Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Re: Tuning by Charles Lucy and Wallyesterpaulrus

Chuck Blatchley writes,

Wallyesterpaulrus,

Could you take the time to read the following by Charles Blatchley
and comment on his accuracy?

----------------------------
As to Bill's opinion about whatever he thinks emf is, and how it is
controlling the planets, let's take a closer look, since several others
have presented similar ideas. First, Bill apparently went to Charles
Lucy to explain the connection of his "Law" to harmony. The description
used musical notation, starting with the lowest frequency (C1) to
correspond to the radius of Mercury's orbit, with higher octaves (C2,
C3, etc.) extending out to Pluto's orbit, plus two fifths above the
tonic (G) to fit the cases that don't line up.

Well, all waves, not just standing waves, obey the relation that
frequency times wavelength equals the speed of propagation. This means
that the longest standing wave node (Pluto) should have the lowest
frequency, not the highest. The shortest standing wave node (Mercury)
should have the highest frequency. Since the pattern described has this
exactly backwards, there is absolutely no way this particular pattern
can have anything to do with reality. The fact that Bill did not notice
this perfect backwardness in Lucy's explanation is consistent with his
thinking that a trade school text from 1950 on elementary electric
circuits contains fundamental laws of physics.

So, I think what they should have been trying to say, was that Pluto's
orbit should be considered as C1 and the two planets (Earth and
Neptune)
that did not fit as doublings were thirds above the tonic, rather than
fifths. A third above is the same interval as a fifth below. Otherwise,
the pattern is completely backward. We still have the problem that the
series for the inner planets does not match that for the outer planets.
They are still very much "out of tune" with each other.

Although this alternative has the lowest frequency properly associated
with the longest wavelength, and vice versa, it brings us to my second
comment on such patterns, namely that if you consider octaves, thirds,
and fifths on the musical scale, you basically have half the notes of a
major scale available for picking and choosing. That's 32 possible
parameters for nine planets plus the asteroid belt. In this case they
also used two different tonics, one for the inner planets and one for
the outer, effectively doubling the number of possible parameters to
64.

Unless there is a planet associated with each and every one of these 64
"notes," it suggests you simply have too many free parameters (more
than
six to one) for a fair test. As we like to tease the theorists, "Given
enough free parameters you can fit any theory to any data."

Bill
Author of Arnold's Law

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com>

Wallyesterpaulrus writes,

/tuning/topicId_51631.html#51658

If there's a particular music or tuning element to this you'd like me
to comment on, please focus me in on that.

-------------------------------------------------

OK: Wall yesterpaulrus, it is about music! Can you look at
Charles Lucy's *octaval* notes below, and see if what Charles
Blatchley says [see below] is correct as tuning experts see it?
As I recall you thought I had confused wavelength with frequency,
and it appears Charles Blatchley has also confused wavelength with
frequency as tuning experts understand it.

Bill
Author of Arnold's Law

-----------------------------------------

Charles Lucy had written,
/tuning/topicId_40207.html#40207

From: Charles Lucy <lucy@h...>
Date: Sat Oct 26, 2002 6:45 pm
Subject: Music of The Spheres and Bill Arnold's numbers

I have read the papers that Bill Arnold sent me.
My initial reaction is that the 0,3,6,9,12,24,48.96,192, 288, 384
sequence is similar to the traditional harmonics series.
In the following respective musical pattern related to frequency (e.g.
in Hz.):
(using integer ratio "old" traditional logic that harmonics don't beat
i.e. Pythagorean)

3 = first Octave (3*1) e.g. C1
6 = second octave (3*2) e.g. C2
9 = second octave + fifth (3*3) or (6*(3/2)) e.g. G2
12 = third octave (3*(2^2)) e.g. C3
24 = fourth octave (3*8) e.g.C4
48 = fifth octave (3*16) e.g. C5
96 = sixth octave (3*32) e.g. C6
192 = seventh octave (3*64) e.g. C7
288 = seventh octave + fifth (3*76) or 192*(3/2)) e.g. G7
384 = eighth octave (3*132) e.g. C8

This is simplistic, yet could suggest an octaving sequence.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Blatchley writes,

First, Bill apparently went to Charles Lucy to explain the connection
of his "Law" to harmony. The description used musical notation,
starting with the lowest frequency (C1) to correspond to the radius of
Mercury's orbit, with higher octaves (C2, C3, etc.) extending out to
Pluto's orbit, plus two fifths above the tonic (G) to fit the cases
that don't line up.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@y...> wrote:
> Wallyesterpaulrus writes,
>
> /tuning/topicId_51631.html#51658
>
> If there's a particular music or tuning element to this you'd like
me
> to comment on, please focus me in on that.
>
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> OK: Wall yesterpaulrus, it is about music! Can you look at
> Charles Lucy's *octaval* notes below, and see if what Charles
> Blatchley says [see below] is correct as tuning experts see it?
> As I recall you thought I had confused wavelength with frequency,
> and it appears Charles Blatchley has also confused wavelength with
> frequency as tuning experts understand it.

