To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Hyenas At Play
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Physforum > Comments / Suggestions
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Boneidol
25th August 2008 - 09:34 AM
Seems that the gang here couldn't wait to spread their survival of the fittest ideal to other forums.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=84222&page=2

Little Occidental pasting my posts here over at sciforums, as "mirror man" nicely out of context and in that good old method of deceit that is characterising the hyena spirit very well. Mr Darin pants comes out of the crowd and shows his inner worth by playing along, and we have another science exclusive on our hands. All the while adhering to the filtered down from the top belief:

QUOTE
Stunning imbecility from such a manifestly idiotic plaything; after all this time, not realizing that his every move is childs-play orchestration by his masters. 

When we've totally humiliated this noisome twat, we'll merely prey on another sub-human straggler - this is simply nature in action; as always, the weak and infirm are victims of their predatory superiors.

Is a tiger wrong when it kills the lame brainless, sick runt of the herd? 



A volunteer who goes to help the poor in a famine stricken land is nothing but a weakling in the eyes of such an ideal. But is this ideal reality for mankind? Is it the one that will sustain his kind on this planet.

Or are we really going to be held accountbale for our actions in another sense? Well, judging by the souls I've met here, I cannot escape the view that each and everyone of us does owe an account for our actions in some sense. It will draw all the kind of deceit done in the dark out into the open. Because if there is more than this physical, survival of the fittest, I feel rather sorry for some of us here on this planet. Believing in such an animal ideal is going to bring destruction on you on various ways. But, that is what you want. You worship this ideal. How very very sad.

Occidental ol chap. The deceit you practice means nothing at all. Just more illusion. If you succeed in your plans you will only have impressed those I have no wish to discuss anything with.

You sad lot.

N O M
26th August 2008 - 12:34 AM
Deceit laugh.gif

This from the loser who has been banned from this site at least six times. With each new ID, the coward denied having ever been here before. Yet the idiot has been found out.
occidental
26th August 2008 - 12:55 AM
Screw you and your accusations, Lui. Its funny, though.
TheDoc
26th August 2008 - 01:03 AM
QUOTE (Lui+)
Seems that the gang here couldn't wait to spread their survival of the fittest ideal to other forums.


Oh boo hoo. Cry me a river, you dishonest fake. biggrin.gif
SteveA2
26th August 2008 - 01:52 AM
I wonder if it's something about society or education in England? Maybe the English are having problems right now? A lot of people over the years (currently appears to be Scottish individuals) have become independent from England over the years. This trend seems more understandable to me given the manner in which many English appear to present themselves here.

(I read an article before claiming that it's due to a rise in socialism that creates fewer communal attachments in new generations and so a social decay occurs, similar to many areas here in the U.S. as well where dependencies on government assistance tends to discourage involvement in the community and lessens the need for social responsibility. Though I'm certain that's only one of many reasons, but from the general trend of English posters here it does appear to validate the concerns over social decay there. I wish those Scottish individuals seeking independence, the best. It worked out well for the U.S. ... except now we have another King George - you just can't shake these guys)
N O M
26th August 2008 - 02:43 AM
Mention lies and deceit, and Steve turns up. No surprise there.

Also no surprise he doesn't know much about the Brits. He needs to get out sometime.
excaza
26th August 2008 - 11:06 AM
QUOTE (SteveA2+Aug 25 2008, 08:52 PM)
I wonder if it's something about society or education in England? Maybe the English are having problems right now? A lot of people over the years (currently appears to be Scottish individuals) have become independent from England over the years. This trend seems more understandable to me given the manner in which many English appear to present themselves here.

(I read an article before claiming that it's due to a rise in socialism that creates fewer communal attachments in new generations and so a social decay occurs, similar to many areas here in the U.S. as well where dependencies on government assistance tends to discourage involvement in the community and lessens the need for social responsibility. Though I'm certain that's only one of many reasons, but from the general trend of English posters here it does appear to validate the concerns over social decay there. I wish those Scottish individuals seeking independence, the best. It worked out well for the U.S. ... except now we have another King George - you just can't shake these guys)

blink.gif
Boneidol
26th August 2008 - 11:47 AM
QUOTE (SteveA2+Aug 26 2008, 01:52 AM)
I wonder if it's something about society or education in England? Maybe the English are having problems right now? A lot of people over the years (currently appears to be Scottish individuals) have become independent from England over the years. This trend seems more understandable to me given the manner in which many English appear to present themselves here.

(I read an article before claiming that it's due to a rise in socialism that creates fewer communal attachments in new generations and so a social decay occurs, similar to many areas here in the U.S. as well where dependencies on government assistance tends to discourage involvement in the community and lessens the need for social responsibility. Though I'm certain that's only one of many reasons, but from the general trend of English posters here it does appear to validate the concerns over social decay there. I wish those Scottish individuals seeking independence, the best. It worked out well for the U.S. ... except now we have another King George - you just can't shake these guys)

These kids are just internet busybodies, taking the shortcut when it comes to peer reviewing and also enjoying their evolutionary belief that they need to come out on top and survive.

A classic example of how this forum won't pick up until the busybodies go away is that Panascope53 guy that made one post, got instantly called a crank , and probably won't be bothering to turn up here again. There is no room to share ideas. This place is now Peer Review Committee. But when you look at the people throwing out the crank word, they're a bunch of hyenas. It's their forum now.

They also fail to undertsand that they are using deceit in order to defend their so called science. The guy that posted over at sciforums, prentending to be me, was using deceit. The day science has to adopt these methods it can rightly be suspected as a biased institute, protecting its own beleifs.

And the worst one I've seen to date is the one dr Fred A Wolf expressed. That belief in the ruthlessness of evolution may work for the rest of the animal kingdom and nature, but it isn't going to work for man for much longer. There will be one more world war, pollution will choke away, ocean levels will rise, and this lust for outscrewing one another will simply bite man in the rear eventually.

The next leap in evolution has to be in consciousness if we are to have any chance.
excaza
26th August 2008 - 12:21 PM
Ah yes, telling people they need to prove their pet theories before trying to say they are correct, the "shortcut" to peer reviewing. rolleyes.gif
Boneidol
26th August 2008 - 12:47 PM
QUOTE (excaza+Aug 26 2008, 12:21 PM)
Ah yes, telling people they need to prove their pet theories before trying to say they are correct, the "shortcut" to peer reviewing. rolleyes.gif

Well there we are. Who exactly are you then? What university are you associated with? You a peer reviewer on this forum? Because if it is just an opinion you are addressing, then people in the free world can have them.

As far as "proving" anything goes, that is typical mediocre mentality from the likes of you. I've proved that there is a case, and I've gone where the evidence seems to be leading. I've also made some predictions that can then be tested. If you have the ability to falsify any of that, please see to it and do so. Your opinion isn't enough when it comes down to it.

Peer reviewers give their names away, you know where they are working and their history. You're none of those things. You come accross as another "text book" kid. And the funny thing is that should you have read about any of this you are mocking in a text book, and I came along and challenged it, you would be defending what you are now mocking. That's about the depths of opinions like yours.

Any @sshole can get into the "prove its". And there's plenty here with dilluded opinions of themselves. And just look how popular the "mob" here is. Hardly anyone bothering to pass anything by you any more. You're just a little club of like-minded opinions.
excaza
26th August 2008 - 12:54 PM
Yet when questioned on various accusations you make, you refuse to answer them.

Always.

QUOTE
And the funny thing is that should you have read about any of this you are mocking in a text book, and I came along and challenged it, you would be defending what you are now mocking. That's about the depths of opinions like yours.

rolleyes.gif If it's in a legitimate textbook, it should have some...EVIDENCE, some PROOF.

99% of the people who come here to spout their pet theories have ZERO evidence, refuse to provide any, and refuse to believe they need some. They hold fast to the idea that because it makes sense to them, it MUST be correct.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
And the funny thing is that should you have read about any of this you are mocking in a text book, and I came along and challenged it, you would be defending what you are now mocking. That's about the depths of opinions like yours.

rolleyes.gif If it's in a legitimate textbook, it should have some...EVIDENCE, some PROOF.

