science4ever

Though it's not possible to say God doesn't exist, it's easy to show why all the religions that exist can't be true.

 

 

all the best with your treatment man.

Thanks for caring words about my Cancer treatment. I fear the worse

the prognose is bad. At most two years left if I take the strongest doses

and maybe 6 month to 1 years if I don't want the Chemo treatment.

Way too short for an impatient person like myself I want at least 5 years

and no treatment. So if God give me that then I will pretend I believe in him

"it's easy to show why all the religions that exist can't be true."

Yes and even if God does exist. Logically there is no way to know anything about God

So I see two options.

1. To see God as a social construct, a kind of group tool for cooperation.

Very similar to Political Correctness. A group tool for how to behave. Social norms.

Very similar in being extremely moral and righteous and supporting the good side.

If you have God on your side or Political Correctness on your side how can you be wrong

2. To see God as a ridiculous concept and do ones best to ridicule it. Many atheists

seems to go that route and I did that for many decades too but my hatred felt bad

I did not like that I hated the ridiculous believers. I could have been one of them.

I actually believed in UFO/Alien reports so who am I to condemn crazy faith?

I see God as a kind of Group Placebo Construct that works to a certain degree.

An old version of the more modern Political Correctness. Same kind of righteousness.

I leave this thread now. Continue if you find it interesting. Good bye!

I trust my thinking and the way I express my thoughts are too confusing.

But I stand up for what I wrote there. But I will not defend or explain it further.

since I wrote it I have had a cancer operation and will be totally absorbed in surviving.

So take it for what it is. one atheists way to try to understand the logic of god.

I obviously fail to get it. Your explanation did not help me eitehr

So Good bye

DoG wrote

 

I know you want a fence sitting position but for me there is not one. In my opinion anyone that wants to believe there is a god but honestly doubts there is one is atheist. To qualify as a theist you must have an affirmative belief that there is in fact one or more gods, you must meet the dictionary definition of theist or your are technically not-theist, i.e. atheist.

I think it is my poor command of words and English that makes it looks like that.

I don't want fence sitting at all. Like what the title of the thread indicate.

"anti-philosophy atheist?"

that is a bit too harsh or too strong but in the right direction.

I question the whole set up and I find it likely that the Church

due to competition from Philosophers wanted to be best at doing philosophy

so they came up with more and more fancy defence of their claims.

If one really study how religion works then it is more like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology_of_religion Anthropology of religion

These are scientists and claim this

 

that every religion is a cultural product created by the human community that practices it

that means that everything within religion is a cultural product. The way they refer to God

is part of their culture. Each religious tradition has their own particular culture about God.

That God is supernatural and that God exists is one such claim within these cultures.

It is part of how they set it up logically. The believers are given no choice other than

to believe that God is supernatural and that God exist or else they are not accepted as believers.

So the whole philosophy thing is part of the rhetoric to defend that culture.

It is a kind of logical trap set up by the religious culture to keep the members.

Now I am no supporter of Anthropology of religion but they do get that part right.

from same wikipedia text they quote on of the most famous guy in the field Clifford Geertz.

Sadly he uses an abstract way to define his view on religion but hopefully your Egnlish is on par?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology_of_religion#Definition_of_religion

 

According to Geertz, religion is "

(1) a system of symbols which acts to

(2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by

(3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and

(4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that

(5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic" (Geertz 1966).

This part is most important I guess

"

(4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that

(5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic"

That is what I refer to as the rhetoric trick that the Church has set up.

Factuality. God has to be told about in a way that makes God look very factual.

They need to "cloth" the words so God seems uniquely realistic. It is a rhetoric trap

they force the believer to follow their logical set up or else they are seen as dissenters

and apostates and heretics and as atheists. What the Church do is politics. Keep people in line.

I fail to find good words for this but to me it is very embarrassing that atheists play along

with this logical trap and make the same forced situation instead of trying to at least

see religion from a scientific perspective.

DoG thanks for caring about my confusing text.

I only tried to retell one year of daily discussions with atheists

So my confusing text shows how utterly bad I am at logic and to structure words.

I agree with what you wrote there. But the atheists that I talked to narrowed it down

to only two positions. you are either theist or atheist. They most likely knew what you

told me here too but they found that irrelevant because they wanted to force me to chose

So the whole gnostic and agnostic part was a distraction to them. Let us first get if you are theist or atheist

they demanded of me.

My position is that there is something very odd about that demand.

The believers have no choice at all.

Logically they can only claim that God exist or it looks like if they have no faith in God.

