The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Why don't we switch to 432Hz tuning? Effects Pedals, Units & Accessories
Old 24th May 2018
  #271
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Art (as a cultural tool or expression) and pattern recognition (as an evolutionary advantageous capability) co-exist with no distinct boundary. As an artist it's OK to reify an abstract concept/pattern and bring it to life in a way that science forbids.
This forum isn't 'the Science Forum' and personally I'm interested in discussing the cultural aspects of 432 independently of scientific hegemony.
That's a major sliding of the goal posts.

I'm gonna tap back out at this point. Maybe Norton can come clarify what was confusing him, the post you replied to is what was confusing me.
Old 24th May 2018
  #272
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
You don't?
No. It's not relevant. I'm saying the same as Saussure which is why I cited him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
...According to Saussure, in verbal language the relation between the sign and the concept being signified is arbitrary.

So, for instance, to try to extend that to the 'language' of math, in an informal example: to me the number 432 is simply a signifier of quantity. The signified is a numeric value as I regard that signifier.

To someone else, however, 432 may have greater primacy in their world view as some sort of 'sacred number' with special, mystical meaning to them.

This, in a limited sense, seems to demonstrate the arbitrary -- and therefore mutable -- nature of the relationship between signifier and signified.

But, again, I'm not a semiotician, I'm merely trying to make my own sense of your comment above.
I said this:
Quote:
...on one side the symbol on the other it's meaning as projected or interpreted by the viewer...
So you might see 432 as a signifier of Hz or a number of things whilst a 'sacred number person' would see it as signifying something different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Not me.
You're insinuating or implying that I am confusing them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
I certainly don't get that from my limited reading on Rees on the issue. I certainly don't see anything of the sort in the Guardian article.
You don't see that he is using numbers and their relationship and patterns to describe cosmology?

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
...Rather, it looks to me that Rees is saying that the universe as we know it largely depends on six relatively narrow value ranges. Values outside those narrow ranges would consequentially result in a very different or somehow non-functional universe, as I take it.
He's not 'saying' - he's using numbers to describe the universe. That's the point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
I have not read anything suggesting that those six value ranges in some way signify the universe in Rees' conceptualization...
No but it does signify that Rees is using numbers to describe cosmology. Which is the point.
Old 24th May 2018
  #273
Quote:
Originally Posted by norfolk martin View Post
I was responding to your statement that:

432 is an interesting number (because of it's relationship to other numbers whether or not a realworld analogue exists or not): to mathematicians, to poets, and which kind of artist would not want to incorporate a little interest into their production?


By pointing out the the designation of a certain pitch as 432 was entirely arbitrary


Perhaps my confusion is because the debate appears to have shifted from "the special properties of the pitch series associated with the number 432" to "the special nature of the number 432 itself?" Quite different debates.
Yes.
Old 24th May 2018
  #274
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreiPiatra View Post
3 years ago I was in a place where doctors told me they need to put me on medication for the rest of my life. That is when basically I started to...question everything. Ok, so what's going on, I said? Is this medication really helping me if I have to ingest it forever, on a constant basis? What does it actually do if it's not going to...cure me of my illness? Isn't that why we take medication in the first place? To heal? Ok, so I started the digging. Came out that 1.Doctors are clueless regarding health; 2.The vast majority of drugs are NOT meant to cure anything, only treating symptoms. Holly smoke, but why, how can this be? Who is selling this, why are they allowed to do it? So, turns out that the vast majority of medical doctors are actually sponsored by the pharmaceutic industry, and doctors are basically their...employees. No way! Way! And even more...the pharmaceutic industry is behind the medical school curriculum for decades and decades! There is a reason why medical doctors know close to nothing about nutrition...they are never taught about it in the first place! You have a flue...what do I do, doc? Well, you'll be fine, I'm going to prescribe you some nice syrup and pills. He doesn't know anything about ginger and how amazing it works in such instances! Ok, if that's the case...what am I going to do? Is there hope, true hope? And there was...called Internet. Came across guys like Dr. Michael Greger speaking about plants and their wonderful effects, so I switched to Veganism 1 year ago(even though my nutritional journey started 3 years ago). And now I'm in good shape, lost weight, have energy, absolutely amazing. But, I haven't convinced anyone to go my route for better health. Not a single soul! I'm not very good at convincing people switching from bad to good habits. This thread is also a very good example for that!