99% of the people who come here to spout their pet theories have ZERO evidence, refuse to provide any, and refuse to believe they need some. They hold fast to the idea that because it makes sense to them, it MUST be correct.

Any @sshole can get into the "prove its".

So? How many of the people with "theories" here actually CAN provide proof? Can you find one for me?

QUOTE
You're just a little club of like-minded opinions.

The opinion that claims should be supported is not a bad thing. Sure beats the hell out of the "it isn't mainstream, so it's correct" logic.
bm1957
26th August 2008 - 12:57 PM
QUOTE (Boneidol+Aug 26 2008, 01:47 PM)
Well there we are. Who exactly are you then? What university are you associated with? You a peer reviewer on this forum? Because if it is just an opinion you are addressing, then people in the free world can have them.

As far as "proving" anything goes, that is typical mediocre mentality from the likes of you. I've proved that there is a case, and I've gone where the evidence seems to be leading. I've also made some predictions that can then be tested. If you have the ability to falsify any of that, please see to it and do so. Your opinion isn't enough when it comes down to it.

Peer reviewers give their names away, you know where they are working and their history. You're none of those things. You come accross as another "text book" kid. And the funny thing is that should you have read about any of this you are mocking in a text book, and I came along and challenged it, you would be defending what you are now mocking. That's about the depths of opinions like yours.

Any @sshole can get into the "prove its". And there's plenty here with dilluded opinions of themselves. And just look how popular the "mob" here is. Hardly anyone bothering to pass anything by you any more. You're just a little club of like-minded opinions.

So your argument is that without demonstrating credentials worthy of a 'peer-reviewer', one cannot justifiably support the peer-review process?

What kind of nob-jockey logic is that???


And don't forget... when somebody did try to discuss your 'book'. as soon as you realised that they had valid criticisms of it, you decided that they 'weren't the right kind of person to be discussing the book with'. laugh.gif
Boneidol
26th August 2008 - 01:08 PM
QUOTE (excaza+Aug 26 2008, 12:54 PM)


QUOTE
Yet when questioned on various accusations you make, you refuse to answer them. 


You referring to Darin here right? And his list?


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Yet when questioned on various accusations you make, you refuse to answer them. 


You referring to Darin here right? And his list?


rolleyes.gif If it's in a legitimate textbook, it should have some...EVIDENCE, some PROOF. 



Yes, it should be built up of self evident data, that can be seen as a working hypothesis and theory. Whether most of the scientific theories can actually be proven is not a requirement. What keeps science and other disciplines going is ideas, tests and experiments.

I don't know about these 99% you refer to. But I do know that those asking for a claim to be supported have yet to investigate any further than a quick flick through someone's material, and then to exercise their opinion. It may sound arrogant, who cares, but I still wish to hold the opinion that a careful investigation will show there is a valid process exposed through mirroring. Knowing how to test the material is also an advantage.

Boneidol
26th August 2008 - 01:11 PM
QUOTE (bm1957+Aug 26 2008, 12:57 PM)
So your argument is that without demonstrating credentials worthy of a 'peer-reviewer', one cannot justifiably support the peer-review process?

What kind of nob-jockey logic is that???


And don't forget... when somebody did try to discuss your 'book'. as soon as you realised that they had valid criticisms of it, you decided that they 'weren't the right kind of person to be discussing the book with'. laugh.gif

You referring to yourself, someone that flicked through the contents, had no music theory knowledge and wanted to discuss algebra?

Boneidol
26th August 2008 - 03:36 PM
Your deceitful so called defenders of science at work.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=84222&page=3


Science should never succumb to "religious" or political tactics.
MjolnirPants
26th August 2008 - 03:49 PM
QUOTE (Boneidol+Aug 26 2008, 03:36 PM)
Your deceitful so called defenders of science at work.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=84222&page=3


Science should never succumb to "religious" or political tactics.

Hey Liu, do you ever plan on doing anything to demonstrate the validity of your claims, or do you expect us to simply take your word?
excaza
26th August 2008 - 04:05 PM
That's his next project.

But you need to read his book and watch his videos before he'll answer you. laugh.gif
Boneidol
26th August 2008 - 04:07 PM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Aug 26 2008, 03:49 PM)
Hey Liu, do you ever plan on doing anything to demonstrate the validity of your claims, or do you expect us to simply take your word?

No Diran, not taking someone's word is what this is all about. I'm not taking the word of proven hyenas. You do what you're good at Diran and oinkydental, I'll carry on with that rather interesting exploration of mirroring. The validity of the technique is plain to see. But one is not dealing with having to show validity amongst the mob here. Just a small collection of big dumb weirdos.

Excuse me for now, busy shooting videos. I'll send you a link as a xmas present.



Boneidol
26th August 2008 - 04:11 PM
QUOTE (excaza+Aug 26 2008, 04:05 PM)
That's his next project.

But you need to read his book and watch his videos before he'll answer you. laugh.gif

Listen sperm breath, I've been at it for eighteen months, attempting to answer questions. Believe it or not, I still think the best way of getting answers is from such things as books, or videos. Skimming stuff and bleating on has got nothing going for it. You've never understood anything doing that, only prejudice.

excaza
26th August 2008 - 04:15 PM
Wow, 18 months and not one sentence on the validity of your claims?

Impressive!

QUOTE
Excuse me for now, busy shooting videos.

They've already used mirrors in porn, sorry. sad.gif
Boneidol
26th August 2008 - 04:21 PM
QUOTE (excaza+Aug 26 2008, 04:15 PM)




QUOTE
Wow, 18 months and not one sentence on the validity of your claims?


I'm not surprised you'd say that, as it wasn't aimed at hyenas.



QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Wow, 18 months and not one sentence on the validity of your claims?


I'm not surprised you'd say that, as it wasn't aimed at hyenas.



They've already used mirrors in porn, sorry.  sad.gif




That's more like the level of your ability to offer criticism. Well done, keep it up.
excaza
26th August 2008 - 04:37 PM
Given that you refuse to address criticism above that level, I figured I'd start there.

How's showing your claims are valid going? Any progress?
Boneidol
26th August 2008 - 04:54 PM
QUOTE (excaza+Aug 26 2008, 04:37 PM)
Given that you refuse to address criticism above that level, I figured I'd start there.

How's showing your claims are valid going? Any progress?

You mean showing stuff visually through use of video? Excellent thanks. Should have done it a few years ago.

MjolnirPants
26th August 2008 - 05:11 PM
QUOTE (Boneidol+Aug 26 2008, 04:07 PM)
No Diran,

That's what I thought.
smile.gif
TheDoc
26th August 2008 - 05:11 PM
QUOTE (Boneidol+Aug 26 2008, 04:07 PM)
No Diran, not taking someone's word is what this is all about. I'm not taking the word of proven hyenas.

Proven by...whom? You? When you readily dismiss every rational explanation thrown at you? rolleyes.gif

Still waiting for you to validate your claims.
Boneidol
26th August 2008 - 05:18 PM
QUOTE (TheDoc+Aug 26 2008, 05:11 PM)
Proven by...whom? You? When you readily dismiss every rational explanation thrown at you? rolleyes.gif

Still waiting for you to validate your claims.

Idiots like you need to be told by your superiors.
TheDoc
26th August 2008 - 05:19 PM
QUOTE (Boneidol+Aug 26 2008, 05:18 PM)
Idiots like you need to be told by your superiors.

Watch your temper, Lui. Have you made any progress on validating your claims yet, Lui?
Boneidol
26th August 2008 - 05:29 PM
QUOTE (TheDoc+Aug 26 2008, 05:19 PM)
Watch your temper, Lui. Have you made any progress on validating your claims yet, Lui?

Daily thanks.
TheDoc
26th August 2008 - 05:35 PM
QUOTE (Boneidol+Aug 26 2008, 05:29 PM)
Daily thanks.

Wait a minute, Lui. If you've been at this for eighteen months, and you've been making progress daily...shouldn't you be about done, now?

Think about it for a second, Lui.
excaza
26th August 2008 - 05:36 PM
If you've been getting daily progress for 18 months Lui, you should have something to show people by now shouldn't you Lui?


zomg, sockpuppet!!!
TheDoc
26th August 2008 - 05:42 PM
QUOTE (excaza+Aug 26 2008, 05:36 PM)
If you've been getting daily progress for 18 months Lui, you should have something to show people by now shouldn't you Lui?


zomg, sockpuppet!!!