Their fellow believers would tell them but

if you don't believe that God exist then you are atheist and not one of us believers.

Do you see how it is set up?

The only logical choice a believer can make is to claim that God exist

or else they are seen as atheistic towards God. By both theists and atheists.

If you read my post above I try to make that claim with many confusing words.

what they maybe can do is to say they are De facto theist following Dawkins suggestion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability#Dawkins.27_formulation

 

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards Agnosticism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

Most atheists seems very disappointed with Dawkins saying he fail to get philosophy.

That is one of my main points. If atheist philosophy is so difficult

that one of the most known atheist fails at it then it is something odd about it?

He is an educated man and he has advisors and friends and they should have been able

to explain the extreme simple atheist definition that online active atheists make use of.

So why does he fail? I suggest it is because there is something very odd about atheist philosophy.

My naive point of view is that believers have no logical choice

but to make the claim that God exists. If they don't make it

then their fellow believers would ask them if the are atheist

and atheists would say these believers are atheists in disguise.

The logic of theism is set up that way. Church most likely wanted it that way.

Philosophy was seen as the most advanced of the sciences at that time.

Church wanted to force the doubting believer to chose faith in God

and thus they logically set it up so there where only two choices.

Then atheists kind of found that easy to adopt and atheists also force

the atheists to chose that there is no God.

That is why political Gods are of no significance to atheist philosophy.

That the political Gods have political power over millions is irrelevant

the atheists tells me.

The atheists told me that the only thing relevant is

if you believe that God exists or not. You are either with us

or against us. The same forced situation.

Maybe Dawkins wanted to find a solution to that forced situation.

Unfortunately he is not a good philosopher and seems to not read

online discussions about atheists or else he would know he would get

ridiculed for doing such crazy thing as trying to better a perfect set up?

Formally if one can use his suggestion then I am De facto atheist.

"De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero.

"I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable,

and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

I don't like the word agnostic it fails to work among atheists.

But my main take on gods if one go outside the formality of definitions is this:

1. Even if a god existed there would be no way for theists or atheists to know that God.

2. There is no evidence for a supernatural God to exist.

3. The only gods that atheists accept as real gods are faith in an existing supernatural God.

4. But even if such a god would exist there would be no way for anybody to know that God.

Do you see he it is set up? By definition there is no way to know a supernatural god.

By definition such a god can not be known. We are natural beings and can only know about

things that are natural. The supernatural we can know nothing about logically by definition.

So the whole thing is a kind of rhetoric logical trap set up by Church

way back in time when they realized they had to find the best rhetoric

availabe at that time and it worked for some thousand of years until

Holbach and the other atheists started to see through the logical flaws.

Sadly I am very bad at rhetoric and at logical structured text

but this trap set up by Church is being reused by atheists

to force people to chose an impossible thing.

Logically there is no way to know if there exists a god or not.

But many cultures have gods and that shows that politically gods

can be a kind of social tool. Why would that be irrelevant to atheists?

Is that not very odd?

I am extremely bad at logic but active atheists have told me that only philosophy

can say anything about the existence of a god and what one can know about such a god.

So Ontology what exists and Epistemology what we can know.

1. My fuzzy logic then tells me that there is no way to know if God exists or not?

2. There is logically know way to get any evidence for an existing god or evidence for

a non existing god either. the way they have defined god makes God beyond such evidence?

3. So if there exist a god then neither believers nor atheists can know that it exists at all.

I wild guess that some theologians have tried to solve this by saying

that the Concept God point to a theoretically possible god that may exist

so if there is one then the word God point to that real God even if there is no evidence for such a god.

I see that as a kind of cheating. Would be more honest if they admited that they are desperate

to at all cost postulate the existence of a possible god.

Now if my confused brain get's it right then the whole fight between theists and atheists

seems rather futile.

There is no way to know if a god exists or not. so to ask if somebody believe that god exist

seems to be about personal preferences on supporting an old tradition more than about

any real God. I mean the believers have no way to know if a god exists or not.

So what is the point asking them?

Maybe it is more about sorting people into categories.

1. You are a believer in superstitions about gods so I will be skeptical to anything you say.

2. You lack the believe in gods so now we only have thrillions of other superstitious belief to sort out

It is pointless is it not?

What is not pointless is the political power of religious traditions.

The political power of religion is strong enough to make several countries

to have restrictions on sexual education and easy to get contraceptices

so a lot of woman get more children than they want.

Abortion is forbidden or heavily restricted.

Seen from politics God is very much in power but the logical atheists

tells me that such realities are totally irrelevant to the question on God.