It appears to me that Chuck has wavelength and frequency straight.
However, he does make at least one erroneous statement about musical
intervals, subsequent to his discussion of wavelength and frequency:

> Bill
> Author of Arnold's Law
>
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Charles Lucy had written,
> /tuning/topicId_40207.html#40207
>
> From: Charles Lucy <lucy@h...>
> Date: Sat Oct 26, 2002 6:45 pm
> Subject: Music of The Spheres and Bill Arnold's numbers
>
> I have read the papers that Bill Arnold sent me.
> My initial reaction is that the 0,3,6,9,12,24,48.96,192, 288, 384
> sequence is similar to the traditional harmonics series.
> In the following respective musical pattern related to frequency
(e.g.
> in Hz.):
> (using integer ratio "old" traditional logic that harmonics don't
beat
> i.e. Pythagorean)
>
> 3 = first Octave (3*1) e.g. C1
> 6 = second octave (3*2) e.g. C2
> 9 = second octave + fifth (3*3) or (6*(3/2)) e.g. G2
> 12 = third octave (3*(2^2)) e.g. C3
> 24 = fourth octave (3*8) e.g.C4
> 48 = fifth octave (3*16) e.g. C5
> 96 = sixth octave (3*32) e.g. C6
> 192 = seventh octave (3*64) e.g. C7
> 288 = seventh octave + fifth (3*76) or 192*(3/2)) e.g. G7
> 384 = eighth octave (3*132) e.g. C8
>
> This is simplistic, yet could suggest an octaving sequence.
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Chuck Blatchley writes,
>
> First, Bill apparently went to Charles Lucy to explain the
connection
> of his "Law" to harmony. The description used musical notation,
> starting with the lowest frequency (C1) to correspond to the radius
of
> Mercury's orbit, with higher octaves (C2, C3, etc.) extending out to
> Pluto's orbit, plus two fifths above the tonic (G) to fit the cases
> that don't line up.
>
> Well, all waves, not just standing waves, obey the relation that
> frequency times wavelength equals the speed of propagation.

This is correct.

> This means
> that the longest standing wave node (Pluto) should have the lowest
> frequency, not the highest.

If I ignore the words "node (Pluto)", this is correct.

> The shortest standing wave node (Mercury)
> should have the highest frequency.

If I ignore the words "node (Mercury)", this is correct.

>A third above is the same interval as a fifth below.

This is absolutely false.

> Although this alternative has the lowest frequency properly
associated
> with the longest wavelength, and vice versa, it brings us to my
second
> comment on such patterns, namely that if you consider octaves,
thirds,
> and fifths on the musical scale, you basically have half the notes
of a
> major scale available for picking and choosing.

*All* the notes of a major scale (and much more) can be generated
from such intervals, if they can be combined freely. Though if
they're only built upwards, one at a time, from the tonic, you do get
about half the notes of a major scale.

-Paul

🔗Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com>

OK: I want to thank Wallyesterpaulrus for his response
on tuning re: Charles Blatchley's comments [see below] .

Thanks,

Bill
Author of Arnold's law

------------------------

Wallyesterpaulrus writes,

/tuning/topicId_51631.html#51670

From: "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...>
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 4:25 pm
Subject: Re: Tuning by Charles Lucy and Wallyesterpaulrus

This is correct.

> This means
> that the longest standing wave node (Pluto) should have the lowest
> frequency, not the highest.

If I ignore the words "node (Pluto)", this is correct.

> The shortest standing wave node (Mercury)
> should have the highest frequency.

If I ignore the words "node (Mercury)", this is correct.

>A third above is the same interval as a fifth below.

This is absolutely false.

-Paul

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus

🔗monz <monz@attglobal.net>

hi Bill,

i've mentioned my _Solar System_ piece to you a lot before:

http://tonalsoft.com/monzo/solarsystem/solar-system.htm

if you click the links to the Yahoo posts, you will
see all the relevant data.

Charles B. is correct in stating that the lowest note
would be represented by Pluto's orbit, and the highest
by Mercury.

wavelength and frequency are inversely proportional:
the longer the wavelength, the lower the frequency, and
the shorter the wavelength, the higher the frequency.

(and i must apologize to you ... i never got around
to reading your papers in any depth, only took a quick
glance. sorry about that, but i've been very busy
with other stuff. someday...)

-monz