Doesn't feel strange to, you know, talk to yourself on an internet forum? mellow.gif
excaza
26th August 2008 - 05:43 PM
You tell me!

...or is that me tell me? Or you tell you?

crap sad.gif
TheDoc
26th August 2008 - 05:45 PM
QUOTE (excaza+Aug 26 2008, 05:43 PM)
You tell me!

...or is that me tell me? Or you tell you?

crap sad.gif

huh.gif Ok, start over. blink.gif
excaza
26th August 2008 - 05:51 PM
ooga booga!
TheDoc
26th August 2008 - 05:53 PM
QUOTE (excaza+Aug 26 2008, 05:51 PM)
ooga booga!

Please, don't make myself ourselves yourself look foolish.
excaza
26th August 2008 - 06:06 PM
Wrong beginning?
Boneidol
26th August 2008 - 06:15 PM
Actually considering what occidental has decided to do over at sciforums, with one or two of his other pals from here, this is the perfect time to spend all of my energy elsewhere. If all you can do is play deceit, it has to go against you eventually.

What you are doing over at sciforums is cowardly Occidental. If ever one wanted to catch a glimpse of corruption you have personified it. Science will be ashamed of you and your low down actions. Your ilk embarass science.

Confused2
26th August 2008 - 06:21 PM
Maybe someone could set up a thread as a hyena trap and just wait to see what it catches.

Exactly like ...
Boneidol
26th August 2008 - 06:32 PM
QUOTE (Confused2+Aug 26 2008, 06:21 PM)
Maybe someone could set up a thread as a hyena trap and just wait to see what it catches.

Exactly like ...

The level at which they are catching themselves out seems to be to high for them to understand. Humans can't survive on deceit and animalness any more. It isn't just spears and bullets now, it is serious planet destroying capabilities. This is the enemy of mankind:


QUOTE
Stunning imbecility from such a manifestly idiotic plaything; after all this time, not realizing that his every move is childs-play orchestration by his masters. 

When we've totally humiliated this noisome twat, we'll merely prey on another sub-human straggler - this is simply nature in action; as always, the weak and infirm are victims of their predatory superiors.

Is a tiger wrong when it kills the lame brainless, sick runt of the herd? 



It isn't a sustainable ideal any more.
TheDoc
26th August 2008 - 06:47 PM
QUOTE (Boneidol+Aug 26 2008, 06:32 PM)
The level at which they are catching themselves out seems to be to high for them to understand. Humans can't survive on deceit and animalness any more. It isn't just spears and bullets now, it is serious planet destroying capabilities. This is the enemy of mankind:

<snip>

Shock, horror! The PhysOrg Forum Mafia is the enemy of mankind! They will destroy us all! ohmy.gif

...Or not.
Boneidol
26th August 2008 - 06:50 PM
Or maybe the urges contained within this rule of evolution, deep in man's psyche, has to lead to wars and destruction? What's holding that urge, to rape and murder, back? Plain old laws?

What's going to stop China taking over the world if it can? What will stop a big company moving away from a town where 500 workers depended on it, and move to a country where they can get people to work for $1 a day? We're animals right? take care of number one, and up yours Jack.

USA was once a great leader. Next it will be the turn of some other big nation. The future american will be the next suicide bomber. And so it shifts. But isn't there some nasty weapons out there that can blow this planet to wasteland?

And what about any respect for other animals and life. Here we are, not giving a sh!t, and are prepared for most every other specie to suffer our actions.

is it worth fighting for a better world? or is it a weakness? Because better is stronger, meaner and out to screw you?

In which case, I really don't belong to this world. I'm a creep (thank you for the song Tikay).

Boneidol
26th August 2008 - 06:52 PM
QUOTE (TheDoc+Aug 26 2008, 06:47 PM)
Shock, horror! The PhysOrg Forum Mafia is the enemy of mankind! They will destroy us all! ohmy.gif

...Or not.

Don't be so petty minded.
TheDoc
26th August 2008 - 07:00 PM
QUOTE (Boneidol+Aug 26 2008, 06:52 PM)
Don't be so petty minded.

Don't be so dishonest.
Boneidol
26th August 2008 - 07:18 PM
QUOTE (TheDoc+Aug 26 2008, 07:00 PM)
Don't be so dishonest.

Don't worry Doc, still a little time left to sort that kind of stuff out. If you want "dishonest" go over to sciforums and check out the deceitful liar posting as me there.

You people really do need a wake up call. Don't expect too much sympathy from good ol mother nature. She's busy getting rid of the cancerous growth on her skin.
N O M
26th August 2008 - 08:28 PM
QUOTE (Boneidol+Aug 27 2008, 07:18 AM)
If you want "dishonest" go over to sciforums and check out the deceitful liar posting as me there.

No need, we have plenty of deceitful liars posting as you here.

No. wait... those deceitful liars are you.
Confused2
26th August 2008 - 08:43 PM
QUOTE (nom+)
No. wait... those deceitful liars are you.


WOOWAHAAHAWOOPARPWOOROFWOOHAAAAWOOHAHEHAAHAA
Boneidol
26th August 2008 - 11:27 PM
There we are, hyenas at play. I only have to mention fraudsters in science, and Occidental and pals turn up at sciforums and show me the meaning of trollish frauds that need a clip round the ear. Or am I too kind here, calling these kids scientists?

And there you were saying we could go over to sciforums togevver Occidental, and you would be all respectful. I guess you just couldn't resist that tendency of yours. You've been a deceitful man from close to the beginning, why change now.

But I like how you are cutting and pasting my posts over at sciforums, as if you want to show people how I deserve descrediting. All publicity is good publicity Occidental. Here's to it backfiring on you. Can you do me a favour and, when they are ready, send my video links out to all the scientists you know? I need a secretary actually. How about you Darin, need a little part time work?
excaza
27th August 2008 - 01:34 AM
If he's posting direct quotes, how is it deceitful?
SteveA2
27th August 2008 - 07:23 AM
QUOTE (Boneidol+Aug 26 2008, 11:27 PM)
There we are, hyenas at play. I only have to mention fraudsters in science, and Occidental and pals turn up at sciforums and show me the meaning of trollish frauds that need a clip round the ear. Or am I too kind here, calling these kids scientists?

And there you were saying we could go over to sciforums togevver Occidental, and you would be all respectful. I guess you just couldn't resist that tendency of yours. You've been a deceitful man from close to the beginning, why change now.

But I like how you are cutting and pasting my posts over at sciforums, as if you want to show people how I deserve descrediting. All publicity is good publicity Occidental. Here's to it backfiring on you. Can you do me a favour and, when they are ready, send my video links out to all the scientists you know? I need a secretary actually. How about you Darin, need a little part time work?


Actually it appears most the time they cut and paste the best stuff, as if it was the worst, but it's great because it saves me the need to cut and paste the things myself (and I can just keep generating original content, while they can spread it for me smile.gif).
bm1957
27th August 2008 - 09:35 AM
QUOTE (Boneidol+Aug 26 2008, 02:11 PM)
You referring to yourself, someone that flicked through the contents, had no music theory knowledge and wanted to discuss algebra?

It's not actually relevant who it was, but yes, I was talking about my criticisms of your book.

As I stated before, I only read thoroughly the bits which weren't about music.

So, does not knowing about music prevent me from telling you that:

log(2)+log(5)=1

is ridiculously trivial? You wrote a whole chapter about it, which just proves that you don't know the first thing about maths. I'll show you why.

Your contention:
log(2) = 0.30102999566...
log(5) = 0.69897000433...

the corresponding digits all add up to 9, and you think that's amazing.

My criticism:
log(2) + log(5) = log(2*5) = log(10) = 1

therefore, the decimal expansion of log(2) + log(5) = 0.9999999999...


So your claim is ridiculous!!!
Do you not see that your book is rubbish yet?
Boneidol
27th August 2008 - 12:07 PM
QUOTE (bm1957+Aug 27 2008, 09:35 AM)
It's not actually relevant who it was, but yes, I was talking about my criticisms of your book.

