Just & Equal Temperaments

[Dreamw]

if you cut off a wave in the middle of a cycle you just clip it? And all hertz vibrates at set fundamentals. Isn't that the theory of an atom and quantum mechanics? Meaning you can't reach another phase until you have the exact amount of energy required? Trying to follow you here, bro.

Thanks for trying, I can hardly follow myself sometimes ! Please elaborate what do you mean ?

[frequency_algorithm]

well without explaining too far, uh you were mentioning something about the "length" of time in cycles, but isn't cycles based on time, which (according to scientific principles) is inherently is based upon atomic structure, when you get down to it. So basically with this new scaling or whatever you are doing is basically just setting new references or gaps between tones? Because you can't change cycles persecond really, just use different ones, right? Basically rearranging the way a key or note triggers a tone?

...you're making new scales?

[Dreamw]

Under the International System of Units, the second is currently defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.[1] This definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K (absolute zero). The ground state is defined at zero magnetic field.[1] The second thus defined is equivalent to the ephemeris second.

That's not exactly arbitrary.

...although 89th century scientists disagree.

Of course its arbitary - theres sixty seconds in a minute because of the number of digits on our hand. If we had twent finges then they would have double the amount of periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.
or say we had 100 seconds in a minute for example, and a hundred hours in a day. The length of a day is dictated by the revolution of the Earth. Therefore we divide it into 24 then into 60 then into 60 again. That is a second, we then measure that in Caesium radiation periods. We go from the top up, otherwise we would make it 100000000 not a sill ynumber like 9,192,631,770.

[Kingston]

[skip].

yeah, whatever.

Arbitrary - Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.

[Dreamw]

well without explaining too far, uh you were mentioning something about the "length" of time in cycles, but isn't cycles based on time, which (according to scientific principles) is inherently is based upon atomic structure, when you get down to it. So basically with this new scaling or whatever you are doing is basically just setting new references or gaps between tones? Because you can't change cycles persecond really, just use different ones, right? Basically rearranging the way a key or note triggers a tone?

...you're making new scales?

No seconds are not based on anything atomic. They have merely measured how long a second is in atomic terms and then set it at that internationally. It would be a bit of a coincidence if this second based on atomic cycles just so happened to be exactly a sixtieth of a minute , which is a sixtieth of an hour and a 24 th of a day (earth revolving). We have had seconds for much longer than the ability to measure things in terms of radiation cycles.
I am taking a naturally occurring tiny interval of time and then pumping multiples of one into it ( and dividing octaves up as so : 1/16 2/16 3/16 etc and in another way 1/2? 1/3 1/4 up until 16. Yes Ive made some new scales might seem a bit audacious I suppose.

[Dreamw]

[skip].

yeah, whatever.
.

So what were seconds based on before we had atomic clocks ? All they did was measure that time interval atomically, they did not base the second on it as obviously a second has been around a lot longer.

Have a look at this :

http://james.lab6.com/2003/09/16/24hours/

Take a look at the fingers on your left hand. Using your thumb, point to the first segment on your index finger between your palm and the rest of the finger. You'll notice that each of your fingers has three distinct segments where your fingers bend, for a total of twelve segments on your left hand (night). You can count another twelve segments for the day on your right hand. Have you ever noticed this? The Sumerians knew that the time from sunrise to sunrise (on average) was divided evenly between night and day, a left hand and a right hand, everything in balance. They called each of these time segments an "hour."
Now when you count twelve segments with your thumb on one hand retract a finger on the other - twelve times five = ?

Even if you dont accept this explanation you have to admit 9,192,631,770 is a pretty arbitary number . I would rather use multiples of one.

[Dreamw]

Not that it matters at all, since whether you call a frequency 440Hz or 421.25 Shirtz its octave is still double that value and it's perfect fifth is still 1.5x it. Pitch is relative, so the absolute measure is purely academic and has no real musical bearing.

Yes but if your root frequency is something based in nature then it does matter how you measure it. The root frequency in this case was one shirtz, then 2, then 4,8,16,32,64,128,256 etc octave of 256 , 512 then divide that octave up accordingly. It does actually make sense, but perhaps music just doesnt follow precise mathematical lines; Anyway dont want to hijack thethread but Max does allow you to make your own whole number ratio scales and experiment with them.

[frequency_algorithm]

DAMN GREGORIAN CALENDAR HOW DARE YOU!!!

[Kingston]

Have a look at this :

http://james.lab6.com/2003/09/16/24hours/

and yet, it's still nowhere near the definition of arbitrary.

KVR - redefining the Oxford English Dictionary since 1998

[Kingston]

DAMN GREGORIAN CALENDAR HOW DARE YOU!!!

it's a bastard at times

[Dreamw]

Have a look at this :

http://james.lab6.com/2003/09/16/24hours/

and yet, it's still nowhere near the definition of arbitrary.

KVR - redefining the Oxford English Dictionary since 1998

Arbitary as in the length of time is based on the number of digits in our hand and not on a nuturally occuring cycle in nature such as the atomic clock or the passage of the Earth around the sun. Ie how shall we divide the day up ? Oh look we have so many segmants in our finger that add up to 24 lets make it 24 then type arbitary - as opposed to 100000000 cycles of radioctive periods of Ceasium .

[Kingston]

Arbitary as in the length of time is based on the number of digits in our hand

yeah well I obviously forgot to mention I was talking about us humans, where the number of our fingers is not decided on a whim. And neither is the bone structure.

I'm not too schooled on the physiology of you Tau Cetaceans.

[Dreamw]

Arbitary as in the length of time is based on the number of digits in our hand

yeah well I obviously forgot to mention I was talking about us humans, where the number of our fingers is not decided on a whim.

I'm not too schooled on the physiology of the Tau Cetaceans.

You are not a creationist are you ?

[Kingston]

you're going to have to elaborate further, what does that mean on Tau Ceti again?

[Dreamw]

you're going to have to elaborate further, what does that mean on Tau Ceti again?

dont dodge the question - are you or are you not a creationist ?