| Author
|
the cosmic octave and mathematics
|
jizy
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
90
Posts :
1493
Posted : Jun 27, 2009 16:35
|
Timewave Your probably rite, i aint no narrow minded person.... The hidden truths about the universe and cosmic forces beond ,creation etc etc can be tapped into by taking powerful psychedelics, so sound is gunna play a fundimentle role in This so called "cosmic mistake" everything has a connection so what your saying is pritty much obvouse to me.. i wouldnt dout it for a second.
|
|
|
Speakafreaka
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
779
Posted : Jun 27, 2009 17:12
|
Well, I've only ever said that the mathematical and musical side of it is very interesting...
And yes, lol, I am well aware of the relationship between the octaves mathematically, lol.
Let me be quite clear. In this post:
Quote:
|
and i am sure that even the scientifical prove about the phenomena would not be enough if people dont want to see that geometry itself is sacred. ( and btw i feel so uncool to say this in isratrance but i have to mention the proportions of the issue) is it possible that the golden mean series and the right mathematical proportion can induce a more effective way of experiencing music??? or is it all same???
|
|
It is you who brings up scientific proof - I have merely being trying to establish what scientific proof there is about this 'more effective way of experiencing music' and its healing properties.
I discount things with a vested financial interest - as any decent scientist would do - a peer review is the method by which this is done, and it is no accident that this is the only way of gaining recognition of scientific proof. There is no other method that I am aware of to accurately assess the quality of someone's science. It isn't some optional process, its a basic requirement to be taken seriously.
And now you are wading in with the 'once again, you have not answered'.
I'd suggest you are quite, quite wrong there, and, getting personal. Firstly, I haven't posted in between the two posts in question, secondly, I already have answered, in other posts, on this and other forums, where you will find I have spent a goodly chunk of my life following harmonic series, and trying to help people get better at using EQ.
I have never denied that the subject is mathematically interesting, indeed quite the opposite in this very thread on multiple posts. But I feel very strongly that bad or misleading science needs to be addressed wherever it is found.
Now, you are changing your story, and saying that you want to talk about the intention of it.
If you had started like that, I wouldn't have bothered posting at all, because I think we all know that if it helps, it helps!
In reference to your point re physical 'agitator' with electronic music, yes, with acoustic music, given the precision in tuning involved, practically, not a snowball's chance in hell.
 .
http://www.soundcloud.com/speakafreaka |
|
|
|
moki
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
38
Posts :
1931
Posted : Jun 27, 2009 17:29
|
Quote:
| It is you who brings up scientific proof |
|
right, i need more scientific prove of this phenomena. and what i state is, that i am sure there is one. there is a prove in terms of science that the golden means in the music will act as an attractor in terms of chaos theory. and i posted you the link about the entrainment and the pendulum to make you aware what can happen if similar frequencies meet into one attractor. and i said, you dont answer my questions because i am asking you if you agree on that thing about the attractors at least.
i could prove the theory with statistics. would it be enough? not really, right.
i posted a link about the fact that sound healing is used in the surgery and taken seriously - it is not enough again.
i talked about cymatics and the shape of the sound with the suggestion that it is essential which form you choose. no reaction.
i even asked about the table of intervalls and the temperation - what will happen to the cents if we divide the octave into five parts. no reaction.
the only i read from you here is that i dont have any prove about the pentatonics. no i dont. clear enough mate:)? i am not personal, because i am tired to get personal in forums, and i expect from a person capable of rational thought to answer my questions which are in the field of science. instead of taking me on a polemic trip about what i want and which story i change.
i dont change the story. the story is the same. the story is that the role of the experimentator in the quantum physics is very significant. and the same way, it is very significant what intention you have while you play music for others.
btw to me the subject of mathematics is the main subject in this issue. i am not talking about any spiritual practises other than using mathematics:).