As I stated before, I only read thoroughly the bits which weren't about music.

So, does not knowing about music prevent me from telling you that:

log(2)+log(5)=1

is ridiculously trivial? You wrote a whole chapter about it, which just proves that you don't know the first thing about maths. I'll show you why.

Your contention:
log(2) = 0.30102999566...
log(5) = 0.69897000433...

the corresponding digits all add up to 9, and you think that's amazing.

My criticism:
log(2) + log(5) = log(2*5) = log(10) = 1

therefore, the decimal expansion of log(2) + log(5) = 0.9999999999...


So your claim is ridiculous!!!
Do you not see that your book is rubbish yet?

Well, even if it were, I would be able to see it far clearer than you , from what you have said here. A man that has to skip the bulk of the material, doesn't follow the process at all, and has no opinion worth taking notice of. So pooo off.
Boneidol
27th August 2008 - 12:14 PM
QUOTE (SteveA2+Aug 27 2008, 07:23 AM)

Actually it appears most the time they cut and paste the best stuff, as if it was the worst, but it's great because it saves me the need to cut and paste the things myself (and I can just keep generating original content, while they can spread it for me smile.gif).

Ha ha! Yeah, shame though they don't cut and paste the other stuff that sits around these posts, from other people. That's why ultimately it is with deception in mind. But I get your point about the good stuff posted then still obviously going over their heads now!

Looks like you guys can't see the deceit in it.
Ok, so someone can cut and paste your posts Darin, Excaza and all? How about you mr Trippy, will you give someone permission to paste your posts all over other forums, in whatever context they desire? Is this the new internet game?
Boneidol
27th August 2008 - 12:20 PM
QUOTE (bm1957+Aug 27 2008, 09:35 AM)
It's not actually relevant who it was, but yes, I was talking about my criticisms of your book.

As I stated before, I only read thoroughly the bits which weren't about music.

So, does not knowing about music prevent me from telling you that:

log(2)+log(5)=1

is ridiculously trivial? You wrote a whole chapter about it, which just proves that you don't know the first thing about maths. I'll show you why.

Your contention:
log(2) = 0.30102999566...
log(5) = 0.69897000433...

the corresponding digits all add up to 9, and you think that's amazing.

My criticism:
log(2) + log(5) = log(2*5) = log(10) = 1

therefore, the decimal expansion of log(2) + log(5) = 0.9999999999...


So your claim is ridiculous!!!
Do you not see that your book is rubbish yet?

And don't forget that whilst flicking around, looking for trivialities, you forgot to follow the thread, the process that is described, beginning on the mirror side of a Mode Box in C major. Then it is verified within other mode boxes from other keys, taken through to the Lambdoma overtone grid, shown to be consistent within a Fibonacci number box, and on and on. If you can't follow the process, but look for small individual parts, you are making a mistake. That is why your opinion is what is trivial so far. A verifyable process can consist of places where it covers so called trivial ground. But can you verify the process BM? No you can't. You're the wrong critic.
bm1957
27th August 2008 - 12:28 PM
QUOTE (Boneidol+Aug 27 2008, 01:07 PM)
Well, even if it were, I would be able to see it far clearer than you , from what you have said here. A man that has to skip the bulk of the material, doesn't follow the process at all, and has no opinion worth taking notice of. So pooo off.

Ok, so you really don't understand why it is trivial. That's fair enough I guess.

(Pooo off? Really? I mean, come on, you call others immature and then come out with that? Really???)

QUOTE
And don't forget that whilst flicking around, looking for trivialities, you forgot to follow the thread, the process that is described, beginning on the mirror side of a Mode Box in C major. Then it is verified within other mode boxes from other keys, taken through to the Lambdoma overtone grid, shown to be consistent within a Fibonacci number box, and on and on. If you can't follow the process, but look for small individual parts, you are making a mistake. That is why your opinion is what is trivial so far. A verifyable process can consist of places where it covers so called trivial ground. But can you verify the process BM? No you can't. You're the wrong critic.

I have never denied that your work might be of benefit to musicians. I don't know enough about music to tell.

I do know enough about maths to tell that every part of your book which is relevant to maths is either trivial or wrong. This leads me to the conclusion that asserting that it will help string theorists is arrogant and presumptuous.
Boneidol
27th August 2008 - 12:45 PM
QUOTE (bm1957+Aug 27 2008, 12:28 PM)
Ok, so you really don't understand why it is trivial. That's fair enough I guess.

(Pooo off? Really? I mean, come on, you call others immature and then come out with that? Really???)


I have never denied that your work might be of benefit to musicians. I don't know enough about music to tell.

I do know enough about maths to tell that every part of your book which is relevant to maths is either trivial or wrong. This leads me to the conclusion that asserting that it will help string theorists is arrogant and presumptuous.

There are parts of it that offer some new musical scales, for example. But if I thought it was just a benefit to musicians, or some new age stuff, I'd be off to those types of places sharing it there. But, whilst I see mirroring, and the process it uncovers, as a beneficial tool, that is how I want to proceed for now.

MjolnirPants
27th August 2008 - 12:54 PM
QUOTE (bm1957+Aug 27 2008, 12:28 PM)
I have never denied that your work might be of benefit to musicians. I don't know enough about music to tell.


It's not. I've read everything in his book, a while back. None of the musical concepts he waxes on about show any real originality. Not that this is his fault, mind. If he'd had a formal education in musical theory he'd know that the subject has been pretty exhaustively written about in the past thousand years, and there's hardly even a melody one can write which hasn't been written before, let alone a technique.
When I was 8 years old, my piano instructor had me practicing the same 'mirroring technique' he talks about using to get new melodies out of old melodies (treating each interval as occuring below the root note, instead of above it), in order to help me with my sight reading. It's a fairly common practice when teaching a student to sight read. They generally call it inversion of some sort (interval inversion, melodic inversion, etc, etc...), not mirroring, though.

QUOTE
I do know enough about maths to tell that every part of your book which is relevant to maths is either trivial or wrong. This leads me to the conclusion that asserting that it will help string theorists is arrogant and presumptuous.

His math doesn't need to be correct or meaningful. Just like if I were to incorporate physics and biology to work up a model of protein interactions, I wouldn't need to get my physics correct. blink.gif Uh.... wait.... unsure.gif
bm1957
27th August 2008 - 01:06 PM
QUOTE (Boneidol+Aug 27 2008, 01:45 PM)
There are parts of it that offer some new musical scales, for example. But if I thought it was just a benefit to musicians, or some new age stuff, I'd be off to those types of places sharing it there. But, whilst I see mirroring, and the process it uncovers, as a beneficial tool, that is how I want to proceed for now.

How do you reconcile that with the fact that somebody who is relatively ignorant of maths (compared to string theorists; compared to graduates even!) tells you that every math result you have in your 'book' is either trivial or wrong.

Doesn't that give you a hint that you're not the genius you hoped?

Because that's what all this comes down to, isn't it... your ego.
Boneidol
27th August 2008 - 01:08 PM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Aug 27 2008, 12:54 PM)




QUOTE
It's not. I've read everything in his book, a while back. None of the musical concepts he waxes on about show any real originality. Not that this is his fault, mind. If he'd had a formal education in musical theory he'd know that the subject has been pretty exhaustively written about in the past thousand years, and there's hardly even a melody one can write which hasn't been written before, let alone a technique.


Completge rubbish. Send me a link to a Mode box. And have you noticed the book online say "volume one"? That's because all the musical ideas are saved for volume two. I've got a section on 50 new scales that merge when both sides of the mirror are taken as one whole. You'll find musical ideas in there that you won't find any where else.

And who says I no longer have formal music education? Ever heard of a Higher National Diploma? well, it ain't a PHD , but I did forward mirror music concepts as part of my modules, and the head of music was rather impressed. Are you a head of music Darin?

Volume one, dear Darin, has left music out of it on purpose, and concentrated on an inner process evident in music scales and beyond.

Yeah, read it a while back eh? When BDW said words to the effect that he was taking Occidental's word for it? You ain't read Jack you phoney.