To them politically powerful gods are irrelevant. They are only imagined

and the logical atheist only care about an "existing" god.

Is that not extremely odd? What is the logical answer that we can have any knowledge

for an existing god.

the only evidence for a god that de facto have impact on our lives are the imagined gods.

Thanks Bill, I've that category before and most likely I did buy that book too.

How many of the most active online in forum atheists are aware of it and use it?

Now that you remind me then I do remember that I have read it before

but I had no spontaneous access to it. I had to be reminded that I have known

but then forgotten about it. And Richard wrote that book very long time ago?

It confirms my experience that the online active atheists only care about

their own preferred definitions and see no value in suggestion neither from Dawkins

not you nor from me.

To the most active on forum atheists there are statistically only two options.

you are either atheist or theist. They don't accept that one can be agnostic only

to them one are only agnostic atheist and that is same as atheist. One can be agnostic theist

but that is theist to them they have only two categories.

I've been an aggressive Anti-theist all my life and that is acknowledge by wikipedia

but the on forum active atheists only saw that as another way to say atheist

to them there are no separate category anti-theists there are only atheists or theists.

So I trust that Richard Dawkins either have no time to read through atheist forums

so he was not aware of that nothing he write will have any impact on the active atheists.

I go do a google on this definition now

De Facto atheist: "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable,

and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there." if the result is very defferent

from what I thought I get back and give links.

cool that Dawkins De facto atheist is mention in one of the wiki though.

Usually the on forum active atheists don't have high opinion on wiki AFAIK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism

 

In The God Delusion, Dawkins describes people for whom the probability of the existence of God is between "very high" and "very low" as "agnostic" and reserves the term "strong atheist" for those who claim to know there is no God. He categorizes himself as a "de facto atheist" but not a "strong atheist" on this scale.

I feel rather sure of that the on forum active atheists would complain that Dawkins is no philosopher.

Facebook has an automatic entry on De facto atheism

 

Spectrum of theistic probability. De facto atheist was merged with this page · Interest. 56 people like this topic. Wikipedia.

how many million atheist are active on Facebook. 56 likes is extremely few is it not?

Here is a gerenal Student forum with all kinds of topics

it is not an exclusive atheist forum they wrote about 2011

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1708418

and next in line is from 2010. The Happy Atheist Forum

http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=5560.0

Just a former Catholic that introduce himself it created no comment on

his use of De facto atheists.

My wild guess is that the term is only known to those how care about what Dawkins writes

and they seems not to be very active in the most known atheist forums? Am I wrong?

did a search on http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/

People know about it through Dawkins but very few seems to support it?

 

De facto atheist definition "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

Believers admit that if God does not exist then the rest of their Religious culture is built on a land slide.

So atheists seems to concentrate on that fact that they make a claim. "I believe that God exists"

and then ask for evidence and the believers fail to give evidence that the atheists can accept.

My take then is that the claim that God exist is part of the religious tradition.

it is a kind of test for to get approved of for to be part of that religious tradition as a believer.

If you chose another way to see God than the official view then you are seen as a dissenter a heretic

and way back in time that mean you had to be killed and maybe that exist still in some traditions?

So to me there is something very odd about the extreme instrumental question.

"Do you believe that God exist? "

Logically they have no choice. They have to believe to be part of the religious culture.

If they chose to not believe they are seen as atheist or as a betrayal of the family tradition.

To claim that God exist is required of them they have no choice to not believe.

"You are either with us or against us" kind of dichotomy and the "cute" thing is

that atheists buy into this dichotomy instead of realising that there are numerous options

to chose among one of them is what Dawkins suggested.

Not once did any of the active on forum atheists suggest that I made use of Dawkibs definition

to them there where only two categories. You either believe in god are are the enemy or you lack believe

and are atheist.

I hereby happily ignore you.

your answers confirmed how hopelessly far out the philosophy atheists are.

I am no supporter of Anthropology because being soft science I don't trust them

to have done much experiment but the wikipedia has not been challenged for years

so most likely very few see any wrong with the fact side so I make use of it until some new info arrive.

If I ever forgot that I ignore you do remind me.

Lightburst I disagree look here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism

or here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism

or here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism

So logically one can be a non-philosophical atheist.

the only reason they don't mention it is that these atheists love philosophy

and can not understand that one can be anti-philosophy.

I trust they lack the imagnitation that one can be skeptical to philosophy.

when I read what the Anthropology of religion writes

then it is clear as sky that humans make up their gods.

look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology_of_religion

 

that every religion is a cultural product created by the human community that practices it

and Clifford Geertz definition further down describe how they create their religion with their God.