Thing is...I do not care if you think I'm right or wrong on this matter(432Hz v. 440Hz). I suggest to do as I did with the diet...experiment and investigate for yourself. Maybe some people, like the pharmaceutic industry, are not interested in your well-being in the first place, maybe they have different plans(that you might not know of), or simply don't care, and this people have the means to change things on a big scale. I came to the conclusion that numbers are not something you can joke with(432 is considered very special by ancient civilizations). They may hold much more than what we're taught in schools. They seem to have a life of their own, and the capability to influence the future. The pyramids were built on this principle. And apparently(I'm still on it) some chambers there are tuned to 432Hz. This needs serious investigation, it doesn't look like a joke, this is not bitcoin, Iphone X, or PC vs. MAC stuff, this should be treated seriously and with caution.

So if you are wiser than the doctors, why are you so stupid an go to them in the first place?

Your postings are complete bull**** on all levels.
1
Share
Old 24th May 2018
  #275
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
It's not trolling.
In my opinion it is trolling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
You have made a number of either misunderstood and/or provocative statements --
Cite them then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
...as manifest by the number of people questioning those statements.
Well newguy and Norfolk Martin have both agreed that I haven't reified anything - so where does that leave your point?

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
...People are trying to make sense of them through rational discourse.
I disagree. I see people repeatedly calling 'reification' when there's no evidence of it.
Old 24th May 2018
  #276
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
That's a major sliding of the goal posts.

I'm gonna tap back out at this point. Maybe Norton can come clarify what was confusing him, the post you replied to is what was confusing me.
I haven't slid any goalposts. I've consistently said the same thing.
Old 24th May 2018
  #277
My, trying to format all these quoted responses in a way that conveys the gist of the dialog is becoming tiresome...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone

The property of a sacred number (in my own definition/opinion) is one that corresponds with or interacts with other numbers or symbols. In a Saussurean sense, the number/symbol has two planes like a piece of paper: on one side the symbol on the other it's meaning as projected or interpreted by the viewer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1

I'm no semiotician, but as I understand it, Saussure's primary contribution was his model of linguistic signs which proposes an arbitrary, bilateral relation between a signified and signifier. Key word: arbitrary. And, therefore, potentially dynamic/mutable.
I don't understand where you're going with this?
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1

You don't?
No. It's not relevant. I'm saying the same as Saussure which is why I cited him.
Certainly not the way I read the write-ups of Saussure I've found. What I read clearly indicates his primary contribution was defining the arbitrary (and therefore mutable) relationship between signified and signifier.

Perhaps you could give me a pertinent quote from Saussure that will show me what I've missed?
Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1

...According to Saussure, in verbal language the relation between the sign and the concept being signified is arbitrary.

So, for instance, to try to extend that to the 'language' of math, in an informal example: to me the number 432 is simply a signifier of quantity. The signified is a numeric value as I regard that signifier.

To someone else, however, 432 may have greater primacy in their world view as some sort of 'sacred number' with special, mystical meaning to them.

This, in a limited sense, seems to demonstrate the arbitrary -- and therefore mutable -- nature of the relationship between signifier and signified.

But, again, I'm not a semiotician, I'm merely trying to make my own sense of your comment above.
I said this:
Quote:
...on one side the symbol on the other it's meaning as projected or interpreted by the viewer...
So you might see 432 as a signifier of Hz or a number of things whilst a 'sacred number person' would see it as signifying something different.
Yes, the arbitrary and mutable nature of the relation between signified and signifier.

But these definitions and connotations are by Saussure's analysis arbitrarily connected in the mind of the signifier.

If you agree with that, then, at least on that point, we would seem to be in agreement.

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1

Not me.
You're insinuating or implying that I am confusing them.
To the excerpt you quoted from me: " ...Mathematics is a language that describes numbers and their relationships with other numbers. It is abstract. It can be used to describe and predict physical world phenomena. It should not be confused with them...."

You had written, "I agree. Who is confusing them?"

I answered, "Not me."

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1

I certainly don't get that from my limited reading on Rees on the issue. I certainly don't see anything of the sort in the Guardian article.
You don't see that he is using numbers and their relationship and patterns to describe cosmology?
No, not the way I see it. What he is saying that there appear to be some very narrow ranges of measured value of several (6 in his telling) properties of the greater universe which could result in a 'workable' universe.

And, to be frank, I certainly don't see how you get from Rees's views to the notion of "using numbers and their relationship and patterns to describe cosmology?"

Those six ranges of value are not by themselves all we need to describe or define the universe. And just what are these "patterns" you're speaking of?