i am not personal guys, you are the ones who are personal. check what i am telling you, instead of leading polemic discussions on the fact that i have no prove. i have no prove. btw if i had the money to do experimental science i would have a prove.
at the present day i can only prove with numbers.
what do the numbers say.
can anyone help me build the last column of the table with the intervalls.
can anyone tell me about pentatonics, what is it, what do you learn about it in the schools in your cultures?
can anyone tell me anything at all, other than trying to teach me on the subject that i have no prove? i will get this prove in the next years.
|
|
|
|
moki
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
38
Posts :
1931
Posted : Jun 27, 2009 17:30
|
Quote:
| In reference to your point re physical 'agitator' with electronic music, yes, with acoustic music, given the precision in tuning involved, practically, not a snowball's chance in hell. |
|
and what does it mean? btw i said attractor.
|
|
|
|
Speakafreaka
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
779
Posted : Jun 27, 2009 17:31
|
What does it mean? I don't know - and given what you have presented as proof, I'd suggest neither do you.
The reason you get no reaction with what you feel is proof, is that I know I am not qualified to assess these 'proofs', and to the best of my knowledge, neither are you.
If you want proof - all of this, has got to be put into a proper scientific study, and submitted to a board of peers for review.
As I am assuming that you are not an expert on quantum theory, how on earth do you possibly think you can seriously assess the quality of the science for yourself? My apologies if you are an expert on quantum theory.
I would define commenting on these proofs as trying to run before I could walk. It would be the height of arrogance for me to have an opinion either way.
THAT is being open minded.
I would suggest that your position is closed minded to the possibility that this might be a load of old bollocks after all.
With that in mind, I struggle to see how the documentary you are making will be little more than an advertising brochure. You are not being impartial. .
http://www.soundcloud.com/speakafreaka |
|
|
|
moki
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
38
Posts :
1931
Posted : Jun 27, 2009 18:17
|
here we go again. yes i am the most narrow minded person in this thread and in this whole forum. it was btw not a bad idea some months ago , to have a special topic on that, because i am not very happy about reading it in serious discussions. it is one of the reasons why so little ppl come to word here. you see- you are rotating all the time into the same thing and we already heard what you think about the issue. but there some more hundred people on this forum that might have an opinion to enrich everyone here. dont take me wrong ( i am happy that you discuss and dont wanna tell you to stop in anyway, but i just say that we already have an idea about your view. may be let others continue on the details then?:)
of course i am not impartial. my subjective view of the issue is like jizy above. i dont even doubt. i ve experienced it that mathematics is the most essential thing in the universe and i dont need a certified prove. i dont believe in CERTIFIED proves so much btw, i believe in the VORBIDDEN SCIENCE that the people at the toproofs dont wanna let us experience..it is so much nicer to keep the human mind into small borders.
but this is because science is not the last frontier in my life.
no i am not an expert on quantum physics. i dont even wanna be, because i see that the majority of scientists are so close minded that they would never ever accept any idea, till this idea has been accepted by the majority. so you see, they will accept this idea in the next age and not in the present one.
now. i am not an expert in quantum physics and i dont want to deal too much with it. btw the formuls that i saw while i was filming in the studio of akasha were si complicated that you would need a special single book on this to realize it. i dont want to go so much in depth with my video. and quantum physics is no the basis of all.
i am more likely to see the chaos theory as the basics of all. and quantums as a part of it, as a manifestation of chaos theory.
what interests me, is just to rebuild the number of the table i gave you. i want to study to result.
|
|
|
|
Nectarios
Martian Arts
Started Topics :
187
Posts :
5292
Posted : Jun 27, 2009 18:29
|
Quote:
|
On 2009-06-27 18:17, Moki.Time.Wave.Zero wrote:
may be let others continue on the details then?:)
|
|
Cheers, my opinion on what I have just read, is that this sounds like a really nice idea, it would sure add to the whole magic of frequencies and their relation with the human mind and body...and it would sure make a great video if Moki would pick up on it.
