Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Re: Responses to ON THE SPECIAL THEORY OF ORDER

Hi, Tuning List.

A few members sent me emails off-list. Let me explain why I did send
the Order email to tuning.

Many have alleged that the basic spacing of the planets round the sun
are according to a doubling pattern, i.e., octaval. Look at the
spacing in the chart below, and see if that is not so?

Because the solar-planetary system is round and not linear, there are
two unusual spacing in the system at Earth and Neptune, and I wonder
if any musician can explain why in musical terms.

In The Old Farmer's Almanac 1981, science writer Guy Murchie
popularized my theory by reference to my publications, asking: "Is
there order among the planets? Or, as Pythagoras once put it, is
there Music in the Spheres?"

Also, note that the in and out aspect in third columns exists,
doubling in first column and halving in third, with the noted
exceptions. Of course, musicians should note the third column 1/8
for largest planet Jupiter! That is in the halving column. In the
doubling column it is Ceres, where the asteroid belt resides. The
two reverse, in and out. The asteroid belt did not form a singular
planet, and it is where doubling numbers should go from Mars 4 to
Ceres 8, and the distance is closer to 7.5 and Jupiter should be 16
but then shifts to arc or circular numbers at 15, 30, doubling. Can
any musician explain this?

In the event the Tuning List considers this request too off-list, I
will cease in direct postings in the future. Members can contact me
off-list directly if they have replies. I did think that some
musicians might recall the Pythagorean connection and want to see
where his early theory has advanced to these days.

Also, do musical scales originate in a 0 starting point? so, that
successive octaves begin in a particular note at 1?

Perhaps, all this is too theoretical for the Tuning List! So, thanks
for listening! Some, interested, might enjoy Guy Murchie's book
Music of the Spheres in which he relates all disciplines, music,
astronomy, mathematics, et al. Cheers.

I published Arnold's Law in 1979, as follows:

Bodies_Proportion___Degreed Arcs___Fraction___Ideal Mean**
Or Perimeter

Sun__________0___________0________0____________0
Mercury______1___________3_____1/120______3.14 X10(7th)miles
Venus________2___________6______1/60______6.28
Earth________3___________9______1/40______9.42
Mars_________4__________12______1/30_____12.56
Ceres*_______8__________24______1/15_____25.13
Jupiter_____15__________45______1/8______47.12
Saturn______30__________90______1/4______94.24
Uranus______60_________180______1/2_____188.49
Neptune_____90_________270______3/4_____282.74
Pluto______120_________360______4/4_____376.99

*Ceres: prime representative of so-called "asteroids"

**means: adjusted for diameters of both bodies, sun and planet

The sun is at 0, where it belongs in a sun-centered system. And all
the other bodies are suspended in space at naturally represented
numbers: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 15, 30, 60, 90, and 120. Because
astronomy measures the solar-planetary system by using the third
planet from the sun, Earth, as its unit, the so-called astronomical
unit has kept astronomy in the dark as to the ideal proportions of
our solar-planetary system. The sun must be set to O in the
mathematical sequence, inasmuch as the laws of math require it:
"The number 0 is not a successor: every natural number other than 0
has exactly one immediate predecessor; this means that the sequence
of natural numbers has a beginning in its first member 0"
[Encyclopedia of Mathematics, Gallert, Kustner, Hellwich, Kastner,
et al, 20].

The unit distance is equated with the distance from the sun to the
first natural body, Mercury. The solar unitary distance (s.u.)
equals 1. In order to be true and certain to the heliocentric
solar-planetary system model as is the stated purpose of the
physicist (and not necessarily the astronomer), the heliocentric unit
must be programmed into the model. Thus, su(x) = 1.
Bill Arnold

Bill Arnold
billarnoldfla@yahoo.com
Independent Scholar
Independent Scholar, Modern Language Association
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"There is magic in the web" Shakespeare (Othello, Act 3, Scene 4)
-------------------------------------------------------------------

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

🔗monz <monz@attglobal.net>

Dear Mr. Arnold,

you might be interested in the material in the
Yahoo group i created a couple of years ago, concerning
tuning matters and how they relate to the cosmological
considerations:

/celestial-tuning/

-monz
"all roads lead to n^0"

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Arnold" <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 5:00 AM
Subject: [tuning] Re: Responses to ON THE SPECIAL THEORY OF ORDER