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1

...Rather, it looks to me that Rees is saying that the universe as we know it largely depends on six relatively narrow value ranges. Values outside those narrow ranges would consequentially result in a very different or somehow non-functional universe, as I take it.
He's not 'saying' - he's using numbers to describe the universe. That's the point.
Again, I simply don't see that. And, as previously noted, he's mostly not talking about specific numbers (there is the physical dimension count, though, of course), he is largely talking about ranges of measured value outside of which, 'our' universe would not be possible or 'workable.'
Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1

I have not read anything suggesting that those six value ranges in some way signify the universe in Rees' conceptualization...
No but it does signify that Rees is using numbers to describe cosmology. Which is the point.
I think I've beat that figurative mount until it's dead. As I understand it, he's mostly talking about value ranges and those value ranges are not NEARLY all we need to describe the universe.


Okey doke. I'm going to have to leave it at that, at least for now. But I will be interested to see your response. Perhaps we are not in as much disagreement as it seems, but at this point, it would seem to me that you are taking somewhat different understanding than I from both Saussure and Rees.


Old 24th May 2018
  #278
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
...Certainly not the way I read the write-ups of Saussure I've found. What I read clearly indicates his primary contribution was defining the arbitrary (and therefore mutable) relationship between signified and signifier.
OK so what relevance does that have? I've never said anything contrary to that. In fact I cited Saussure to exactly show that signs and signifieds are mutable and arbitrary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
...Perhaps you could give me a pertinent quote from Saussure that will show me what I've missed?
Yes, the arbitrary and mutable nature of the relation between signified and signifier.

But these definitions and connotations are by Saussure's analysis arbitrarily connected in the mind of the signifier.
Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
If you agree with that, then, at least on that point, we would seem to be in agreement....
There's never been anything to disagree with from the start.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
To the excerpt you quoted from me: " ...Mathematics is a language that describes numbers and their relationships with other numbers. It is abstract. It can be used to describe and predict physical world phenomena. It should not be confused with them...."

You had written, "I agree. Who is confusing them?"

I answered, "Not me."
Yes and you italicised 'me' to give it emphasis. Why?


Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
No, not the way I see it. What he is saying that there appear to be some very narrow ranges of measured value of several (6 in his telling) properties of the greater universe which could result in a 'workable' universe....[
He is using numbers to do that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
...And, to be frank, I certainly don't see how you get from Rees's views to the notion of "using numbers and their relationship and patterns to describe cosmology?"
Rees's views are irrelevant; how he arrives at those views is by using numbers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Okey doke. I'm going to have to leave it at that, at least for now. But I will be interested to see your response. Perhaps we are not in as much disagreement as it seems, but at this point, it would seem to me that you are taking somewhat different understanding than I from both Saussure and Rees.
OK. So this is your citing of my provocative statements (as you call them)?
I don't see anything provocative? Saussure made an analogy between signifier and signified and I demonstrated its mutable and arbitrary nature by comparing that to peoples varying reaction to 432. All very simple. Martin Rees uses numbers to describe cosmology - signs to denote the signified. All 101 stuff.

I'm sorry if you can't understand it
Old 24th May 2018
  #279
Lives for gear
 
Pictus's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
If mathematics is a language then the lexicon and syntax can include components that correspond to non-abstract phenomena in the physical world: for example, Sir Martin Rees dicusses 'the power of six' in cosmology, and I can attribute or superimpose any number of mathematical configurations onto the phenomenal world I experience.
The "power of six" made me remember the Sumerians.
Sumerian/Babylonian Mathematics - The Story of Mathematics

And the people with six fingers.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-...ngers-11331697
1
Share
Old 25th May 2018
  #280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
OK so what relevance does that have? I've never said anything contrary to that. In fact I cited Saussure to exactly show that signs and signifieds are mutable and arbitrary.

Yes.

There's never been anything to disagree with from the start.

Yes and you italicised 'me' to give it emphasis. Why?


He is using numbers to do that.

Rees's views are irrelevant; how he arrives at those views is by using numbers.

OK. So this is your citing of my provocative statements (as you call them)?
I don't see anything provocative? Saussure made an analogy between signifier and signified and I demonstrated its mutable and arbitrary nature by comparing that to peoples varying reaction to 432. All very simple. Martin Rees uses numbers to describe cosmology - signs to denote the signified. All 101 stuff.

I'm sorry if you can't understand it
It looks like there's not much point in continuing this any farther.