Send me a link to a Fibonacci mode box, witha mirror side and individual pitches assigned to the mirror flows. Do a google search and see what you get.



QUOTE (->
QUOTE
It's not. I've read everything in his book, a while back. None of the musical concepts he waxes on about show any real originality. Not that this is his fault, mind. If he'd had a formal education in musical theory he'd know that the subject has been pretty exhaustively written about in the past thousand years, and there's hardly even a melody one can write which hasn't been written before, let alone a technique.


Completge rubbish. Send me a link to a Mode box. And have you noticed the book online say "volume one"? That's because all the musical ideas are saved for volume two. I've got a section on 50 new scales that merge when both sides of the mirror are taken as one whole. You'll find musical ideas in there that you won't find any where else.

And who says I no longer have formal music education? Ever heard of a Higher National Diploma? well, it ain't a PHD , but I did forward mirror music concepts as part of my modules, and the head of music was rather impressed. Are you a head of music Darin?

Volume one, dear Darin, has left music out of it on purpose, and concentrated on an inner process evident in music scales and beyond.

Yeah, read it a while back eh? When BDW said words to the effect that he was taking Occidental's word for it? You ain't read Jack you phoney.

Send me a link to a Fibonacci mode box, witha mirror side and individual pitches assigned to the mirror flows. Do a google search and see what you get.



When I was 8 years old, my piano instructor had me practicing the same 'mirroring technique' he talks about using to get new melodies out of old melodies (treating each interval as occuring below the root note, instead of above it), in order to help me with my sight reading. It's a fairly common practice when teaching a student to sight read. They generally call it inversion of some sort (interval inversion, melodic inversion, etc, etc...), not mirroring, though.


It's called Retrograde Inversion, part of 12-tone row theory nowadays. That's why BM is wrong in stating it is not a valid tool. It has been established as such since the time of Schoenberg and Bartok. I'm using that tool to uncover a process at work, which you have failed to recognize.

You know, don't descard ABCDEFG just because it's been used over and over.






Boneidol
27th August 2008 - 01:11 PM
QUOTE (bm1957+Aug 27 2008, 01:06 PM)
How do you reconcile that with the fact that somebody who is relatively ignorant of maths (compared to string theorists; compared to graduates even!) tells you that every math result you have in your 'book' is either trivial or wrong.

Doesn't that give you a hint that you're not the genius you hoped?

Because that's what all this comes down to, isn't it... your ego.

Actually,I think it's been about your egos all along. I've consistently said I am a layman. Trying to throw this "genius" at me is just stupid. I wouldn't be here now talking to you if I was.
Grumpy
27th August 2008 - 01:15 PM
Lui

Then why(as a layman) do you assert that we are wrong to criticize the amateurish mistakes and outright mystical BS that fills your book from cover to cover??? That you are right and those who have extensively studied the science are wrong???

Hubris, thy name is EGO TRIP!!!

Grumpy cool.gif
Boneidol
27th August 2008 - 01:27 PM
QUOTE (Grumpy+Aug 27 2008, 01:15 PM)
Lui

Then why(as a layman) do you assert that we are wrong to criticize the amateurish mistakes and outright mystical BS that fills your book from cover to cover??? That you are right and those who have extensively studied the science are wrong???

Hubris, thy name is EGO TRIP!!!

Grumpy cool.gif

Well now we get to the crux of my defiance against you. I am more than ready to be shown I am wrong. But not by people who do not read cover to cover. Had they done so, they would be able to reference each part that is wrong.

Again, the ego trip is from such people who want to bring their kind of muscle into a situation they could simply have ignored. It isn't you field. And those that could do a proper investigation are relying on their pre-conceived notions.

I will accept what someone I respect says. I respect informed people, with the attitude to match. I don't respect a lot of what I've found here.

mirrorPI
27th August 2008 - 02:21 PM
I WANT TO KNOW WHO THE HELL IS POSTING IN MY NAME AT SCIFORUMS.
excaza
27th August 2008 - 02:24 PM
Me
Boneidol
27th August 2008 - 02:36 PM
Splendid trolling chaps. Did mommy forget to spank your naughty little butts when you were in your terrible twos? It's all going against you guys. You're representing science is the darkest of image. A little club of bodyguards no doubt. Bodyguards outside a music club protect the owners assets and interests, not music.

So you are the future right? The animal taking over?

The real mirrorPi at sciforums (that is me) already knows who the genius posting at sciforums is, under the name "mirror man". We've all played in the school yards boys. Never grew up did you Occidental?
excaza
27th August 2008 - 02:38 PM
No, I didn't
MjolnirPants
27th August 2008 - 02:39 PM
QUOTE (Boneidol+Aug 27 2008, 01:08 PM)
Completge rubbish.

Liar.
I went ahead and bolded the part where I school you on musical theory, so that we can all see how ignorant you are in this subject, as well. smile.gif

QUOTE
Send me a link to a Mode box...
...Send me a link to a Fibonacci mode box, witha  mirror side and individual pitches assigned to the mirror flows. Do a google search and see what you get.

Rearranging existant information into a manner which implies some meaning does not make for original information. It doesn't even make understanding the process easier.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Send me a link to a Mode box...
...Send me a link to a Fibonacci mode box, witha  mirror side and individual pitches assigned to the mirror flows. Do a google search and see what you get.

Rearranging existant information into a manner which implies some meaning does not make for original information. It doesn't even make understanding the process easier.

And have you noticed the book online say "volume one"? That's because all the musical ideas are saved for volume two.

Now that's the most blatant lie you've ever told. The pdf file online contains more references to music than it does even to mathematics.

QUOTE
I've got a section on 50 new scales that merge when both sides of the mirror are taken as one whole.

I guarantee you that those scales have already been written down somewhere else.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I've got a section on 50 new scales that merge when both sides of the mirror are taken as one whole.

I guarantee you that those scales have already been written down somewhere else.

And who says I no longer have formal music education?

Your behavior implies is.

QUOTE
Ever heard of a Higher National Diploma? well, it ain't a PHD , but I did forward mirror music concepts as part of my modules, and the head of music was rather impressed.

And I'm suppose to take your word that this is true? I know for a fact that you're a prolific liar. I don't believe anything you say without evidence.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Ever heard of a Higher National Diploma? well, it ain't a PHD , but I did forward mirror music concepts as part of my modules, and the head of music was rather impressed.

And I'm suppose to take your word that this is true? I know for a fact that you're a prolific liar. I don't believe anything you say without evidence.

Are you a head of music Darin?

No, just more knowledgable than you.

QUOTE
Volume one, dear Darin, has left music out of it on purpose, and concentrated on an inner process evident in music scales and beyond.

laugh.gif
So it doesn't address music, but it addresses music scales? laugh.gif

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Volume one, dear Darin, has left music out of it on purpose, and concentrated on an inner process evident in music scales and beyond.

laugh.gif
So it doesn't address music, but it addresses music scales? laugh.gif

Yeah, read it a while back eh? When BDW said words to the effect that he was taking Occidental's word for it? You ain't read Jack you phoney.

Prove it. biggrin.gif
In fact, I have read it. I even have a copy on my computer to reference anytime I feel like pointing out some more of your stupidities.

QUOTE
It's called Retrograde Inversion, part of 12-tone row theory nowadays.

Not quite. There is no "row theory" in music, there are only rows. (There is a 12 tone technique, which basically means using each note in a scale as often as every other in a piece of work.) The phrase "Retrograde Inversion" refers to not only inverting the tonal relationship of a melody, but inverting the temporal relationship as well. So not only does a melody's tonal progression invert, it is also played backwards.
When one is referring merely to inverting the tonal relationships, the proper (remember what "proper" means, it means "commonly accepted and agreed upon", not "correct") term is simply "inversion."

Nice try, though laugh.gif

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
It's called Retrograde Inversion, part of 12-tone row theory nowadays.

Not quite. There is no "row theory" in music, there are only rows. (There is a 12 tone technique, which basically means using each note in a scale as often as every other in a piece of work.) The phrase "Retrograde Inversion" refers to not only inverting the tonal relationship of a melody, but inverting the temporal relationship as well. So not only does a melody's tonal progression invert, it is also played backwards.
When one is referring merely to inverting the tonal relationships, the proper (remember what "proper" means, it means "commonly accepted and agreed upon", not "correct") term is simply "inversion."