> Hi, Tuning List.
>
> A few members sent me emails off-list. Let me explain why I did send
> the Order email to tuning.
>
> Many have alleged that the basic spacing of the planets round the sun
> are according to a doubling pattern, i.e., octaval. Look at the
> spacing in the chart below, and see if that is not so?
>
> Because the solar-planetary system is round and not linear, there are
> two unusual spacing in the system at Earth and Neptune, and I wonder
> if any musician can explain why in musical terms.
>
> In The Old Farmer's Almanac 1981, science writer Guy Murchie
> popularized my theory by reference to my publications, asking: "Is
> there order among the planets? Or, as Pythagoras once put it, is
> there Music in the Spheres?"
>
> Also, note that the in and out aspect in third columns exists,
> doubling in first column and halving in third, with the noted
> exceptions. Of course, musicians should note the third column 1/8
> for largest planet Jupiter! That is in the halving column. In the
> doubling column it is Ceres, where the asteroid belt resides. The
> two reverse, in and out. The asteroid belt did not form a singular
> planet, and it is where doubling numbers should go from Mars 4 to
> Ceres 8, and the distance is closer to 7.5 and Jupiter should be 16
> but then shifts to arc or circular numbers at 15, 30, doubling. Can
> any musician explain this?
>
> In the event the Tuning List considers this request too off-list, I
> will cease in direct postings in the future. Members can contact me
> off-list directly if they have replies. I did think that some
> musicians might recall the Pythagorean connection and want to see
> where his early theory has advanced to these days.
>
> Also, do musical scales originate in a 0 starting point? so, that
> successive octaves begin in a particular note at 1?
>
> Perhaps, all this is too theoretical for the Tuning List! So, thanks
> for listening! Some, interested, might enjoy Guy Murchie's book
> Music of the Spheres in which he relates all disciplines, music,
> astronomy, mathematics, et al. Cheers.
>
>
> I published Arnold's Law in 1979, as follows:
>
> Bodies_Proportion___Degreed Arcs___Fraction___Ideal Mean**
> Or Perimeter
>
> Sun__________0___________0________0____________0
> Mercury______1___________3_____1/120______3.14 X10(7th)miles
> Venus________2___________6______1/60______6.28
> Earth________3___________9______1/40______9.42
> Mars_________4__________12______1/30_____12.56
> Ceres*_______8__________24______1/15_____25.13
> Jupiter_____15__________45______1/8______47.12
> Saturn______30__________90______1/4______94.24
> Uranus______60_________180______1/2_____188.49
> Neptune_____90_________270______3/4_____282.74
> Pluto______120_________360______4/4_____376.99
>
> *Ceres: prime representative of so-called "asteroids"
>
> **means: adjusted for diameters of both bodies, sun and planet
>
> The sun is at 0, where it belongs in a sun-centered system. And all
> the other bodies are suspended in space at naturally represented
> numbers: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 15, 30, 60, 90, and 120. Because
> astronomy measures the solar-planetary system by using the third
> planet from the sun, Earth, as its unit, the so-called astronomical
> unit has kept astronomy in the dark as to the ideal proportions of
> our solar-planetary system. The sun must be set to O in the
> mathematical sequence, inasmuch as the laws of math require it:
> "The number 0 is not a successor: every natural number other than 0
> has exactly one immediate predecessor; this means that the sequence
> of natural numbers has a beginning in its first member 0"
> [Encyclopedia of Mathematics, Gallert, Kustner, Hellwich, Kastner,
> et al, 20].
>
> The unit distance is equated with the distance from the sun to the
> first natural body, Mercury. The solar unitary distance (s.u.)
> equals 1. In order to be true and certain to the heliocentric
> solar-planetary system model as is the stated purpose of the
> physicist (and not necessarily the astronomer), the heliocentric unit
> must be programmed into the model. Thus, su(x) = 1.
> Bill Arnold
>
>
> Bill Arnold
> billarnoldfla@yahoo.com
> Independent Scholar
> Independent Scholar, Modern Language Association
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> "There is magic in the web" Shakespeare (Othello, Act 3, Scene 4)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold
for the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest
mode.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to individual
emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

🔗Rick Tagawa <ricktagawa@earthlink.net>

Dear Bill,
Please don't take this discussion off list. I bought Dewey's book on Cycles back in the 60s and it became my bible. I loved looking through his lists of identical recurring events like floods and famines. What could be more pertinent to life. A theory that says you might be able to predict the future?

I kept thinking he could help with my finances and I embraced Batra's gloom and doom at the beginning of the 90s, only to be proved wrong. You should have seen me in my investment club. I felt like an idiot as a contrarian while everyone else was buying tech stocks. But then now with Enron et al, maybe Batra was right?