I tried to give you serious answers and explain my position. I'm sure you will say you were also serious. Apparently we have very different forms of discourse and probably thinking as well.

But it's obvious to me that we will not be coming to agreement and further discussion is pointless.

But do have a nice weekend.
Old 25th May 2018
  #281
Lives for gear
Some good points were made about what is being discussed. 440 or 432. I think its a ratio of the musics harmonic signature to our heart rate. IE a feeling on ave across commonly used time and note signatures.

Any care to give it a better definition?

I don't know the answer to this, but as a classic reference point, what were piano's tuned to when Bach and Beethoven wrote there work?
Old 25th May 2018
  #282
Quote:
Originally Posted by elegentdrum View Post
Some good points were made about what is being discussed. 440 or 432. I think its a ratio of the musics harmonic signature to our heart rate. IE a feeling on ave across commonly used time and note signatures.

Any care to give it a better definition?

I don't know the answer to this, but as a classic reference point, what were piano's tuned to when Bach and Beethoven wrote there work?
Well, it's not really pertinent to your question about reference pitches, but it's still perhaps worth noting that Bach didn't really write for the then new invention (invented when he was about 15 I believe), but he did apparently 'fool around' with them and even acted as a sales agent for an early piano maker.

Here's an article on the topic...

Early Music Myths - Bach's Piano Music


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortepiano

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Sebastian_Bach

The Piano: The Pianofortes of Bartolomeo Cristofori (1655–1731)
Old 25th May 2018
  #283
Lives for gear
 
teleharmonium's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by elegentdrum View Post
Some good points were made about what is being discussed. 440 or 432. I think its a ratio of the musics harmonic signature to our heart rate. IE a feeling on ave across commonly used time and note signatures.

Any care to give it a better definition?

I don't know the answer to this, but as a classic reference point, what were piano's tuned to when Bach and Beethoven wrote there work?
"harmonic signature."


I like to drink a number of ounces of beer which is equal to the number of Miles Davis albums on Columbia (not counting compilations or posthumous releases) multiplied by the orbit/eye size ratio of that porn star that Jeff Koons married.
2
Share
Old 25th May 2018
  #284
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
It looks like there's not much point in continuing this any farther.
That's your decision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
...I tried to give you serious answers and explain my position.
Why can you not explain how my analogy differs from Saussure? Is it because there is no difference? I respect people who recognise they have made a mistake and then move on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
...I'm sure you will say you were also serious.
Well I have a point of view that I've expressed and I've rebuffed false claims.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
...Apparently we have very different forms of discourse and probably thinking as well.
That's natural given that we have different backgrounds and life histories; I'm fortunate to have had a thorough education.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
But it's obvious to me that we will not be coming to agreement and further discussion is pointless.
Your decision. You've made claims that you've been unable to back up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
...But do have a nice weekend.
Yes. The Isle of Man TT races. You too.
Old 25th May 2018
  #285
Lives for gear
 
norfolk martin's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by teleharmonium View Post
"harmonic signature."


I like to drink a number of ounces of beer which is equal to the number of Miles Davis albums on Columbia (not counting compilations or posthumous releases) multiplied by the orbit/eye size ratio of that porn star that Jeff Koons married.
I like beer to be exactly six point eight, because 6.8 HZ is a fundamental alpha-wave frequency in the brain


Drink 6.8 pints of 6.8 beer, and you will find your brain in a remarkable state of relaxation.
1
Share
Old 25th May 2018
  #286
Lives for gear
 
12ax7's Avatar
 

I think we should do it kinda like Daylight Saving Time:

We change it twice a year (Spring forward, Fall back).

...That way, we can all take turns being equally displeased!
.
Old 25th May 2018
  #287
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12ax7 View Post
I think we should do it kinda like Daylight Saving Time:

We change it twice a year (Spring forward, Fall back).

...That way, we can all take turns being equally displeased!
.
Ha. Fortunately this antiquated idea first initiated by Germany to help save power during WWI and then adopted by the US in 1966 will soon be a thing of the past.

"A 2016 study found that the overall rate for stroke was 8% higher in the two days after daylight saving time. Cancer victims were 25% more likely to have a stroke during that time, and people older than 65 were 20% more likely to have a stroke.

. . .

The Monday and Tuesday after daylight saving time in the spring have also been associated with a 10% increase in heart attacks, according to a 2012 study at the University of Alabama Birmingham.

. . .