 

According to Geertz, religion is

(1) a system of symbols which acts to

(2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by

(3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and

(4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that

(5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic" (Geertz 1966).

(4) and (5) describe how they do it. That is how their God appear live and existing to them.

Philosophy does not even realize this and are so literal in it's reading that takes religious

tradition as if some real god existed outside of their community culture.

If one ask philosophy minded atheists about it then they say.

"but that is what the believer claim. That their God is existing"

That is why Clifford Geertz explain how the believers do it in practice.

"

(4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that

(5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic" (Geertz 1966)."

I wish Geertz had used less abstract language there but it is clear as sky if one get it.

Even my poor and confusing English get what Geertz really say.

deductive? Yes I have heard the word before

But I don't trust I can live up to being deductive.

I maybe is reductive Haha nope I am not deductive

maybe would be cool to have that talent or skill but that is not me.

 

3. The drawing of a conclusion by reasoning;

4. Logic

a. The process of reasoning in which a conclusion follows necessarily from the stated premises; inference by reasoning from the general to the specific.

b. A conclusion reached by this process.

If there exists all these kind of atheists

apatheistic atheists, igtheistic atheists

agnostic atheists, gnostic atheists

then logically there can exist anti-philosophy atheist

Or do I do some kind of philosophy error there?

Maybe the word anti-philosophy is too strong?

What about unwilling atheist, reluctant atheist,

don't feel at home with the label atheist?

An adjective is a word that describe how the substantive is?

Agnostic atheist is adjective plus substantive.

Same with reluctant as adjective so how can it be wrong?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reluctant

 

1. Unwilling; disinclined: reluctant to help.

2. Exhibiting or marked by unwillingness: a reluctant smile.

3. Offering resistance; opposing.

sounds very logical to me.

agnostic atheist describe an atheist that care about epistemology

and reluctant describe and atheist that unwillingly has to accept the lable

against their personal self identity.

[from Latin reluctārī to resist;

Have you heard of the Borg?

We are the Borg.

Resistance is futile!

that is how I feel against the philosophical definition that force me

to be an atheist agaibst my conscious will. I resist I am unwilling

I feel reluctant to accept it.

adjective explained like this

1. The part of speech that modifies a noun or other substantive by limiting,

qualifying, or specifying and ...

So I am a reluctant atheist or unwilling atheist.

Yes each instrument seems to be indivdidual so not predictable

from case to case so those that have been measured one hope

them where good versions and not just a random sample that

maybe where not optimal craftmanship.

I will need to test many options until it works to get two octaves

that sound at least close to being in tune. It is only for the fun of it

so no big deal if it fails in the end. that is a way to learn that it was difficult.

When visiting the Music shop I tried to play their P-bone Trombone

and I had more difficulty with that one than with my one octave only

cylindrical "Cylinetto" just made that term up such does not exist

and these have no mouth piece one just use the end of the tube as the MP.

One is 300mm long and 1/2 Inch about 13 mm inner tube and the other one

400mm 16mm inner tube 20 mm outer and that sound more like a small clarinett

8 fingerholes on both. But one need to get them conical because they sound too muted

lacking the overtones harmonics due to being cylindrical.

Thanks

Yes I agree there can be a real existing god but that the culture of a community

still create their interpreation and try their best to get what that real God really is.

So one have kind of the real God that maybe is beyond human grasp

and one have the cultural norms and tradiitons on how to relate to that God

but that these practices has no way to know anything evidential about God.

So the religions and their images and stories about god are human creations even if a real god would exist.

Yes philosophy being set up as it is have made itself kind of immune that way.

it does not have to care about such things they deal with words and their usages

and relate to if the usage is consistent with definitions.

it makes me highly skeptic of philosophy. I mean Ludwig Feuerbach 1841

wrote almost identical text as Steward Guthries wrote 2000 and both are anthropology minded

and despite that I have been atheist since before 1964 I never heard a philosopher refer to that quote

by Feuerbach.

Philosophers kind of don't have to care about real people and what goes on in our heads

Feuerbach cared about us already 1841. He see God as a projection of man idealized but

described to be features of God. Man see himself reflected in God. A projection. a created mirror image.

Much appreciated that you cared. Anthropology seems to not be very popular

I guess my confused thinking throw everybody off guard?

I try to get the logical implications of this claim they make.

 

every religion is a cultural product created by

the human community that practices it.

