altaylar2000

18 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Nonsense..

"No one can say why it would rather stop here and not there? Therefore, it must either rest or move endlessly, unless something stronger is interfered with."

This is translate of argument against emptiness, if you want you can find it on English version of Aristotel's phisics in canonically version, it's hard to me because I am not english-speaking

Aristotle here uses proof by contradiction, saying that if there were emptiness of atomists there would be a law of inertia

Just now, Sensei said:

Aristotle lived ~ 2000 years before Newton..

I mean formula itself

No, this is the philosophy of atomism, taken from antiquity. The universe supposedly consists of emptiness and elements.

Their main concern is the revival of Newton's theory of light, which was buried by the positivist progressive science of the 19th century.

And they still have to reckon with the wave, so they make a quantum-wave compromise

It is easy to see that since ancient times, the idea of emptiness has been introduced, and especially by religious ideologists. Atomists, Buddhists, and Christians, and in modern science, the reincarnation of Newtonianism in Einsteinism and quantum mechanics, introduced practically administratively, after the complete collapse of Newtonianism in the 19th century, and even by repressive measures.

Why is this important to them?

As far as I remember, Aristotle considered Newton's first law absurd, he used this argument as proof of the impossibility of emptiness, saying that if there was emptiness, then bodies would move endlessly

Contradiction leads to the cancellation of the possibility of proof by contradiction, this destroys all logic

In particular, deduction will be impossible. Classical syllogisms are also based on proof by contradiction

all people are mortal
Socrates is a human
Socrates is immortal

contradictory logic allows this statement

27 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

currently accepted

It is necessary to distinguish the "currently accepted" from the scientific.
Scientific is what follows from experience and facts.
For example, let's touch on the history of the Vikings. It is generally accepted that these were strong warriors who conquered the field of Europe, and facts and archeology say that it was a desert land where traders, robbers and pirates hunted, not a single epic battle has been recorded, and the military ammunition that is found there is identical to the lower class of the Roman infantry, these are large wooden shields and the like. Shortly before the new era, there were still running around with stone axes.
So what should we talk about, conventional or scientific?

And additionally there is nothing contradictory to modern teories in what I say. This touched the question of vision of light. I'm not arguing with Einstein or quantum physics here, so don't worry

classic

maybe reality that manifested in sensory sensations?

There is the chance to get musical and sexual orgasm at once

2 hours ago, ahmet said:

All in all you might be right. because there are some artists that have good musics ,but just one sample is good. ,,or I have not heard the more.

Almost all. No doubt - Don't speak, Nirvana - Smells like teen spirit, Eagles - Hotel California, Cranberies - Zombie, Tony Braxton - Un break my heart and so on

Fans will prove that everything is fine there, but the fact is that these performers are massively known and only go to them because of these hits.

The opposite of this are Scorpions, Metallica, Modern talking, for example

BTW I think in India a lot of beautiful women, It seems more then somewhere else. I think this because there were aryans and it is their blood.

I do not like modern Indian pop music, it is extremely monotonous, but it is worth watching for the sake of Indian beauties

And not only reflected light of its own, but also light from other sources, say from stars

I think most people get the wrong picture when they say that this country is doing something against that country and so on.
In fact, from about the beginning of our era, dual power was established throughout the world, power was divided into priestly and royal. These are kshatriyas and brahmanas, church and kings and the like, all this was all over the world and only the Asiatic Huns preserved the classical patriarchy.
At the same time, the power of the priesthood was apparently transnational.
The royal power has mutated into the executive, and the priestly into the legislative (which puts the right people with the help of ochlocracy). The executive branch became secondary.
Formally, there are still branches of power there, but that doesn't matter.

Therefore, to say in the categories "the country is doing something" is not correct.
There is a constant struggle, and sometimes the executive branch can gain independence and fight against legislators, a typical example of this Kennedy

And at the same time, the division into parties in parliament is usually a fiction, as, for example, there is almost no fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats, it all comes down to insignificant formalities, and the general policy remains the same

And even if we discard the fact that we do not see light propagating in space, this still does not negate the fact that the light source reflects another light, as any object

So no matter if we see the emitted light, the reflected light we still see, this is fact

1 minute ago, swansont said:

It's up to you to show this is true (which it isn't)

I see no other explanation, we do not see direct radiation, this is obvious

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Your argument means you claim to see the sun because it reflects off of dust in space, and aren't getting light directly from it.

from everything from which light is reflected

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

Not at all. You claimed something about seeing things because light reflects off of "dust and so on" but there would much less of this in any vacuum, and yet we can see light sources just fine, with no dimming.  It doesn't depend on any refection, because if it did, it would be harder to see as we improved the vacuum. (plus the problem of geometry and forming an image if the light were coming from multiple directions)

 

You're just making stuff up, which is one reason you can't support it rigorously (and consequently have to make straw man arguments), and it's gotten very tiresome.

