western geometry has to be commutative -- so Western music is wrong -- Western music is actually geometry and not real music. Real music is trance music using subharmonics and overtones for non-linear resonance to create alchemy.
Again my actual response to too lengthy to quote here

So then what do you do? Give a half answer again -- ignoring -- or practicing "willful" ignorance...ignoring the geometric symbols aligned to the frequencies:

Did you mean to say this? Isn't 1/2 divided by 2/3 equal to 3/4? Does this matter? Did I miscalculate?

So again my response is too lengthy to quote

You ask:

Why is F to C 2/3? Isn't it a 5th also? Do different 5ths have different ratios?

Exactly -- it is a Fifth as reverse time -- so it's C to F in the opposite direction 2/3 but then it's doubled to 4/3 as C to F, the Perfect Fourth. F to C is then 3/2 while G to C is 4/3.

My actual response is too lengthy to quote

O.K. so you've asked about this over a dozen times. This is the secret "bait and switch" trick of the conspiracy that covers up the portal to consciousness.

I think your questions are legitimate. It is confusing when time is reversed so the geometric symbols go in the opposite direction but then the geometric image shows time going in the opposite direction as well.

The link to the image was down when I reposted it earlier in the thread -- so I'm glad it is back up as this clarifies things greatly.

F to C as 2/3 is standard music theory but it is in the opposite direction of time. So it is actually C to F as 2/3 as the subharmonic and doubled to C to F as 4/3 as the actual frequency. In the image this is shown as F to C is 2/3 -- hence the confusion. F to C is actually 3/2 and not 2/3 whereas C to F is actually 2/3 as the subharmonic but 4/3 as the actual frequency.



So no -- it's not just a geometric inversion with C to F as 4/3 and F to C as 3/4 -- why? Because F to C as 3/4 the subharmonic can not be doubled as the octave interval C to F.

reply to post by fulllotusqigong


Looking at the circle of fifths and pythagorean comma I notice that if you take C=256 x 1.5 12 times you get 33,216. Divide that by 2 7times =259.5. Off to say the least. Take 256 x 2 7 times=32,768 and you also get to exactly 32,768 by 256 x square root of 2 to 15 decimals. A circle of "tritones" lines up perfectly with the octave all the way through. Is this trivial?

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


That is equal-tempered tuning which is Western tuning. So it "contains" the sound as irrational geometry. If you want 12 notes in a scale that are all off tune then the 12th root of 2 is the way to divide an octave evenly.

It's not trivial when we consider that the natural subharmonics and overtones do not use irrational geometry.

So as I've mentioned ultrasound has an ELF wave as a subharmonic. If you are using natural overtones then you get a more nonlinear response because the harmonics of the Perfect Fifth and octave are rational fractions.

It makes for easy key modulation if you want evenly divided notes by geometry but listening to sound is not geometry. haha. Unless you're listening to Western music.

The effect is different "in vivo" then measured in a lab -- so it's now proven that there's quantum entanglement in living organisms but this can not be reproduced in a lab.

So it's also been proven that phonons or quantum acoustic sound waves can be converted to photons as light energy and because it is a phonon conversion it can also be "macro-quantum."

So I'm stating that by understanding the yin and yang or Perfect Fourth and Perfect Fifth -- subharmonic and overtones -- as a nonlinear feedback -- then sound energy creates electrochemical ionization through ultrasound and ELF waves -- and this creates acoustic cavitation as sonofusion for quantum phonon alchemy.

Western music by converting natural overtones and subharmonics into visual "evenly spaced" geometry -- kills off this natural resonance revolution of macroquantum reality -- the time-frequency uncertainty principle based on (A x B) - (B x A) is greater than zero.

Yeah so Western music as equal-tempered geometry is definitely trivial compared to trance music that creates healing laser love energy that bends spacetime for precognition, telepathy, telekinesis, levitation, etc.

Western music is not trivial in that it is a conspiratoral cover-up of trance music healing alchemy.

So the key factor is a coherent phase for pumping the energy of the system -- and the coherent phase is the harmonic series as subharmonics and overtones -- the rational numbers in a nonlinear system have the fastest and strongest resonance value.

When a quantum system is extended into the classical then chaos is relied on and so the irrational number golden ratio is used because in contrast to the rational numbers, the golden ratio is the slowest converging number. Still because the resonance is nonlinear there is a "collapse" of the quantum wavefunction even when using the Golden Ratio -- so that irrational numbers are ineffective.

My whole point is that Western science is based on the Western irrational music tuning -- the secret of Archytas and Eudoxus. This is the conspiracy that covers up that natural resonance revolution as the gateway to real consciousness - healing light energy.

So you earlier asked if it's possible to have zero amplitude and zero frequency that is not silence.

This motion takes place at a characteristic, or resonant, frequency of six gigahertz, or six billion cycles per second. (Tuning forks also have a resonant frequency—in the order of kilohertz—but the mode of resonant vibration in that case is to oscillate sideways rather than to expand and contract.) The team's first result was to show that at such chilly temperatures the width, or amplitude, of the resonator's vibration becomes quantized—in other words, there is a small amount of vibrational energy, called a phonon, below which the resonator is essentially still. The existence of discrete packets of energy is a hallmark of quantum behavior, and phonons are the mechanical equivalent of light's photons—they are the ultimate, indivisible quanta of vibration, whether thermal or acoustic. Next, the team put the superconducting circuit into a superposition of two states, one with a current and the other one without. Correspondingly, the resonator was in a superposition of vibrating and not vibrating. These quantum states continued for about six nanoseconds—about as long as the team expected—before fading away.

The answer again is yes.

Macro-Weirdness: "Quantum Microphone" Puts Naked-Eye Object in 2 Places at Once

reply to post by fulllotusqigong


It doesn't make sense to me that there are 12 notes per octave. I would guess that if octave is Pythagoras' term then there should be 7 with an octave being the 8th. Anyway what I still don't get is how to make a scale from natural harmonic over and undertones. Take any single note and sound it. As I understand this, you can measure harmonic frequencies 2,3,4 etc. times "higher" and "lower" than the fundamental frequency of that note. So I can see 2:1, 3:1, 4:1 ratios being natural but 2:3, 3:2, etc. seem arbitrary no matter how pleasant in one's opinion.