 

That is a quote from Steward Guthrie that he wrote year 2000 and

he has reused a very similar text by Ludwig Feuerbach that he wrote 1841.

So if it had been something very few agree with then the anthropologists

would have asked for some better definition to be in wikipedia by now.

If one ask atheists about the definitions of atheism they say that the default

weak definition makes everybody into an atheist even if that person don't want to be one.

The only way to not be an atheist is to really believe that God exists and are supernatural.

Now some atheists are not that categorical they allow theists to construct their gods but

the most strident atheists say that if the believer know they believe in a constructed faith

then they are not true believers.

A true believer have to trust that God is real and logically if all gods are as anthropologys says

then all gods by definition are created gods by the community that practice that faith.

So does that not make all believers into deceived atheists.

The weak atheist definition makes everybody born into an atheist.

You can only be theist if you truly believe in a real God you have to be in a kind of delusion

not knowing that your religious tradition created the god they believe in.

Only these theists are true theists the others know there is no real god only

the god their tradition created.

Compare with the title of the famous book by Richard Dawkins.

the God Delusion.

that titles show that atheists see God as a delusion. Logically a believer

is a delusional atheist deceived to think that they are true theists.

I contrast anthroplogy with atheist philosophy. They have to be consistent

or one of them get it all wrong?

Now somebody may suggest there are real gods. But that is not what Anthropology says.

Every religion ... So if there exists real gods then no religion knows about these real gods.

Seems that Guthrie has quoted this old text

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Anthropology+of+religion

 

In 1841, Ludwig Feuerbach was the first to state the anthropologic principle

that every religion is created by the human community that worships it

So Guthrie at most added the words cultural product and changed worship to practice?

that every religion is created by the human community that worships it

that every religion is a cultural product created by the human community that practice it

so Guthrie build on Feuerbach making the words more modern maybe relating it to Cultural Anthropology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology_of_religion

they say this about religion.

 

that every religion is a cultural product created by the human community that practices it.

Quote from Guthrie 2000 (page 225-6)

They also present a definition on religion by Clifford Geertz but I am not clever enough to get that one

So I hope somebody read up on Anthropology can confirm that the quote from year 2000 still holds

or if the consensus has changed after 13 years?

My own naive definition would be like this

Religious traditions are expressions of a particular culture

and each such culture have their own particular religions and gods.

Features of a particular God is part of the way that culture made up the tradition.

That means that if their God has features like being alive and real and existing

and supernatural and the creator of all there is all such claims are part of how

they made that religious tradition their particular way to express that tradition.

Sadly I have no talent for to structure such text so my confusing text only makes a mess out of it.

What I try to ask for is a confirmation and a better text than the very short one from Guthrie

and the very complex one from Geertz. Some comprimize that is for the lay person and not the academic.

Edit I guess I have to add that this is Anthropology and not philosophy like ontology or epistemology.

I know that atheists love to change everything to logical questions like

Do you believe that these gods really exists?

An answer from

then would be "

that every religion is a cultural product created by the human community that practices it.

Quote from Guthrie 2000 (page 225-6)"

the philosophy is part of each particular expression. The religious traditions

each of them has their way to deal with the philosophy of their religious tradition

one has to ask each one of them.

I just believe that every religion is a cultural product created by the human community that practices it.

I don't deal with the philosophy part that is for philosophers to do if them find it interesting.

"bugle":

item 350712757879 sells for 30 dollar

item 200938513000 sells for 60 dollar

That is a very good price indeed. They sound cool.

I agree that Cornetto/Zink has limits but when you write this

 

The cornetto doesn't overblow

Maybe I have not learned what the word really means

AFAIK a well built Cornetto does allow that one get one octave higher

on each of the holes so at least two registers the low and high a continues scale

from g to g to g and the xpert player can play even higher up but that needs much practice.

One can see and hear that that is so on the videos they shift between lower and higher

in the music pieces while the cylindrical bore that I have on my flute trumpets with

fingerholes they can only make the lower register and the longer ones like a Clarinet

they can one and a half octave higher on the lowest fingers.

Most likely I use the word overblow wrong this guy here name it harmonics instead?

http://www.flutetunes.com/articles/flute-harmonics/

I thought the correct word for teh lowest scale was ground tone and the first harmonics

being one octave higher is named first harmonic or first over tone or first over blown.

Flues are open air so they allow at least the ground tone and the first octave harmonic

whole Clarinet and very short Trumpet like instement being closed air tube miss the first

harmonic and instead give the one one and a half above being the second harmonic?