The number of deadly accidents jumped to an average of 83.5 on the "spring forward" Monday compared with an average of 78.2 on a typical Monday."

https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/11/healt...cts/index.html
https://www.vox.com/2016/3/13/112126...me-car-crashes
Old 25th May 2018
  #288
Lives for gear
 
norfolk martin's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
Ha. Fortunately this antiquated idea first initiated by Germany to help save power during WWI and then adopted by the US in 1966 will soon be a thing of the past.

"
But which standard will we adopt. Standard time or summer time?

I personally would rather have daylight in the evening ( when I can use it) than in the the morning, hence summer time

But I'm sure others have equally valid reasons for standard time?
Old 25th May 2018
  #289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
That's your decision.
Exactly, and entered into after consideration.
Quote:
Why can you not explain how my analogy differs from Saussure? Is it because there is no difference? I respect people who recognise they have made a mistake and then move on.
Frankly, I thought the quotes I reproduced did. The fact that you didn't see it that way fed my decision that we were not going to resolve this.

I, too, appreciate the value of correcting myself -- and 'apologizing' if necessary -- when I find that I've been wrong (or out of line -- it has happened and more than once). If I felt that was the case here, I certainly would have addressed any perceived lapses on my part.
Quote:
Well I have a point of view that I've expressed and I've rebuffed false claims.
That is apparently your sincere belief. That said, I don't see it that way.
Quote:
That's natural given that we have different backgrounds and life histories; I'm fortunate to have had a thorough education.
No doubt we do have different background and histories. That's something of an a priori assumption. I don't particularly feel any need to 'defend' my own educational history because I haven't been working from any sort of personal knowledge of either Saussure or Rees, but rather using the sources I cited and working with basic logic. That's why I on several occasions asked you if you had any source material to support your assertions, thinking perhaps I was missing some fundamental aspect.
Quote:
Your decision. You've made claims that you've been unable to back up.
Amusingly, perhaps, I feel the same about you and your claims. And, yes, it is my decision. And, given the nature of this singularly unproductive discourse, I'm happy to stick with it.
Quote:
Yes. The Isle of Man TT races. You too.
Someday I'd like to go to the Isle of Man. It looks quite lovely in many views I've seen. I have an online friend there, as well.

I quite sincerely hope you have fun!
1
Share
Old 25th May 2018
  #290
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by norfolk martin View Post
But which standard will we adopt. Standard time or summer time?

I personally would rather have daylight in the evening ( when I can use it) than in the the morning, hence summer time

But I'm sure others have equally valid reasons for standard time?
Summer. Vast majority is with you: more dark in the AM to help with sleep, more light in the PM to enjoy the day.

Florida isn't switching back this year, and AZ hasn't been doing it for years.

The REAL move is to make it so every sunrise is at 432am and every sunset is at 432pm, with the time in between dependent on the day. THAT'S how we'd get truly cosmic and actually realize world peace and everyone would get free lunches everyday. But the naysayers won't let that happen.
Old 25th May 2018
  #291
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
Ha. Fortunately this antiquated idea first initiated by Germany to help save power during WWI and then adopted by the US in 1966 will soon be a thing of the past.

"A 2016 study found that the overall rate for stroke was 8% higher in the two days after daylight saving time. Cancer victims were 25% more likely to have a stroke during that time, and people older than 65 were 20% more likely to have a stroke.

. . .

The Monday and Tuesday after daylight saving time in the spring have also been associated with a 10% increase in heart attacks, according to a 2012 study at the University of Alabama Birmingham.

. . .

The number of deadly accidents jumped to an average of 83.5 on the "spring forward" Monday compared with an average of 78.2 on a typical Monday."

https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/11/healt...cts/index.html
https://www.vox.com/2016/3/13/112126...me-car-crashes
These stats are interesting especially as there is an almost identical reduction when the clocks move back one hour. Although some increase in accidents is expected, I'm wondering if the stats are exaggerated by reporting/data collection errors during the time change period.
Old 25th May 2018
  #292
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
These stats are interesting especially as there is an almost identical reduction when the clocks move back one hour. Although some increase in accidents is expected, I'm wondering if the stats are exaggerated by reporting/data collection errors during the time change period.
Indeed:

"By contrast, heart attack risk fell 21 percent later in the year, on the Tuesday after the clock was returned to standard time, and people got an extra hour’s sleep."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h...A2S0D420140329