Nice try, though laugh.gif

That's why BM is wrong in stating it is not a valid tool. It has been established as such since the time of Schoenberg and Bartok.

Retrograde inversion existed before Schoenberg and Bartok. Schoenberg's contribution to this discussion seems to consist entirely of his creation of the 12 tone technique, which you've conflated with rows and retrograde inversion. The only link between them is that they are both techniques in serialism. Additionally, bm1957 is stating that's it's not a valid tool in physics. He has not once commented on it's musical validity.

QUOTE
I'm using that tool to uncover a process at work, which you have failed to recognize.

Because that which you call a 'process' is not actually a process. It is a result of the specific and various numerlogical, numerical and musical processes you have applied. It does not exist outside of the very specific context of your pdf.
excaza
27th August 2008 - 02:41 PM
Your bolding fails! !sliaf gnidlob ruoY

Bonehead, in order to be really clever you should write your whole book backwards! !sdrawkcab koob elohw ruoy etirw dluohs uoy revelc yllaer eb ot redro ni ,daehenoB
Boneidol
27th August 2008 - 02:43 PM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Aug 27 2008, 02:39 PM)
Liar.
I went ahead and bolded the part where I school you on musical theory, so that we can all see how ignorant you are in this subject, as well. smile.gif


Rearranging existant information into a manner which implies some meaning does not make for original information. It doesn't even make understanding the process easier.


Now that's the most blatant lie you've ever told. The pdf file online contains more references to music than it does even to mathematics.


I guarantee you that those scales have already been written down somewhere else.


Your behavior implies is.


And I'm suppose to take your word that this is true? I know for a fact that you're a prolific liar. I don't believe anything you say without evidence.


No, just more knowledgable than you.


laugh.gif
So it doesn't address music, but it addresses music scales? laugh.gif


Prove it. biggrin.gif
In fact, I have read it. I even have a copy on my computer to reference anytime I feel like pointing out some more of your stupidities.


Not quite. There is no "row theory" in music, there are only rows. (There [B]is a 12 tone technique, which basically means using each note in a scale as often as every other in a piece of work.) The phrase "Retrograde Inversion" refers to not only inverting the tonal relationship of a melody, but inverting the temporal relationship as well. So not only does a melody's tonal progression invert, it is also played backwards.
When one is referring merely to inverting the tonal relationships, the proper (remember what "proper" means, it means "commonly accepted and agreed upon", not "correct") term is simply "inversion."[/B]

Nice try, though laugh.gif


Retrograde inversion existed before Schoenberg and Bartok. Schoenberg's contribution to this discussion seems to consist entirely of his creation of the 12 tone technique, which you've conflated with rows and retrograde inversion. The only link between them is that they are both techniques in serialism. Additionally, bm1957 is stating that's it's not a valid tool in physics. He has not once commented on it's musical validity.


Because that which you call a 'process' is not actually a process. It is a result of the specific and various numerlogical, numerical and musical processes you have applied. It does not exist outside of the very specific context of your pdf.

Well Darni, if you are such an authority, why not answer the questions I posed to "mirror man" Occidental physorg freak over at sciforums?
mirrorPI
27th August 2008 - 02:43 PM
QUOTE (Boneidol+Aug 27 2008, 02:36 PM)
Splendid trolling chaps. Did mommy forget to spank your naughty little butts when you were in your terrible twos? It's all going against you guys. You're representing science is the darkest of image. A little club of bodyguards no doubt. Bodyguards outside a music club protect the owners assets and interests, not music.

So you are the future right? The animal taking over?

The real mirrorPi at sciforums (that is me) already knows who the genius posting at sciforums is, under the name "mirror man". We've all played in the school yards boys. Never grew up did you Occidental?

Anyone aggreeing that you have the right to pretend to be me, post stuff made in the middle of useless debates with you, is the way to conduct science, then I don't see how I've lost out at all.
MjolnirPants
27th August 2008 - 02:47 PM
QUOTE (excaza+Aug 27 2008, 02:41 PM)
Your bolding fails! !sliaf gnidlob ruoY

Bonehead, in order to be really clever you should write your whole book backwards! !sdrawkcab koob elohw ruoy etirw dluohs uoy revelc yllaer eb ot redro ni ,daehenoB

I fixed it, thanks for the heads up! smile.gif

Nice retrograding, by the way. wink.gif
Should I try a full on retrograde inversion? (assign each letter a number, a=1, b=2 etc, then invert those numbers such that z=1, y=2 etc, then convert my post to a numerical form using the first list, then convert it back into letters using the second.)
bm1957
27th August 2008 - 02:47 PM
QUOTE (Boneidol+Aug 27 2008, 02:08 PM)
It's called Retrograde Inversion, part of 12-tone row theory nowadays. That's why BM is wrong in stating it is not a valid tool.

You're a scheming canniving liar.

I categorically stated that I am not in a position to judge any of your work related to music. Lift your face out of the dirt and get off your belly, snake.

QUOTE
Actually,I think it's been about your egos all along. I've consistently said I am a layman. Trying to throw this "genius" at me is just stupid. I wouldn't be here now talking to you if I was.

I think Grumpy's reply sums up my thoughts on that:
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Actually,I think it's been about your egos all along. I've consistently said I am a layman. Trying to throw this "genius" at me is just stupid. I wouldn't be here now talking to you if I was.

I think Grumpy's reply sums up my thoughts on that:
Then why(as a layman) do you assert that we are wrong to criticize the amateurish mistakes and outright mystical BS that fills your book from cover to cover??? That you are right and those who have extensively studied the science are wrong???

Hubris, thy name is EGO TRIP!!!


QUOTE
Had they done so, they would be able to reference each part that is wrong.

I referenced bits from the non-musical parts of your book which were trivial or wrong, you ignored them because I hadn't read the rest.

That's ingenuous.

MjolnirPants
27th August 2008 - 02:55 PM
QUOTE (bm1957+Aug 27 2008, 02:47 PM)
You're a scheming canniving liar.

I categorically stated that I am not in a position to judge any of your work related to music. Lift your face out of the dirt and get off your belly, snake.

In more ways than you have pointed out.
Check out the bolded portions of this post.
His knowledge of musical theory is no more complete than his knowledge of mathematics or physics.
excaza
27th August 2008 - 02:58 PM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Aug 27 2008, 09:39 AM)
And I'm suppose to take your word that this is true? I know for a fact that you're a prolific liar. I don't believe anything you say without evidence.

Sorry, no evidence of the diploma until you read the diploma.
Boneidol
27th August 2008 - 03:08 PM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Aug 27 2008, 02:39 PM)
Liar.
I went ahead and bolded the part where I school you on musical theory, so that we can all see how ignorant you are in this subject, as well. smile.gif


Rearranging existant information into a manner which implies some meaning does not make for original information. It doesn't even make understanding the process easier.


Now that's the most blatant lie you've ever told. The pdf file online contains more references to music than it does even to mathematics.


I guarantee you that those scales have already been written down somewhere else.


Your behavior implies is.


And I'm suppose to take your word that this is true? I know for a fact that you're a prolific liar. I don't believe anything you say without evidence.


No, just more knowledgable than you.


laugh.gif
So it doesn't address music, but it addresses music scales? laugh.gif


Prove it. biggrin.gif
In fact, I have read it. I even have a copy on my computer to reference anytime I feel like pointing out some more of your stupidities.


Not quite. There is no "row theory" in music, there are only rows. (There is a 12 tone technique, which basically means using each note in a scale as often as every other in a piece of work.) The phrase "Retrograde Inversion" refers to not only inverting the tonal relationship of a melody, but inverting the temporal relationship as well. So not only does a melody's tonal progression invert, it is also played backwards.
When one is referring merely to inverting the tonal relationships, the proper (remember what "proper" means, it means "commonly accepted and agreed upon", not "correct") term is simply "inversion."

