source file: mills2.txt Date: Sun, 9 Mar 1997 16:34:08 -0800 Subject: Re: Universe and Sound From: rtomes@kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes) Gary Morrison wrote: > Interesting... It would be curious to hear the chords produced by the >absorption patterns of various chemical elements and compounds, after >transposing them down some enormous number of octaves. > Were I to guess though, it would be little more than a curiosity. I >personally doubt if they would have any particularly significant meaningto >our ears. The two physical/physiological mechanisms are far too unrelated >for there to be much correlation. For the simple part of the Hydrogen spectrum explained by Rydberg etc, the frequency ratios are 1:4:9:16... which would be quite pleasant and under some circumstances the differences between these frequencies also (3, 7, 9, 12, etc) which is still quite tolerable. For heavier elements like Iron which have many many more frequencies I suspect that it would sound like heavy metal :-) Hey, I got to crack that joke twice in 3 days (I used at the anvil chorus on Saturday). There was a big concert for the opening of a large new stadium near here (mainly for rugby). The highlight of the night (which was all very spectacular) was when they did the "Dance of the Diggers" to honour the people who worked on the project. This consisted of two large digging machines, lit by an erie light against the dark sky, doing a wonderfully elegant dance to the music of Swan Lake. They did an amazing job and at the end the digger operaters took a bow in full evening dress. They got an ovation. In another post in this thread, based on my statement: >" 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." Gary Morrison wrote: > 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. It is only well accepted by people who don't understand it. The people who made the dicoveries that are supposed to have discredited the ether, namely Einstein, Michelson, Lorentz etc, all continued to believe in an ether. If you doubt this, read Einstein's speech on the subject delivered in 1920. It is on the WWW, just search for "einstein ether". There is no reason not to believe in an ether (except fashion). -- 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; Mon, 10 Mar 1997 01:38 +0100 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA10663; Mon, 10 Mar 1997 01:38:46 +0100 Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA10595 Received: from by ella.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI) id QAA14513; Sun, 9 Mar 1997 16:37:19 -0800 Date: Sun, 9 Mar 1997 16:37:19 -0800 Message-Id: Errors-To: madole@mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@ella.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@ella.mills.edu