I know nothing I only guess based on having blown home made flutes since some 50 years

Hehe what you dislike about the sound of a Cornetto/Zink is most likely what we love about it.

it sounds heavenly to us who love it. so it is a matter of taste most likely. The constrained sound

is the charm it has for our ears. Intonation is very hard to master I know. So that maybe is why

there is no such for school orchestras The others would scream to the Cornetto play on tune or get lost.

wiki says about overblowing this

 

the pitch jump is from one vibratory mode of the reed or air column, e.g., its fundamental, to an overtone.

So that is how I understood the term too and ahve used it but I forgot the word fundamental

so a good Cornetto should at least have two octaves first the fundamental and then the first overtome scale

same note/tone so a fingering for G also gets a G one octave higher but next harmonics gets you to D seven

halfnotes higher? and next harmonics to G again Only my wild guessing but that is how flutes acts.

First things first Much appreciated that you share all this knowledge

Sadly self centered naivety misled you I thought I told you I gave up on Baroque trumpet

Ooops sorry I did not realize my English is this confusing

I have already given up on the Baroque. I now concentrate on

The Cornetto/Zink instrumenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornett

So maybe maybe making the cone out of "brass" would be easiest for me

being able to glue the joint together so it get water tight and air tight

and easy to make cheap new ones in plastic with same dimension as the "brass"

as prototypes? I would need to stabilize the plastic sheets with something thicker

so they does not vibrate and wobble and disturbe the "impedance" making tone not stable?

Yes there do exists Cornetto/Zink instruments made out of "recin"

but in practice it is Epoxy "recin" and they say such need heavy ventilation

very dangerous to inhale in a small room like I have. And it easily get bubbles

and maybe cost much to use for prototypes.

One guy took a 3D printer and made 4 cones and then glued them together

to get one long instrument 23 to 24 inches some 600mm But 3D printing cost a lot

and take rather long time to print out too but the plastic used seems to be strong

I would not trust that I can glue four pieces togher and it looks good after when finished

wow Cool that you know so much. Not many have that insight?

Sure i am a nobody on all this but I do have a long experience on

building ultra simple versions of Nay or Kaval flutes without mouthpieces

and from testing different inner diameters and lengths I know

that what you tell me there is reliable knowledge.

Some say that one don't need to have the bore linear? Some books

describe that it should be linear from mouthpiece to the end.

They mention the magic number 1/32 related to the narrow mouthpiece

and the wide part in the end where the Clock? should be to make the sound bright.

where I live we have outer diameter of the tubes 16 and 20 mm

and the inner diameter is about 13 to 16 so they fit rather okay one in the other.

So for to make a hasty mockup just for to be able to practice overblowing

and to test out where to place the holes I wanted to start with the IEC Halogenfrei

some kind of European standard so like you suggested I need to fill the first part of the tube

to get about 3 to 6 mm start and then go up to the inner diameter 13 mm and then go up

to over 16 mm inner diameter and then open that one up and combine two of these

so I get a diameter of some 26 to 32 mm dependent on length of the tube

if I make a G tuned one or a higher pitched one.

Do you know from your experience or could you understand from your know how

what would happen if I let the 3 to 6 nn inner diameter to be several inches long

and then change to the 13 mm some inches long and then 16 a few more and

then go up to 20 to 30 mm rather steeply? would such irregularity disturbe the nodes too much?

does it need to be very smooth changes from one inner diameter to another?

The Cormetto that I will make in the end should be a regular one made out of wood

but I only have material for one such so I don't want to fail with that one having no experience

so I want to make mock up version out of cheap plastic first. And the tubes that I have blown now

sounds okay but lack half of the over tones due to it is cylindrical unstead of conical.

Music instruments are passionating, so go on!

 

Music instruments are the very difficult part of acoustics. Everything else is trivial in acoustics.

 

Fun: with deep knowledge for acoustics, if you read patents from instruments makers, you can guess that they have better knowledge of acoustics than most academic researchers. They often claim "experimental discovery by chance" where chance is highly improbable and excellent knowledge must have guided them.

 

Beware this Wiki article contains gross mistakes, about the 11th harmonic in tune or the effect of the vents.

 

Beware also that sound quality does not result from harmonics, because sound is not periodic, and this is a fundamental quality of instruments. A musical sound can not be synthesized from harmonics, hence neither explained. The old Helmholtz made this mistake long ago, and since then almost everyone propagates it. One physics group in a Britanny university investigated this 20+ years ago, but it's too little known, and nearly everything remains to understand here.