It was not about sources but about rays. The source was discussed above, this one has a simple explanation: the source reflects already reflected light, respectively, it behaves like any other object
If it was about sourse, there is no matter "dark room". I can see the sun, there is no need darkness

1 minute ago, sethoflagos said:

wo items to ponder:

1) Notes don't just stop: they bounce around the room as echoes and gradually fade.

2) We have pitch memory. Even when a sound fades into imperceptibility, we can still hold it in memory almost indefinitely. How long do you have to be parted from someone before you forget what their voice sounded like? 

I agree, but there is still a difference.
I think this is related to the fact that, according to my observations, an intense and clear strike on the strings is strong, it gives a much richer and more beautiful sound, this can make even chords sound that do not sound melodic

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Where did anyone claim a pure vacuum exists?

he assumed this, since stardust in the sense of reflection is no different here

btw, Here, you probably need to take into account the diffraction and interference of waves, they can greatly change the sound flow

12 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

We don't need the pitches to sound together to sense the harmonic relationship between them. 

 

But on the acoustically level, in the sense of the superposition of waves on top of each other, it matters. That is, in the melody they are superimposed less or not at all, there is no resonance.

And if we assume that this biological reflex was developed precisely at resonance, then we are talking about different mechanisms

On 9/11/2019 at 5:08 AM, Trurl said:

Ok to show I don't just waste my time looking for patterns in factoring. I have also studied game theory. Not so much the rigorous math, but the protocols. With a little knowledge and possible outcomes you can make some good predictions.

I don't know if my reference will be lost on those who don't follow American football but here it is.

I predicted on January 10th 2019 that Antonio Brown would become a New England Patriot.

I have proof in the YouTube video link following. But my simple approach to game theory does not end there. Simply put the Patriots are ruining football. What if we the fans could devise a game plan that would defeat the Patriots. We could use game theory and math. It would be a great challenge.

 

Game theory does not take into account politics, so it is almost useless. For example, the forecast for the economy there is maximum dumping, but in reality there will be monopolization, collusion and government regulation

1 hour ago, sethoflagos said:

New point: these resonances are related not only harmonically, but also in phase. 

Therefore if our ears detect a number of simultaneous frequencies that have a simple harmonic relationship and are in phase with each other, then we can reasonably deduce that they came from a single source - perhaps prey, perhaps predator. We could learn to match these complex sounds to precise sources critical to our survival.

If we sense either phase shifts or non-harmonic tones within the sound, this indicates that there is more than one source object - useful to know if you are up against a single wolf or a pack. 

This suggests to me that our distant ancestors may well have learnt to associate simple harmonic waveforms as 'safe' and complex non-harmonic, out-of-phase sounds as 'dangerous'. 

Not much established science to back up this hypothesis. But it seems a reasonable one to explain why we find frequency ratios of 2, 3 and 5 'pleasant'. And since all twelve notes of the chromatic scale (at least in western music) are constructed from these three ratios (at least approximately), the roots of both harmony and melody seem to follow with some logical consistency.

Thank you, this is very interesting.
But, as far as I understand, this applies only to harmonic consonance, that is, simultaneous sounding with overlapping, but melodic, that is sequential, does not apply, right?

3 minutes ago, joigus said:

An image is worth a thousand words:

It seems it about obertones

6 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

 Pythagoras and Just tuning system has a biological connection: (emphasis mine)

It also seemed amazing to me, this seems to be the only example when natural numbers really exist in nature.

(I do not know if this is there in the paper, but I mean that oscillations that are multiples of the natural series enter into resonance)

31 minutes ago, joigus said:

Also hinted to the fact that when you play a note after another, they overlap, and you notice that they are in sync.

In what sense are they synchronized? Height within an concrete octave?
It is self-evident, or are you talking about something else?

Old thing of Irina. This song about how the man asked the girl to kill him because he tired to live with his sorrow, and she did it.
She thinks very deeply and romantically, it is rare for a woman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ycRUJrNrYI

And another new song

https://youtu.be/f4kUZjmo_Go

amazing guitar performance

Just another old good thing

5 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Discuss some mainstream science or the thread will be closed.

Even from the point of view of the mainstream, there is no pure vacuum. Outer space is filled with rarefied gas and dust

6 minutes ago, Eiot said:

In your title, do you use the verb "to exist" as an adjective?

No, I think I was wrong. It was correct "Do exist"?