Make sense that on the day everyone gets to sleep longer and be less rushed, things run smoother. Pretty linear and easily observable logic behind the numbers here, I don't think these are manipulated statistics (not sure what the motive would be to manipulate either. . . there's no mega profit anywhere in time changes, just everyone getting sick and tired of the needless time change that messes with them every spring).
Old 25th May 2018
  #293
Lives for gear
 
12ax7's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
[...] The REAL move is to make it so every sunrise is at 432am and every sunset is at 432pm, with the time in between dependent on the day. [...]
...OR we could just change the length of time defined by the word "second":

I'm too lazy to calculate it just for some silly post on GS, but we COULD just adjust the length of time known as the "second" so that what we now know as "440 cycles per second" would be measured in fractions of the "new second" so that it works out to be counted as "432 cycles per second".

Problem solved.
.
Old 25th May 2018
  #294
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12ax7 View Post
...OR we could just change the length of time defined by the word "second":

I'm too lazy to calculate it just for some silly post on GS, but we COULD just adjust the length of time known as the "second" so that what we now know as "440 cycles per second" would be measured in fractions of the "new second" so that it works out to be counted as "432 cycles per second".

Problem solved.
.
Yeah for 432am/pm sunrise/sunset to work the second would have to be adjusted every single day. That's the only way to truly be in tune with the cosmos with our time measurement.

I'll settle for the brute concept of permanent daylight savings time now, with the brute idea of a steady second. Its not cosmic, but it buys me an hour sleep every spring.
1
Share
Old 25th May 2018
  #295
Lives for gear
 
12ax7's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
Yeah for this to work the second would have to be adjusted every single day. That's the only way to truly be in tune with the cosmos with our time measurement.
What?
If we adjusted the second every day, then the count would change every day.

...Are you saying that you believe the universe somehow periodically re-defines itself on some sort of "daily" basis?
.
Old 25th May 2018
  #296
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12ax7 View Post
What?
If we adjusted the second every day, the count would change every day.
.
The discussions I get myself into clowning around. .

Yes, to keep 432am/pm in sync with sunrise/sunset, the count would have to change every day, since the length of time between sunrise and sunset changes every day. The universe doesn't re-define itself every day, but the time of the Earth's sunrise and sunset do. It would have to be adapted to every longitude too. Its a ridiculous idea I proposed in jest. . .
Old 25th May 2018
  #297
Lives for gear
 
12ax7's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
The discussions I get myself into clowning around. .

Yes, to keep 432am/pm in sync with sunrise/sunset, the count would have to change every day, since the length of time between sunrise and sunset changes every day. The universe doesn't re-define itself every day, but the time of the Earth's sunrise and sunset do.
Well then, I guess if we used the PERFECT algorithm (on some app on our smartphones) to figure the timespan of our seconds, we'd never even notice that the length of time between sunrise & sunset ever changed at all!
(And we'd never need DST at all!)
...Come to think of it, maybe the length of the second is changing every day (but we just don't know it).
.
Old 25th May 2018
  #298
Lives for gear
 
12ax7's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
It would have to be adapted to every longitude too. Its a ridiculous idea I proposed in jest. . .
...Not to mention that the whole scheme totally ignores the phases of the moon (as well as various other cosmological concerns).

...And yeah, I had assumed that your post was in jest (but considered it no more ridiculous than DST).
.
Old 25th May 2018
  #299
Lives for gear
 
norfolk martin's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
Summer. Vast majority is with you: more dark in the AM to help with sleep, more light in the PM to enjoy the day.

Florida isn't switching back this year, and AZ hasn't been doing it for years.

The REAL move is to make it so every sunrise is at 432am and every sunset is at 432pm, with the time in between dependent on the day. THAT'S how we'd get truly cosmic and actually realize world peace and everyone would get free lunches everyday. But the naysayers won't let that happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12ax7 View Post
...OR we could just change the length of time defined by the word "second":

I'm too lazy to calculate it just for some silly post on GS, but we COULD just adjust the length of time known as the "second" so that what we now know as "440 cycles per second" would be measured in fractions of the "new second" so that it works out to be counted as "432 cycles per second".

Problem solved.
.
The Ancients Romans did something very much like this. Each day has 12 hours of daylight and 12 hours of night. The length of the hours varied with the seasons.
Old 25th May 2018
  #300
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by norfolk martin View Post
The Ancients Romans did something very much like this. Each day has 12 hours of daylight and 12 hours of night. The length of the hours varied with the seasons.
The Romans never went digital either, they knew better. So much more in tune with the cosmos.
2
Share
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump