Music tuned to 432Hz wtf!?

[esaelectronics]

if i tune my guitar to 432 hz then play, it sounds somehow a little bit more soothing,
but that might just be the ganja;)

seriously i have done this and it does sound somehow nice,
but when i play other people's songs they sound odd,
i have this tuned for a while now, i knew it was somehow
to do with this golden ration stuff, but i dont know much
at all about it, it just sounds nice, try it.

who cares about what people claim spiritually, thats up to them,
live and let live that what i say.

this is a good discussion,ive enjoyed reading, even this piss
taking posts, relax, the world is full of ideas, its just that,
men love to theorize over everything,nothing wrong with that.

All the world is in truth smaller than a grain of sand,
and its stuck in Slarty-bartfast's beard, we dont even live
in a universe, its just an illusion,Slarty-bartfast
is himself stuck in a bigger beings beard, its just
beard and more beard, forever spiraling up into infinity.

[Forge.]

Sorry, that's just mumbo jumbo: That's not how biology, genetics and by extention cancer works: Cancer is the result of normals cells mutating. I.e. taking on altered genetic information, with unwanted (for us)properties. Mutations happen on the level of DNA, of which the smallest information unit is a base pair. A base pair is a big molecular unit, so there is nothing sub-atomic about it. Furthermore: Their base pairs don't differ in their physical properties from the ones in healthy cells. They just changed from one normal base pair in this position to another normal base pair. The only thing that is changed is the information content in the context of the sequence. I can not think of a single possible mechanism on the energy levels that sound usually travels at (even far out theoretical ones) of how you could use its vibrational energy to change the base pairing.

Well, the molecular unit is still made up of particles, but no I am not really suggesting that base pairs could be changed via vibration.

This thought was mainly based on something I read recently that was saying we have cancer cells in our bodies all the time but for various reasons most of the time they don't develop any further and just leave the body... something like that... so I was speculating that maybe there is some way of vibrating them loose before they 'take hold' or attach themselves, if that's how it works. As I said, it was just a simple example.

[Forge.]

And this is why I don't get the "there must be more to the universe than just science" crowd.

This stuff is weird enough without bringing stone henge and the pyramids into it.

I agree, the universe is weird enough and it's unfortunate that people so often take the stone henge leap whenever things start getting weird. I suppose people just want to try and find simple solutions to big mysteries by adding 2 and 2 and getting 17.

But on the flip side, there some things that don't tend to get explored because there are some prevailing paradigms within some of the mainstream scientific community where otherwise careful scientists will reject some ideas without looking at the actual data because they assume it must be impossible due to their own preconceptions. The debacle with TED and Rupert Sheldrake is a shining example, because if you actually read his books he goes in to great detail and is very careful to actually follow the data and not jump to conclusions without evidence to back it up, but people (like TED) are surprisingly willing to criticise him without even looking at the data he is referring to, which is totally unscientific, and quite ironic really.

Ultimately it's because some people just find the topics too uncomfortable to even think about. In his case, people subscribing to the still dominant materialist view just don't like to think that there could be some aspect to 'consciousness' that exists outside the brain.

I was pleased to see this article on Huff Post the other day: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gregory-w ... 88935.html

That random number generator stuff is really weird, but the actual data just can't be dismissed.

The odds that the combined Global Consciousness Project data are due to chance is less than one in one hundred billion. The implication is that there's some deep connection between the mind and physical reality, which we don't yet fully understand.

"I was super skeptical about this research at first," says Mr. Curry. "There was a lot of internet hate speech against scientists who studied consciousness. And on the other side, a lot of wild claims by believers. But when I actually read the research papers and rebuttals I was blown away at how much evidence existed. Both sides of the debate were mostly ideological, and less data-driven. But that was ten years ago. Since then, mainstream science has started to embrace consciousness -- the mind -- as a thing that needs to be studied for the mystery it is."

[Forge.]

if i tune my guitar to 432 hz then play, it sounds somehow a little bit more soothing,
but that might just be the ganja;)

seriously i have done this and it does sound somehow nice,
but when i play other people's songs they sound odd,
i have this tuned for a while now, i knew it was somehow
to do with this golden ration stuff, but i dont know much
at all about it, it just sounds nice, try it.

who cares about what people claim spiritually, thats up to them,
live and let live that what i say.

this is a good discussion,ive enjoyed reading, even this piss
taking posts, relax, the world is full of ideas, its just that,
men love to theorize over everything,nothing wrong with that.