Nice try, though laugh.gif


Retrograde inversion existed before Schoenberg and Bartok. Schoenberg's contribution to this discussion seems to consist entirely of his creation of the 12 tone technique, which you've conflated with rows and retrograde inversion. The only link between them is that they are both techniques in serialism. Additionally, bm1957 is stating that's it's not a valid tool in physics. He has not once commented on it's musical validity.


Because that which you call a 'process' is not actually a process. It is a result of the specific and various numerlogical, numerical and musical processes you have applied. It does not exist outside of the very specific context of your pdf.

You see Irdna darlin, I still aim to show that it is you that has not been open enough to really understand the ideas expressed. I will end my waste of time here, and trust you have a little portion of memory stored, where the means exist for me to shove you and your pal's opinions back up your posteriors. Even if you don't, I'm more than happy to go and get other opinions, without the input of trolls and hyenas.
Boneidol
27th August 2008 - 03:15 PM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Aug 27 2008, 02:55 PM)
In more ways than you have pointed out.
Check out the bolded portions of this post.
His knowledge of musical theory is no more complete than his knowledge of mathematics or physics.

In your dreams litle hyenas.

Here Dirna, these are the questions I just posed to your bumchum Occidental over at sciforums, where he pretends he is a mirror man:

QUOTE
You'll find this "mirror man" knows nothing about music theory at all. Ask him what the mirror tritone equates to in an E Mixolydian scale, then put through the triangle of keys until a mirror scale emerges. Then to take the arp scale partners through the circle of tones, until from a six note composition emerges a set of mirror transpositions and unconventional chord clusters.
Over to you "mirror man". You can confer with your pal Mpants.



QUOTE (->
QUOTE
You'll find this "mirror man" knows nothing about music theory at all. Ask him what the mirror tritone equates to in an E Mixolydian scale, then put through the triangle of keys until a mirror scale emerges. Then to take the arp scale partners through the circle of tones, until from a six note composition emerges a set of mirror transpositions and unconventional chord clusters.
Over to you "mirror man". You can confer with your pal Mpants.



Here's another mirror music question for you. Can you tell me the new mirror scale that emerges when both forms of the A Melodic Minor scale have retrograde inversion applied to them?


I only expect more aggressive hyena teeth to show themselves.

Nice how Anima Kulture and you have joined forces with Occidental "mirror man" physrog freak over at sciforums. Any more of this and Sapo's Joint will have got itself another off base mission. I'm sure theCod and NOM and Freda Woof won't be too far behind.
MjolnirPants
27th August 2008 - 03:19 PM
QUOTE (Boneidol+Aug 27 2008, 03:08 PM)
You see Irdna darlin, I still aim to show that it is you that has not been open enough to really understand the ideas expressed.

Of course you do, that's a given. It's the claim that you will (or even can) succeed that I dispute. Especially given the fact that you just demonstrated a profound misunderstanding of some relatively simple aspects of musical theory.

QUOTE
Even if you don't, I'm more than happy to go and get other opinions, without the input of trolls and hyenas.

Try to get some from music professors and physicists.
Oh, and bring a camera when you do. I want to see the look on your face when they say the same thing I did. laugh.gif
Boneidol
27th August 2008 - 03:29 PM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Aug 27 2008, 03:19 PM)

Oh, and bring a camera when you do. I want to see the look on your face when they say the same thing I did. laugh.gif

Only if you promise to do likewise Darni, when they say nothing like you have.
I doubt any professor worth their salt would talk like you do. Well, Grumpy perhaps, but then he just cares about bashing fundies nowadays.

Nope, just an unfortunate detour through a land of hyenas.:-)))
orestis
27th August 2008 - 03:32 PM
QUOTE (Boneidol+Aug 27 2008, 11:15 AM)
In your dreams litle hyenas.

Here Dirna, these are the questions I just posed to your bumchum Occidental over at sciforums, where he pretends he is a mirror man:






I only expect more aggressive hyena teeth to show themselves.

Nice how Anima Kulture and you have joined forces with Occidental "mirror man" physrog freak over at sciforums. Any more of this and Sapo's Joint will have got itself another off base mission. I'm sure theCod and NOM and Freda Woof won't be too far behind.


"I only expect more aggressive hyena teeth to show themselves."

Dear Lennie, I mean Lui, (You remind me of a character in Of Mice and Men)

When using "hyenas" as a derogatory term you fail to realize the function they perform in the grand scheme of things. They weed out the weak and stupid.
Boneidol
27th August 2008 - 03:40 PM
QUOTE (orestis+Aug 27 2008, 03:32 PM)

"I only expect more aggressive hyena teeth to show themselves."

Dear Lennie, I mean Lui, (You remind me of a character in Of Mice and Men)

When using "hyenas" as a derogatory term you fail to realize the function they perform in the grand scheme of things. They weed out the weak and stupid.

It's no more than the "crank" calling mafia yobs are all about.

I've realized their intention to hunt down and prey, yes. It's weak and stupid and will lead to their downfall.
MjolnirPants
27th August 2008 - 03:42 PM
QUOTE (Boneidol+Aug 27 2008, 03:29 PM)
Only if you promise to do likewise Darni, when they say nothing like you have.

blink.gif How would me carrying a camera around catch a picture of your face? Are you stalking me?

QUOTE
I doubt any professor worth their salt would talk like you do.

You've not met many professors, then. I have. Music and physics and history.
In fact, I communicate regularly with a history professor via email. I've been encouraged to study physics by physics professors, and I've been taught musical theory by music professors.
I assure you that they all look down upon and have no respect for people who claim to know the subject they teach, but make consistant mistakes in that area.

Oh, for the record? My name is Matt. smile.gif Feel free to use that from now on.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I doubt any professor worth their salt would talk like you do.

You've not met many professors, then. I have. Music and physics and history.
In fact, I communicate regularly with a history professor via email. I've been encouraged to study physics by physics professors, and I've been taught musical theory by music professors.
I assure you that they all look down upon and have no respect for people who claim to know the subject they teach, but make consistant mistakes in that area.

Oh, for the record? My name is Matt. smile.gif Feel free to use that from now on.

When using "hyenas" as a derogatory term you fail to realize the function they perform in the grand scheme of things. They weed out the weak and stupid.

What I find amusing is that it's not even applicable. The sockpuppet army (ASTERIX, Argyll, Dr. Fred, etc) are the only 'hyenas' here. People like you, me, Trippy, Euler, Trout, AN and others perform the role of the lioness, making the kills that the hyenas feed off of.
Boneidol
27th August 2008 - 03:47 PM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Aug 27 2008, 03:42 PM)
blink.gif How would me carrying a camera around catch a picture of your face? Are you stalking me?


You've not met many professors, then. I have. Music and physics and history.
In fact, I communicate regularly with a history professor via email. I've been encouraged to study physics by physics professors, and I've been taught musical theory by music professors.
I assure you that they all look down upon and have no respect for people who claim to know the subject they teach, but make consistant mistakes in that area.

Oh, for the record? My name is Matt. smile.gif Feel free to use that from now on.

QUOTE (orestis+)
When using "hyenas" as a derogatory term you fail to realize the function they perform in the grand scheme of things. They weed out the weak and stupid.

What I find amusing is that it's not even applicable. The sockpuppet army (ASTERIX, Argyll, Dr. Fred, etc) are the only 'hyenas' here. People like you, me, Trippy, Euler, Trout, AN and others perform the role of the lioness, making the kills that the hyenas feed off of.

Ok Mat, I was talking about you taking a picture of your face.


I've met my fair share of profs and academics. This predator/prey mentality is what is new to me. I've made a note of it now.
MjolnirPants
27th August 2008 - 03:51 PM
QUOTE (Boneidol+Aug 27 2008, 03:47 PM)
I've met my fair share of profs and academics.

Again, I just don't believe you.

QUOTE
This predator/prey mentality is what is new to me.

It's not a mentality. It's an analogy. One which you started.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
This predator/prey mentality is what is new to me.

It's not a mentality. It's an analogy. One which you started.

I've made a note of it now.

OOooooOoOoOoOOoOoOOoOooOooOooOooOooo.....
I'm skerd... unsure.gif
orestis
27th August 2008 - 04:01 PM
There is no hope for you Lui. You are desperately holding on to tattered pieces of your ego and you cant learn like that.