But its just a load of bollocks, innit.
http://soundcloud.com/martianarts |
|
|
|
Speakafreaka
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
779
Posted : Jun 27, 2009 18:33
|
no, it is not 'here we go again'.
There is nothing in my last post that is personally offensive - not one thing. It isn't angry, it isn't rude, it isn't accusatory, it is how I see your position though - rather than become defensive about it, why can't you consider that I might just have a point?
If you won't consider that this might not work as has been suggested by the sites you have referenced, how can you claim to be interested in the truth?
Quote:
|
i ve experienced it that mathematics is the most essential thing in the universe and i dont need a certified prove. |
|
this is a contradicion in terms.
Quote:
|
i dont believe in CERTIFIED proves so much btw, i believe in the VORBIDDEN SCIENCE that the people at the toproofs dont wanna let us experience..it is so much nicer to keep the human mind into small borders.
|
|
this is paranoid.
Quote:
|
because i see that the majority of scientists are so close minded that they would never ever accept any idea, till this idea has been accepted by the majority
|
|
Majority has nothing to do with acceptance in science. Science adopts what is provable, whether the majority like its implications or not - that is the whole point of science, from 'Scio', or what I 'know'.
I agree, people have a good idea of my position, but then they also already have a good idea of your position too... what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
.
http://www.soundcloud.com/speakafreaka |
|
|
|
moki
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
38
Posts :
1931
Posted : Jun 27, 2009 19:36
|
Quote:
| Majority has nothing to do with acceptance in science. Science adopts what is provable, whether the majority like its implications or not - that is the whole point of science, from 'Scio', or what I 'know'. |
|
of course it has to do with majority.
science has not adopted quite a lot of provable things yet. why? why did some scientists have to die while they were claiming that the earth is round? why does the science not accept the theories of tesla for instance about free energy? why does the science not accept such simple observative facts like parapsychology?
actually what does science tell about the quantum physics???? ask the majority of them and they will critisise the idea that the experimentator has any role at all. they have a blockade - main thing you dont state anything that might prove that there is more to reality, that we have seen in the physic books. you know. science is so narrow minded actually.
and still, i am here not to suggest that science is false, but i am here to synchronise it with the rest of this theory. because as anyone can notice- it is about alchemy and the philosophers stone here. the golden means is a philosophers stone itself.
what will science tell you about phi, the golden means. they will tell you that is just another number. if you use - then you just fucking use it but there is not a special effect, it is just a number. science has not even the slightest explanation why you have to see this number everywhere - the human body, the human senses, the elements. science cannot even grasp why this universe is all connected and everything affects the rest of the system - in two directions - once macro and once microcosm.
btw have you heard of the solids of plato? the five elements? why do we have five? what does science tell me about this number five at all?
and still once more, i am here to postulate some consensual objective facts about the numbers behind the octave and behind the rest of the intervals. i dont think that people here have got an idea of my view, because i myself have not got an idea about my view yet. the next step is to rebuild the table from the last page. but i see that noone wants or can help.
lets say like that. i consider that it might be wrong, but this is not my hypothesis. my hypothesis is that it is not wrong - my hypothesis is that it is essential which frequency you choose and with what intention you use it because sound and harmoy has much more deeper effect on our bodies and mind than we think. so i try to prove my hypothesis. your hypothesis is that i am wrong. well, prove it then! why not try to prove it too? you are putting a hypothesis in the air, so right on, prove it.
i am telling you that my pineal gland is very receptive to the frequency of 7,8 hz which is the electromagnetic frequency of the earth. this is because my pineal gland is responsible for electromagnetic waves ( it is the place where the so called third eye is) and this is why my hypothesis is that :
if you use frequencies which are "entraining" ( see previous page), then the objects which create these frequencies, start to resonate stronger with one another. no matter the octave you take. you can double and double till the end.
and an attractor effect takes place. the whole energy of the system goes through this attractor.
in terms of pendulums and chao theory, an atractor in the human life is death itself. an attractor in the human body would be an opening of the third eye. an attractor in human communication is the creation of a communication on a higher energy level. i have all the time a picture in front of my head - thousands of people together under the attractor effect with the right frequencies. what will happen then????
an attractor in music is the octave itself. a strange attractor in terms of physics is an interval within the octave. what is this interval??? this is all i wanted to know from you.