All the world is in truth smaller than a grain of sand,
and its stuck in Slarty-bartfast's beard, we dont even live
in a universe, its just an illusion,Slarty-bartfast
is himself stuck in a bigger beings beard, its just
beard and more beard, forever spiraling up into infinity.

good old slarty-bartfast.

RIP DNA.

[TomViolenz]

Sorry, that's just mumbo jumbo: That's not how biology, genetics and by extention cancer works: Cancer is the result of normals cells mutating. I.e. taking on altered genetic information, with unwanted (for us)properties. Mutations happen on the level of DNA, of which the smallest information unit is a base pair. A base pair is a big molecular unit, so there is nothing sub-atomic about it. Furthermore: Their base pairs don't differ in their physical properties from the ones in healthy cells. They just changed from one normal base pair in this position to another normal base pair. The only thing that is changed is the information content in the context of the sequence. I can not think of a single possible mechanism on the energy levels that sound usually travels at (even far out theoretical ones) of how you could use its vibrational energy to change the base pairing.

Well, the molecular unit is still made up of particles, but no I am not really suggesting that base pairs could be changed via vibration.

This thought was mainly based on something I read recently that was saying we have cancer cells in our bodies all the time but for various reasons most of the time they don't develop any further and just leave the body... something like that... so I was speculating that maybe there is some way of vibrating them loose before they 'take hold' or attach themselves, if that's how it works. As I said, it was just a simple example.

No this is probably a misunderstanding on your part. The way you describe it sounds way to mechanical. It's true that cancer cells arise probably quite often, but our immune system is taking care of them so they don't attach themselves.
These kind of vibrations you talk of don't happen in the same energy domains as that they would influence chemical properties of molecules. And chemistry is the basic foundation of biology.

[TomViolenz]

But on the flip side, there some things that don't tend to get explored because there are some prevailing paradigms within some of the mainstream scientific community where otherwise careful scientists will reject some ideas without looking at the actual data because they assume it must be impossible due to their own preconceptions.

Absolutely!
Like Leary's work on LSD and Psilocybin in psychotherapy! These substances could be a revolution in the field, but we are not even allowed in many countries to research them further, and in others it's impossible to get funding!
Same with the effects of meditation on the mind. It's all treated like spiritual mumbo jumbo. But anyone who has even done it only superficialy, can attest to the immense benefits it can have on the mind.

[Samuel L. Jizzle]

Yeah, exactly! People need to QUESTION instead of FOLLOWING! FOLLOW THE QUESTIONS!

If I start questioning now, does that make me a follower?

[Forge.]

Yeah, exactly! People need to QUESTION instead of FOLLOWING! FOLLOW THE QUESTIONS!

If I start questioning now, does that make me a follower?

yes my friend, you are a follower.

[andydes]

The debacle with TED and Rupert Sheldrake is a shining example, because if you actually read his books he goes in to great detail and is very careful to actually follow the data and not jump to conclusions without evidence to back it up, but people (like TED) are surprisingly willing to criticise him without even looking at the data he is referring to, which is totally unscientific, and quite ironic really.

Lots of scientists did work that was dismissed in their time, but was later accepted. It takes while for enough people to validate findings. And that is of course assuming that he's right.

I've not read his books, but I get the impression he's been far too quick to start kicking up a stink about everything he sees as wrong with the process. If he's onto something big, he should keep at it and worry less about recognition now.

As for this 432Hz business, is there any evidence of the supposed beneficial effects of this magic frequency?

[Forge.]

The debacle with TED and Rupert Sheldrake is a shining example, because if you actually read his books he goes in to great detail and is very careful to actually follow the data and not jump to conclusions without evidence to back it up, but people (like TED) are surprisingly willing to criticise him without even looking at the data he is referring to, which is totally unscientific, and quite ironic really.

Lots of scientists did work that was dismissed in their time, but was later accepted. It takes while for enough people to validate findings. And that is of course assuming that he's right.

I've not read his books, but I get the impression he's been far too quick to start kicking up a stink about everything he sees as wrong with the process. If he's onto something big, he should keep at it and worry less about recognition now.

As for this 432Hz business, is there any evidence of the supposed beneficial effects of this magic frequency?