Sorry to quote this much but what you say nere is very interesting. My little experience from

making ultra simplistic versions of Turkish Kaval without mouthpiece confirm thatone need to

make them until they sound good. To try to use math and expect a final good result based solely

on that math seems to fail. It has to be built on true know how from having built many and

having experience on what happens when one do small changes and what to avoid.

So much appreciated that you share your knowledge.

I used google for to try to find others on my extreme low level that we could encourage

each other and share our experiences but that seems not very successful

Either you have experts that make them and sell them and they keep that know how secret

or you have no interest at all. Or me have failed to use the right key words.

I should be rich enough to buy one but there is a one year waiting on the reputed masters

so they only make them when they get enough customers on the wait list.

As you can see above that is a Funnel for pouring gas into the tank

when it is difficult to reach it on some engines? Extra long tip.

Cost almost nothing. I made the tip about 3 inch longer

and that allowed me to play both the lowest tone and the first overtone

while if I use a cylindrical tube then it only play lowest and one and a half octave above

So looking crazy but seems to work accoustically at least without holes.

I come to think of it as a Cow Horn or Buffalo horn or Shofar horn but with fingerholes.

Such where used way back in time here in Scandinavia and they could be played in lower register

and maybe on tone on the first overtone. so how can I find out what is most likely to work here

Should I make the funnel part a bit shorter or keep that? How many tones may it allow

to play on both register? I could maybe fill the funnel with something to make it less steep?

Another possibility are the "Drain" tubes for Loo? These comes in two dimensions

32mm and 40 mm but they don't tell if it is inner or outer but the Other tubes

did get listed with outer diameter so maybe same thinking here? Taht means that

I have 16 mm and 20 mm and 32 mm and 40 and could couple these together

and try to make a crazy looking cornetto out of them smooting out the overlap

inside using model clay or BeeWax They sell in 1 meter length and cost very little

less than 8 dollars.

I experience something like this from time to time. It's a bit like there's a big stationary lorry up road with its engine idling. The frequency is just too low to hear. I sort of feel it. Odd.

 

I also hear it intermittently in pubs too. No funny comments please! But I put that down to some kind of pump perhaps. But it tends to go on for sometime, 20 minutes perhaps. Then I'm aware it's stopped.

 

It's quite unpleasant in fact. Almost like my head is being pummelled.

 

Mind you, I'm increasingly getting tinnitus too as I get older. Most of the time I just ignore it.

Much appreciated you shared this. My Tinnitues is two or three high pitched noisy "tones"

way about what musical instruments play. Higher then the highest note on the Piano.

These two or three tones are close to each other so they create a low freq wobble

and they change in phase or pace with the heart beat so I wild guess one hear the flow of blood

in the ear???

So like you noticed the only way to get "rid of it" is to ignore that it is there. If one are lucky

then after some minutes one don't notice it anymore and suddenly get aware of it hours later.

But it sure is there all the time. Very hard to wild guess at what internal dB level it is .

The volume is rather annoyingly high. could ot be 35 to 65 dB? How can one find out?

Thanks also for the suggestions from Enthalpy on eliminating some sounds by using recording

way away from the body. Yes I know much about hum from transformers and from fans too.

I worked for a few years as a Radio Repair Assistent helping the Master out in a local shop.

When the capacitors got old the hum from the power supply got really annoying so they came to us

and we desoldered the old and put a new one and it cure it.

I don't know if we have the "Hum" in Sweden. But like Griffon point out it sure could be a big Lorry

parked well away for the higher overtones to not reach the room but the low frequency below hearing

is strong enough to travel hundreds of yards without much attenuation and is felt like a vibration.

i've heard that the extreme low freq "Bangs" of the very big airplane from Paris to New York?

Concorde? that bang can be seen on good measurements all over Europe so extreme low frequences

travel many hundred of miles.

Big twirly rivers can give noises that travel far too. So to find the source for the Hum can be challenging?

I shared it here more as an amusement to dream of solving once for all. There are so much wild speculation

about what it is. Communication to Sub Marin boats? whatever people has wild fantasies.

Thanks Enthalpy. You are so right about this one

 

To ease it, modern baroque trumpets are still very long for the pitch, hence use high modes which are close to an other, but have small holes that work much like overblow holes in woodwinds, in that they prevent some vibration modes (Wiki is false on that), making it easier to catch properly the others - which are chosen during play by covering only some holes.

i bought a real Kelly 7C MP for to have something to compare with when I later will try to make my own

cornetto mouthpieces. The Baroque trumpet that I made following his imstructions has no such small holes

and some tones are extremely unstable and waver to and fro wobble style. Sounds terrible.

