Greek theorists

Aristoxenos wrote around 320 BCE, Archytas about 375-390. Euclid's
geometry dates from about 300 and Ptolemy's Harmonics were
written about 160 CE.

The heyday of the Pythagoreans was more like early 5th or late 6th
century than 3rd or 4th. By the time of Archytas, irrationals were well
known. He was the first to describe three the simplest means as important
for music, the three being the arithmetic, harmonic and geometric, the
latter, of course, creates irrationals in most cases.

The geometrical algebra of the later geometers is really impressive.
See Heath's 2 volume "A History of Greek Mathematics" for more details
than you'll probably want.

--John


Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 01:08 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA02252; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 01:08:57 +0100
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA02255
Received: from by ella.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
id QAA14603; Sun, 2 Mar 1997 16:05:48 -0800
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 1997 16:05:48 -0800
Message-Id: <199703030001.RAA27442@freenet.uchsc.EDU>
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@ella.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@ella.mills.edu

bq912@freenet.uchsc.edu (Neil G. Haverstick) wrote:

>Haverstick here...when Ray Tomes says the Universe is oscillating
>as a giant musical instrument, that must be what the Book Of The Hopi
>means when it says "The Universe quivered in tune;" what the Indians
>(East) mean by the OM vibration; what the Bible means when it says
>"The Word was God." I am, unfortunately, not much on math, but I do
>believe it is possible to unlock some of the secrets of this Universal
>instrument by intuitive means, by "ear," so to speak, by trying to
>"tune in" to the absolutely zillions and zillions of vibrations that
>form this rather large instrument that we live in. I'm glad other folks
>are interested in this same phenomenon...Hstick

The bible has both "in the beginning was the word" and also "let there
be light". If the substance of the universe, the aether, is taken as a
medium then the speed of sound in the aether is what we know as light
The aether is very high tensile stuff). So these two statements are in
agreement.

It is true as Neil says that ancient knowledge and religions are all
similar in describing the universe. Pythagoras (who is, I suppose, the
patron saint of tuning) of course also described things in greater depth
in the same way. While we may see the ancient knowledge as poetic
rather than scientific, my research has turned out to be mainly
rediscovery as I have realised that lots of the stuff has been known
before. Even the numbers that I get for the strongest harmonics, ...
144, 288, 1440, 2880, 8640, 17280, 34560 ... are to be found in ancient
religious documents, often with a few extra noughts on. The bible has
144,000 and the Vedic literature is full of these numbers.
The only thing is that people have forgotten what they mean.

The three most important harmonic relationships are those involving 2, 3
and 5. When we include one, two or three of these we can view the most
important ratios as follows...

A. We know 2 as the octave and it is so important that we call different
notes at a ratio of 2 by the same name.

B. According to the harmonics theory, the primes 2 and 3 like to occur
with a relative commonness (I avoid frequency as ambiguous) of 2.38 to 1
and so this is most nearly approximated by the numbers 12 and 24 which
have 2 or 3 "2"s present for 1 "3". Again, 288 has a near correct
proportion. Therefore these ratios should be important in both time and
space.

C. When 5 is also added the ideal proportion happens most nearly for
2^8 * 3^3 * 5^1 or 34560 although 2880 is also important. These results
are all 100% mathematical and based soley on that tiny basic program I
posted.

If we look at the universe what do we find? Starting from the largest
scale, the observable universe is about 10 billion light years in
radius. Division of this by 34560 repeatedly gives us the following
values for distances ...

Table of ratios of 34560 from the Observable Universe

N 10^28 cm Feature Common Units
/ 34560^N

0 1*10^28 cm Universe 10^10 light years
1 2.9*10^23 cm Galaxies 3*10^5 light years
2 8.8*10^18 cm Stars 8.9 light years
3 2.4*10^14 cm Planets 16 a. u.
4 7.0*10^9 cm Moons 70,000 km
5 2.0*10^5 cm X? 2 km
6 5.9 cm Y? 5.9 cm
7 1.7*10^-4 cm Cells 1.7 microns
8 4.9*10^-9 cm Atoms 0.49 Angstrom
9 1.4*10^-13 cm Nucleons 1.4 fm
10 4.0*10^-18 cm Quarks

What we find is that the observed structures do match the scales
predicted. We see the universe as galaxies, stars, planets... and atoms
and particles. The predicted values for the atom and nucleon are quite
accurate as the observed Bohr radius is 0.53 angstrom and the observed
nucleon radius is 1.3 fm. The X and Y scales are not so noticable.
However there are some anomolous phenomena at these scales (or slightly
smaller, about 1.7 km/1 mile and 5 cm/2 inches).

Quark size has not yet been established but is less than 10^-17 cm and
so they are almost to the next level that I predict.

Also, within each level there are expected to be multiple sublevels at
ratios of mostly 12 or 24 but sometimes 20 or 28. This is also
observed. Above galaxies we have the weker level of galactic clusters
and small irregular galaxies are found at distances of 1/12 of the large
spirals (these are the small hangers on to the andromeda galaxy and out
own magellanic clouds that look so nice in our southern skies).

Again, planets come in two sizes and distance scales. The gas giants
are at distances which are ~28 times greater than the terrestrial type
planets from the sun. The distances of the outer planets are very
nearly in the proportion 1:2:4:6:8 and so includes quite a few ratios of
2 as well.

There are further examples also.

-- Ray Tomes -- rtomes@kcbbs.gen.nz -- Harmonics Theory --
http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm

Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 08:08 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA03785; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 08:08:58 +0100
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA03762
Received: from by ella.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
id XAA28938; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 23:07:27 -0800
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 23:07:27 -0800
Message-Id:
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@ella.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@ella.mills.edu

-------------------- Begin Original Message --------------------

Message text written by INTERNET:tuning@ella.mills.edu

" If the substance of the universe, the aether, is taken as a
medium then the speed of sound in the aether is what we know as light
The aether is very high tensile stuff). So these two statements are in
agreement."


-------------------- End Original Message --------------------

I suppose there's not much point in getting into the well-accepted fact
that the aether has been found not to exist in any physical sense, or at
least not as the medium that light "makes waves in" as it was originally
theorized.

Perhaps it has metaphysical value of some sort.

Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Sun, 9 Mar 1997 06:01 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA10035; Sun, 9 Mar 1997 06:00:58 +0100
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA09981
Received: from by ella.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
id UAA03375; Sat, 8 Mar 1997 20:59:30 -0800
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 20:59:30 -0800
Message-Id: <199703082346_MC2-124D-A3AF@compuserve.com>
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@ella.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@ella.mills.edu