Quote:
| There is nothing in my last post that is personally offensive |
|
ah okey, sorry then. i thought you refer to me as narrow mindes which is something that i have read often in this forum. i am either narrow minded or so desperately blond.
|
|
|
|
Axis Mundi
Axis Mundi
Started Topics :
75
Posts :
1848
Posted : Jun 27, 2009 20:23
|
Science doesn't have anything to do with majority.
Science is also not narrow minded at all.
The reason those scientist dies stating things such as a round earth etc. is because of unscientifically-minded people not willing to accept that they might be wrong. They weren't killed by other scientists. Those people died for the same reason that women were burned at the stake or thrown into rivers for causing eclipses.
Scientifically minded research is based upon theory. Those theories have to be proven - and proven again. As soon as a new idea or discovery comes along with debunks the old proven theory, the old theory is discarded and/or somehow the coinciding aspects become assimilated into the new theory.
When a shaman in a jungle tribe mixes the poultices of two roots together in an attempt to, say, cure an ill person, it either works or it doesn't. if it doesn't, the mixture is discarded and a new one is attempted using different roots. This is a scientific procedure.
It's true science does not know everything. It barely knows anything. But it is a self-correcting process. Theories must survive rigorous amounts of scrutiny and testing before they become accepted. And even once they are, something comes along which debunks the old theory and the scientific process continues. Science and scientists always make the assumption that a theory is wrong which is why it is up to the postulator (you, in this case) to prove that it is right. If it were the other way around, we would have nothing but to assume that every idea anyone has is right and things become a lot more chaotic.
About alchemy... it is not about turning physical lead into physical gold. That's just a metaphor. The "philosopher's stone" is your brain. It is about getting at least something positive out of the negative things in your life. It is about changing your mentality and your attitude and the way you see the world.
Yes, you do see the number 5 and equations and algorithms mirroring the golden ratio in many things. But you also can find any sort of number, or derive multitudes of equations, from just about anything one can find in the world. When your mind focuses on certain things, those things begin to stand out everywhere.
Science is indeed open to the possibility of things like UFOs, Atlantis, reincarnation, "paranormal" activity, and so on. But they haven't been proven yet. A scientific mind cannot go about assuming these things exist and are true without them having been proven somehow. And even when they are proven, when evidence has been found that things like this may be true, there will always be people who flatly deny the evidence and stick to their beliefs without needing evidence of their own. Maybe it brings them comfort. Maybe it makes them feel special. Maybe it helps them hide their pain. There are lots of reasons I suppose.
I think there is one thing that has been proven and almost everyone who browses these forums can agree on, that the human mind can easily be fooled, or fool itself, into believing just about anything it wants to.
It's really nice and comforting to think that I can talk to my dead parents, or that there is a wonderful afterlife or rebirth into another form waiting for me after I die. I'm very open to these possibilities. And many others. But there is no proof that I can rely on to go about claiming that they are facts. Until there is proof, at this point in our evolution, it's just wishful thinking.
On the contrary, I find that the wonders that science has shown us, and continues to show us, and will continue to show us, trump almost any sort of metaphysical theory I have come across.
|
|
|
|
Axis Mundi
Axis Mundi
Started Topics :
75
Posts :
1848
Posted : Jun 27, 2009 20:50
|
"In science it often happens that scientists say, `You know that`s a really good argument; my position is mistaken,` and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn`t happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that happened in politics or religion."
