Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith Debunked - Part 1

GENE "WOOLLY-HEADED NUMEROLOGY" SMITH DEBUNKED - Part 1

Throwing Sand In the Gears of the Superstition Machine
-------------------------------------------------------

"Superstition is ignorance presented under the cloak of
authority. A superstition is a belief, usually expressed in
definitive terms, for which there is no verifiable, factual
basis." -- [Postman, Neil, "Conscientious Objections,"
Vitnage Books, New York: 1988, pp. 94-95]

For ten long years the Alternative Wanking List has acted as
a superstition machine. It has churned out a seemingly
endless series of beliefs, expressed in definitive terms,
for which no one has shown any verifiable factual basis.

The most fundamental superstition peddled by the Alternative
Wanking List is the belief that math has some connection
with music.

What evidence would suffice to falsify that hypothesis?

Elementary logic informs us that there exist only two
possibilities. Either (A) Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology"
Smith does not believe that math has a connection with
music, or (B) Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith does
believe that math has a connection.

If he does not believe that math has any connection with
music, then what is the point of all the math Gene "Woolly-
Headed Numerology" Smith's mathematical posts about music?

Logically, if Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith doesn't
believe math has a connection with music, then all his
mathematical posts on the ATL are pointless and off-topic,
and further mathematical posts by Gene Smith should be
deleted as meaningless and unrelated to the stated purpose of
the disucssion group.

On the other hand, if Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith
does believe that math has a connection with music, then
there must be some hard evidence to falsify that hypothesis
-- so what is it? Where is it?

Tell us what evidence you would require to disprove the
belief that math has a connection with music, Gene "Woolly-
Headed Numerology" Smith.

Is your hypothesis falsifiable?

Prove it. Show us how to falsify the hypothesis.

-------------------------
While Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith is fumbling and
stumbling and bumbling and bungling around in a desperately
failed attempt to provide us with a credible answer to that
question, let's zero in on a recent post by Smith.

In message 53061 of the Alternative Lying List, Gene
"Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith claims:

Message 53079 | Previous | Next [ Up Thread ]
Message Index
Msg #
From: "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 8:46 am
Subject: Six more {2,3,7} Fokker blocks

"These are, up to transposition, all the Fokker blocks with
64/63 and 6561/6272 as commas."

[1 28/27 9/8 7/6 81/64 21/16 112/81 3/2 14/9 27/16 7/4
49/27]
[1 28/27 9/8 7/6 9/7 4/3 81/56 3/2 14/9 27/16 16/9 27/14]
[1 28/27 9/8 7/6 81/64 21/16 112/81 3/2 14/9 27/16 7/4
243/128]
[1 28/27 9/8 7/6 81/64 4/3 112/81 3/2 14/9 27/16 7/4 27/14]
[1 54/49 8/7 32/27 9/7 4/3 81/56 32/21 81/49 12/7 16/9
27/14]
[1 28/27 9/8 32/27 9/7 4/3 81/56 3/2 14/9 12/7 16/9 27/14]
------------------

A. D. Fokker's periodicity blocks boil down to points and
distances in ratio space. It's simple and easy to prove this
by looking at Fokker's original paper on the subject.

Since Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith has subjected us
to a deluge of numbers lasting many years, we would like to
have some proof that we are not being subjected to a display
of vacuous numerology.

Where is the hard evidence that shows that the points and
distances of Fokker periodicity blocks are actually audible
in real music in the real world?

Where are the listening tests published in peer-reviewed
scientific journals which prove that listeners can hear
points and distances in ratio space (which is what Fokker
periodicity blocks boil down to)?

Show us the proof, Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith.

Where is it?

Let us see the hard evidence, of the kind we would demand in
a murder trial, or a scientific experiment. Show it to us.
----------------------
And while Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith is
frantically thrashing and flailing in a doomed attempt to
give us a credible answer to that question, let us focus on
one last simple question.

In the website www.xenharmony.org the first words we
encounter under the topic "theory" are:

"For p an odd prime, the intervals of the p-limit Np may be
taken as the set of all frequency ratios which are positive
rational numbers whose factorization involves only primes
less than or equal to p. If q is such a ratio, it may be
written in factored form as

q = 2^e2 3^e3 ... p^ep

where e2, e3, ... ep are integer exponents. We may write
this in factored form as a row vector of the exponents, or
monzo:

[e2, e3, ..., ep]"

What is the hard eivdence showing that these row vectors of
exponents are audible? Can we hear this stuff? Or is it all
just numerological bullshit with no connection to observable
reality, like the calculations of astrology?

Let us see the proof that these row vectors of exponents are
audible.
Show it to us. Where is it?
=======================
Bear in mind that this current post, filled with critical
skeptical thinking and embodying the fundamental basis of
rational inquiry which underlies modern Western
civilization, is brought to you in defiance of a blanket ban
of all my posts by the so-called "moderators" of the
Alternative Lying List.
Note well what is going on here, ladies and gentlemen.
The skeptical critical thinking which I constantly bring to
bear is the foundation of modern Western society. The
constant demand for hard evidence ("Where is the proof?
Show it to us. Where is it?") is what separates the modern
Western world from the medieval realm of mindless superstition.
Skeptical critical thinking is what separates science from astrology
or psychic surgery.
Yet it is precisely this skeptical critical thinking which
has been systematically censored from the Alternative Wanking List.
It is precisely because I so relentlessly demand hard
evidence that my posts have been permanently banned from the
ATL.
What does a reasonable person conclude from these facts?
---------
--mclaren