I find topics like cycles and vibrations fascinating. Especially as a former percussionist. Just because a cycle slows out of the tonal range doesn't make it less relevant to music. And by analogy something slowed down so that it is completely out of the audible range still retains, for me, musical interest. In fact, just the before your message was posted, I was trying to explain my music in terms of astronomy and your email just came along to prove my point. I loved it!
Thanks for your expertise,
Rick

Bill Arnold wrote:

>Hi, Tuning List.
>
>A few members sent me emails off-list. <snip>
>

🔗Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com>

Mark Rankin writes, "Bill Arnold,
I like your table and am downloading it for my
independent scholar Music of the Spheres file (which
includes Murchie's 2-Volume book on the subject). I
wonder why you didn't mention Bodes Law in connection
with your table?"

But, I did!

This was second post, which went to, originally:
cyclesi@yahoogroups.com, physicsdebate@yahoogroups.com,
astrophysics2@yahoogroups.com, agrandunifiedtheory@yahoogroups.com,
cosmologyandastrophysics@yahoogroups.com, tuning@yahoogroups.com,
FlashmailCALENdeRsign@yahoogroups.com

As a contributing science writer to the Foundation for the Study
of Cycles in the 1970s I wrote a number of articles on order in our
solar-planetary system, mainly on perceived correlation of the
sunspot cycle, weather and planetary synodic cycles round the sun.

An axiom of physics that should not be overlooked in any application
of mathematics to things in reality is that the general laws apply
universally. (See my previous papers in the Bulletin: "Bode's Law
Explained," Cycles 30: 82, 1979, and "On the Special Theory of
Order," Cycles 36: 219, 1985.) Therefore, if the clock pattern is
applied to our solar-planetary system--both systems involve objects
in 360-degree motion around their respective centers--any two planets
will cross only a certain number of times. Thereafter, the pattern
repeats. (see my paper: "Why the sunspot cycle 22 years long?"
Cycles 46: 3, 1996.

As I pointed out in my previously cited papers, the primary cause of
the full-wave 22-year sunspot cycle is the Saturn-Uranus synodic
cycle. These two planets cross "only 22 times" before the pattern
repeats.

Whereas a clock has only two hands, the solar-planetary system is not
made up of a mere two planets; the cumulative effect of each set of
two planets must be computed as they relate to the others. In
addition, the solar-planetary electrical and magnetic field in which
the multitude of planets move and cross, is, itself, in motion with
respect to the center of the galaxy. Also, the planets are
precessing with respect to the distant star field. Consequently, our
solar-planetary system will not behave as methematically precise as a
clock. Indeed, each individual ww-year cycle varies immensely, from
about 20.8 to about 27 years.
In The Old Farmer's Almanac 1981, Guy Murchie popularized my theory
by reference to my publications, asking: "Is there order among the
planets? Or, as Pythagoras once put it, is there Music in the
Spheres?"

I published Arnold's Law in 1979, as follows:

Bodies_Proportion___Degreed Arcs___Fraction___Ideal Mean**
Or Perimeter

*Ceres: prime representative of so-called "asteroids"

**means: adjusted for diameters of both bodies, sun and planet

In conclusion, I urge interested readers to review the detailed
heliocentric data and patterns pub lished in my earlier papers.
Perhaps someone can generate a full-scale computer analysis to
confirm why the sunspot cycle averages 22 years.

Bill Arnold

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

🔗Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com>

Jon Szanto writes, "Mark, This is good. I hate it when we're all in
agreement. I would agree, if it weren't:
a. such a very small sub-set of the tuning group
b. for the fact that there is a group specifically set up to study
the tuning-related elements of planetary/astronomical bodies. I don't
have the address, but it's been posted a couple of times, and it
contains the words celestial-tunings.

But it's a big list, so if lots of people want to read about this,
fine.

Cheers,
Jon"

As a mathematician, I guess I ought to take note that:

a. tuning has 586 members
and
b. celestial-tuning has 26 members.

Bill Arnold

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

Bill,

--- In tuning@y..., Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@y...> wrote:
> Jon Szanto writes,
> But it's a big list, so if lots of people want to read about this,
> fine.

> As a mathematician, I guess I ought to take note that:
>
> a. tuning has 586 members
> and
> b. celestial-tuning has 26 members.
>
> Bill Arnold

I hope my syntax wasn't too unclear, but it apparently was; when I said "big list", I meant this one. I realize the c-t list is very much smaller, which is why I referred to 'sub-sets' of the main list and niche areas.

I'm not trying to squelch anything, and I certainly know how to use the delete button. The tuning list has seen an increase in spam and unrelated stuff (*really* unrelated) lately, and I was just making sure you felt these topics were of interest on this list.

Apparently a couple of people are interested, so have at it.

Cheers,
Jon