I think a lot of his frustration is that it costs quite a bit of money to conduct any proper research, and nobody's willing to front up the cash for certain things. And actually the TED thing was appalling when you think about it. TED allows all kinds of different ideas - in fact that's supposed to be its M.O. Even Beardyman gave a TED talk. So you could really argue that the way they treated him was far beyond a simple question about whether or not his work was 'scientific', but it was an actual ideological attack based on a whole load of pre-conceptions. They totally misrepresented what he said about the speed of light. He talked about an event that occurred where the institute responsible for measurement standards once had some data showing the speed of light was actually different to the normal accepted speed, and when questioned on it they glossed over it as an embarrassing mistake that must have been due to an equipment error, but never actually investigated it further, and then later decided to use the speed of light as the standard constant and calibrate all other measurements to it, so if there actually was any real deviation for any reason so far unexplained, now no one will ever know because there's no way of measuring it. He wasn't saying that there IS any question about the constancy of the speed of light, he was just talking about the fact that there's now no way of checking this, and if for some reason there was any variation then there is a potentially major line of inquiry that could lead to some very significant discoveries being completely ignored. He was using one example where certain data actually showed a different result to what was expected and it was ignored because it went against conventional wisdom. He was totally right as a scientist to question this, but it was cited as one of the reasons he was banned from TED. And not even TED proper, but TEDx at that. So when you think about it, they have actually by their own admission banned him because he followed the data when it showed something they weren't comfortable with.

While I'm on the topic - this is one of the problems with conservative governments too - their view is that the market should drive research, while the counter argument is that the whole point of government funding is to support things that wouldn't otherwise get any support from the world of profit motivated investors. Science gets appallingly low funding - unless there is a potential military application. So anything that is slightly outside the square is usually dismissed.

[derzai]

buh, i'm a layman here. will try to get across what i have understood. copied from the link:"Reversing the logic of over 300 years, it argued that gravity is a consequence of the "information associated with the positions of material bodies""
Now mr. Verlinde was on dutch tv a couple of years ago, and he told that it (entropic gravity) must be seen like there is a virtual bookkeeping of all the positions of all the tiny particles. when things get out of balance, the virtual bookkeeping sees to it that things get restored. can't make it more clear than that. sorry.

I haven't had a chance to read about entropic gravity theory yet, I was talking about the concept of entropy itself.

But from what you have said here, it sounds a little bit like how magnetic fields behave... i.e. an iron filing at a point between two large magnets might have a point when it is drawn to neither more than the other, but then when some other force interacts it pushes it further towards one than the other.

Now just to throw this into the mix, as what I was just describing sounds a bit like the event horizon of a black hole: What is Stephen Hawking going on about now with black holes not existing, or at least not being what we think they are?

And likewise, what's all this about data now supporting this being a holographic universe! There's a completely different can of worms that is just bonkers.

I think you took the wrong definition of entropy, Verlinde's theory deals with "information entropy".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(i ... on_theory)

Don't ask me about the ins and outs of the formula's, don't have a clue.

Wouldn't be talking here with you if i did. lol.

[Forge.]

I think you took the wrong definition of entropy, Verlinde's theory deals with "information entropy".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(i ... on_theory)

Don't ask me about the ins and outs of the formula's, don't have a clue.

Wouldn't be talking here with you if i did. lol.

maybe yes we are talking about different kinds of entropy? I don't think that's the same entropy they are talking about then they are talking about the arrow of time and universe tending from the big bang towards entropy... from what I understand it is basically a synonym for 'disorder', in this case the universe is heading from order to disorder.....

[derzai]

I think you took the wrong definition of entropy, Verlinde's theory deals with "information entropy".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(i ... on_theory)

Don't ask me about the ins and outs of the formula's, don't have a clue.

Wouldn't be talking here with you if i did. lol.

maybe yes we are talking about different kinds of entropy? I don't think that's the same entropy they are talking about then they are talking about the arrow of time and universe tending from the big bang towards entropy... from what I understand it is basically a synonym for 'disorder', in this case the universe is heading from order to disorder.....

Who is "they"?

btw. what i have understood "information entropy" deals with the density of information.

[Forge.]

so, i just thought... maybe it would be cool to design a M4L plugin called "entropy" that takes some input notes and gradually randomises more and more according to set parameters.

Or maybe that's what the random plugin does.. as you were.

[Forge.]

I think you took the wrong definition of entropy, Verlinde's theory deals with "information entropy".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(i ... on_theory)

Don't ask me about the ins and outs of the formula's, don't have a clue.

Wouldn't be talking here with you if i did. lol.

maybe yes we are talking about different kinds of entropy? I don't think that's the same entropy they are talking about then they are talking about the arrow of time and universe tending from the big bang towards entropy... from what I understand it is basically a synonym for 'disorder', in this case the universe is heading from order to disorder.....

Who is "they"?

these physicists who made me aware of the concept in the first place.......

like Brian Greene to start with: https://www.google.com.au/search?client ... en&tbm=vid