~Carl Sagan
|
|
|
|
daark
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
58
Posts :
1397
Posted : Jun 27, 2009 21:02
|
Quote:
|
an attractor in music is the octave itself. a strange attractor in terms of physics is an interval within the octave. what is this interval??? this is all i wanted to know from you. |
|
tell me moki you know what interval is? |
|
|
|
moki
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
38
Posts :
1931
Posted : Jun 27, 2009 21:40
|
daark, i am very happy that you quote that and that you comment it because it is the essence of my hypothesis in very short form.
if the question is serious - yes i do. by means of music theory but not so well by means of strange attractors. i need to know more about the intervalls.
why. is there something you try to tell me:) what is an intervall , tell me
edit: very interesting post axis mundi.
Quote:
| Science and scientists always make the assumption that a theory is wrong which is why it is up to the postulator (you, in this case) to prove that it is right. If it were the other way around, we would have nothing but to assume that every idea anyone has is right and things become a lot more chaotic. |
|
i would be very happy to prove it right but till now i did not meet any argument here that would speak on the contrary....may be i dont see well?:)
btw this thing with the pentatonics is only a side hypothesis. there is much more possibility that i am wrong with it than with the cosmic tones themselves. (btw cousto would never talk so much about the sacred mathematics while explaining this scientific theory....)
but for the cosmic tones themselves there is loads of information that could be called scientific approach....it is based on the theory of harmonics which is observable in every field of science - chemistry, physics, astronomy, neurochemistry, electromagnetics , biology and surgery and so many of them....
you know....
it is based on the very simple law that if double the octave, you can continue in direction infinity and double it again and again, and it will all be a resonance. if the electromagnetic frequency of the earth is the same number like the frequency of the spherics in the athmosphere and is the same number like the one in our third eye and the one in hour dna, then this has to mean something.
we are so perfectly embedded as a lifeform in between the ocean of possible frequencies...
|
|
|
|
daark
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
58
Posts :
1397
Posted : Jun 27, 2009 22:27
|
no.
i dont understand.such long posts
what is a strange atractor?interval between what you need? i calculate it for u
|
|
|
|
Axis Mundi
Axis Mundi
Started Topics :
75
Posts :
1848
Posted : Jun 27, 2009 22:35
|
I think you may have misunderstood, or I wasn't clear enough...
... Science isn't about making a theory and stating it's fact until someone comes along with an argument attempting to debunk it. The scientific method forces the theory maker himself to assume he is wrong which is why he/she researches and experiments upon it. They are as much trying to prove themselves wrong as they are trying to prove themselves right. They don't wait for a challenge from outside... they challenge it themselves.
I did take a look at your links and it seems Speakafreaka was right in at least most cases... the information you provided was from sources with vested financial interest, in other words they have an ulterior motive and therefore it's not objective, independent research, AKA not a scientific method.
Personally I am very open to the idea of healing sound frequencies... simply seeing thousands of people grooving on a dancefloor all weekend long suggests that to me. If sound waves can be destructive, then it seems logical to assume they can be creative. As far as physical healing, that is, accelerated healing of wounds or cleansing of diseases, that's still in the realm of heavy experimentation at best. On a spiritual level it seems far more plausible, but I think Colin OOOD said it best with his post as far as that goes.
But to me, to simply accept anything as fact without some sort of hard proof, is dangerous. "Credulity kills." I have my own very esoteric beliefs and ideas myself but I have to do my best not to confuse them with facts and to always keep my mind open. It seems what has happened in this thread is you started out with a theory attempting to gather information, you were challenged by others, and the defense you provided had flaws. When this was pointed out to you, you began getting defensive and this is the point where one begins to stray from a scientific method into something else, a common human behavior everyone has been guilty of in some form at some time. I'm not trying to attack you, just offer my point of view from someone who's been following along. Of course all this is easier said than done but the best thing I can suggest is to get more solid data and research and maintain (or keep maintaining, if you will) an open mind.
On a side note, can you elaborate on your last paragraph a little more please?
|
|
|
|
|