I know too little to find a solution to it and the fact that I am no musician and really want a Cornetto

and this Baroque experiment was more for to get somethign going fast so I had some encouraging result

but it failed.

Mouth pieces are extremely important. A small change in the diameter change the sound dramatically.

Just now I experiment with trying to make a PVC tube version of Cornetto but has not found an easy way

to make the tapering smooth. I want to combine two 1/2 Inch tubes so they goes from 1/4 about 6mm

in the blowing end and then up to some one inch or wider in the other end.

that would allow me to eaily bore the holes but it is rather difficult to glue these together and

to find a way to fill the blow end with some material taht makes it narrower.

So just now I practive my blowing tech by accepting to treat it as a cowhorn them too only use the lowest scale.

will be interesting if some other group get funding to confirm it

or to challenge it. I can think of that big churches would want to

show that it is the other way around. the more zealous the better brain

Yes sorry about the title being confusing. as you say correlation ...

So could it be that those that fall for letting them be born again have

some vulnerability to be easily persuaded and that that correlate then?

Would be cool if they look at mindfulness meditation. Would not such

have a heavy impact too. Jus tme wildly speculating obviously.

I find the tpoic of religious faith very interesting so what I hope

is that science one day can explain exactly what is going on.

Religious faith reminds me of a typical human tendency to see oneself

in a brighter color than what others do. Many do think they are good at

things that if tested would show them are average or low on such things.

That kind if blindness or at least bias could be one way that religious faith works.

My God is real whíle your god is a false non-existing made up god. As an atheist

I even see such tendencies in that many atheists dismiss agnostics very easily.

How does one know if this is real science or not?

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0017006

Religious Factors and Hippocampal Atrophy in Late Life

• Amy D. Owen, R. David Hayward Harold G. Koenig, David C. Steffens, Martha E. Payne

 

Religious factors assessed included life-changing religious experiences, spiritual practices, and religious group membership.

...

Significantly greater hippocampal atrophy was also observed from baseline to final assessment among born-again Protestants, Catholics, and those with no religious affiliation, compared with Protestants not identifying as born-again.

Will be interesting to see if it can be replicated.

Tinnitus is usually very high freqences way above 3KHz but whow knows

some 2% may have an unusual variant with muscletension that couple to the eardrum

and they maybe hear a lowfrequent hum then. But having gone on for 50 years

i trust they would know if it is Tinnitus because usually one have that constant

and this "Hum" comes randomly and last for a while and then is gone.

So I agree it can be HVAC or why not a Truck or Lorry at a distance and the room accoustics

resonate with that frequency of the motor and if it comes randomly somebody visiting

and let the motor running while they eat their Fish and chips or Burger whatever and

then drive home.

I have heard cars that drive people home from late work and they sit a talk a while

before the person step out and when the engine has low tourque? then it sometimes

resonate with the room I sleep in and the volume get really high which is disturbing.

So maybe that is the best answer.

Some most likely say it is imagined and not real. it has gone on for some 50 years or so

but seems to come rather randomly which makes it unpredictable.

The Hum is a low freqency sound that is most easy to hear inside a quite room

and it seems that you have to be past middle age to hear it.

Could that indicate it is somethin in our body? Anyway those afflicted are very disturbed by it.

Here is a typical Daily Mail retelling of it. It is late here now 10.20PM so I did not feel for finding

the most scientific retelling of the story. The conspirators love to suggest wild sources for it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2380368/Can-hear-The-Hum-How-1-50-world-affected-low-droning-noise-scientists-explain.html

So if you are a retired scientist and knows how to set up an acoustic dB meter and love to investigate

things close to urban myths then this is the chance to make a different.

I don't trust that I have heard it but what I have felt in my body is something very similar

not a Hum but a low frequency that is only felt but not heard. Very low period. way below 20Hz

I trust it was the plumbing in that house and when I moved to another house they had it too

but several houses did never have it or very seldom. it always came at night or very early morning

so I wild guessed it is the pumps that regulate the temperatur for the central heating in the house

and that when cold water meet warm water the plumbing start to vibrate. so this could be something similar

but at a higher frequency that is heard and not felt.

So a good dB meter should be able to record it and show level and how it fluktuate.

Thanks sorry for delay in answer. I forgot to set it to send me reminders that I got responses.

I bought a Trumpet mouth piece and tested it on different tubes and one very close to

what that youtube video show and despite being a MP for beginners it was much harder

to get a clear musical sound than what I expected. I will carry on my totally naive experiments.