Good luck.
Boneidol
27th August 2008 - 04:03 PM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Aug 27 2008, 03:51 PM)






QUOTE
Again, I just don't believe you.


What I find amusing is that it's not even applicable.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Again, I just don't believe you.


What I find amusing is that it's not even applicable.


It's not a mentality. It's an analogy. One which you started.



I assure you that they all look down upon and have no respect for people

QUOTE
OOooooOoOoOoOOoOoOOoOooOooOooOooOooo.....
I'm skerd... unsure.gif


Feel free to use that from now on.
Boneidol
27th August 2008 - 04:23 PM
Worked them out yet Matt?


QUOTE
You'll find this "mirror man" knows nothing about music theory at all. Ask him what the mirror tritone equates to in an E Mixolydian scale, then put through the triangle of keys until a mirror scale emerges. Then to take the arp scale partners through the circle of tones, until from a six note composition emerges a set of mirror transpositions and unconventional chord clusters.
Over to you "mirror man". You can confer with your pal Mpants.


Here's another mirror music question for you. Can you tell me the new mirror scale that emerges when both forms of the A Melodic Minor scale have retrograde inversion applied to them?



Need some help with "Arp" scales? Surely your musical superiority can quickly work out the new mirror scale one can obtain when applying Retrograde Inversion on the two forms of the Melodic Minor scales. I've been writing tunes in this new mirror scale since 1993. You must know which one I mean.
MjolnirPants
27th August 2008 - 05:02 PM
QUOTE (Boneidol+Aug 27 2008, 04:23 PM)
Worked them out yet Matt?

Huh?

Is that from sciforums? I haven't even looked at that thread since my last post there. I find the star trek vs star wars thread much more interesting wink.gif

QUOTE
Surely your musical superiority can quickly work out the new mirror scale one can obtain when applying Retrograde Inversion on the two forms of the Melodic Minor scales.

You can't retrograde a scale, because it's the same scale whether it's ascending or descending. Only a melody. You can, however, invert a scale.
In answer to your question, I believe the inversion of C melodic minor is a C Chakravakam scale, but I'm not sure. I don't have my books here to double check.
Boneidol
27th August 2008 - 05:25 PM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Aug 27 2008, 05:02 PM)
Huh?

Is that from sciforums? I haven't even looked at that thread since my last post there. I find the star trek vs star wars thread much more interesting wink.gif


You can't retrograde a scale, because it's the same scale whether it's ascending or descending. Only a melody. You can, however, invert a scale.
In answer to your question, I believe the inversion of C melodic minor is a C Chakravakam scale, but I'm not sure. I don't have my books here to double check.

You've not understood the question. A new mirror scale can be formed when both forms of the melodic minor have retrograde inversion applied to them. Your C Chakravakam scale is the wrong answer. You need to think past that.


A B C D E F# G# A = A Melodic Minor scale

There is your notes for one of the two forms. Inverting the steps required to make that scale is just the first step. You need the second form that many composers used to descend a given melody with, invert the steps of that scale again, view the results and try to work out a new mirror scale from it all.
Boneidol
27th August 2008 - 05:49 PM
Your C Chakravakam scale is a mixolydian b2 scale, and not a melodic minor mode. The mirror of any melodic minor ascending scale is always another melodic minor ascending scale one tone down. So C Melodic minor mirrored is Bb melodic minor commenced from its second mode..
MjolnirPants
27th August 2008 - 05:50 PM
QUOTE (Boneidol+Aug 27 2008, 05:25 PM)
Your C Chakravakam scale is the wrong answer. You need to think past that.

The formula for a melodic minor scale is W H W W H W* H (W* is an augmented 2nd).
The notes you give are for an ascending melodic minor in A, not a true melodic minor. (otherwise known as a harmonic minor)
So if it's not the Chakravakam scale, then what scale is it? Be careful. I have every intention of checking your answer when I get home, so if you screw up, I will point it out.
Hell, I'm sure I can find the info I need online.
http://74.125.95.104/search?q=cache:W5jigL...clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Yep, the true melodic minor, when inverted gives the Chakravakam scale.

QUOTE
A B C D E F# G# A = A Melodic Minor scale

While that's not the A melodic minor (it's the A ascending melodic monir), you got one thing right, I didn't get the question the way you apparently meant it.
So using the ascending melodic minor, we get the formula W H W W W W H.
It's inversion is the minor 7, b9.

Do you see what I'm doing here? I'm answering your questions honestly (and accurately), even though you're only asking them in order to try to prove you know more than I do. Do you see what happens when I do so? I prove my case.
You should try to do that sometimes.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
A B C D E F# G# A = A Melodic Minor scale

While that's not the A melodic minor (it's the A ascending melodic monir), you got one thing right, I didn't get the question the way you apparently meant it.
So using the ascending melodic minor, we get the formula W H W W W W H.
It's inversion is the minor 7, b9.

Do you see what I'm doing here? I'm answering your questions honestly (and accurately), even though you're only asking them in order to try to prove you know more than I do. Do you see what happens when I do so? I prove my case.
You should try to do that sometimes.

Your C Chakravakam scale is a mixolydian b2 scale, and not a melodic minor mode. The mirror of any melodic minor ascending scale is always another melodic minor ascending scale one tone down. So C Melodic minor mirrored is Bb melodic minor commenced from its second mode.

Wrong.
Boneidol
27th August 2008 - 06:07 PM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Aug 27 2008, 05:50 PM)
The formula for a melodic minor scale is W H W W H W* H (W* is an augmented 2nd).
The notes you give are for an ascending melodic minor in A, not a true melodic minor. (otherwise known as a harmonic minor)
So if it's not the Chakravakam scale, then what scale is it? Be careful. I have every intention of checking your answer when I get home, so if you screw up, I will point it out.
Hell, I'm sure I can find the info I need online.
http://74.125.95.104/search?q=cache:W5jigL...clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Yep, the true melodic minor, when inverted gives the Chakravakam scale.


While that's not the A melodic minor (it's the A ascending melodic monir), you got one thing right, I didn't get the question the way you apparently meant it.
So using the ascending melodic minor, we get the formula W H W W W W H.
It's inversion is the minor 7, b9.

Do you see what I'm doing here? I'm answering your questions honestly (and accurately), even though you're only asking them in order to try to prove you know more than I do. Do you see what happens when I do so? I prove my case.
You should try to do that sometimes.


Wrong.

Umm no, you have it the wrong way round.

The augmented second is associated with the harmonic minor, not melodic minor.

C D Eb F G A B C= C melodic minor = W H W W W W H

C D Eb F G Ab B C = C harmonic minor = W H W W H W* H

That's your first screw up. I know you're just confused by them, so I'll forgive you.

Your Chakravakam scale = C Db E F G A Bb = mixolydian b2

It's not associated with either harmonic nor melodic minor scales. I think it is an Indian scale.

So you are plain wrong in the very first step.

Every musician that knows their scales will correct you so far. Ascending melodic minor in A = A B C D E F# G#A. In classical music it was fashionable (in order to help singers) to flatten the 6th and 7th degree of the scale on the way down = A B C D E F G A , a plain Aeolian mode.

So, try now having the maturity to admit your error. Or would you like a pile of links to show you it?
Try this simple one:

http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/lessons/sca...nor_scales.html

http://www.jazzguitar.be/melodic_minor_modes.html

In fact check out the whole search on these scales:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=mel...le+Search&meta=

From here, having ascertained the correct mirror scales, you still need to work out how I spotted a new mirror scale from all the information.
Boneidol
27th August 2008 - 06:18 PM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Aug 27 2008, 05:50 PM)


Do you see what I'm doing here? I'm answering your questions honestly (and accurately), even though you're only asking them in order to try to prove you know more than I do. Do you see what happens when I do so? I prove my case.
You should try to do that sometimes.



And don't forget I'm only probing you because of what you said earlier:


QUOTE
Especially given the fact that you just demonstrated a profound misunderstanding of some relatively simple aspects of musical theory.


MjolnirPants
27th August 2008 - 06:29 PM
QUOTE (Boneidol+Aug 27 2008, 06:07 PM)
Umm no, you have it the wrong way round.

The augmented second is associated with the harmonic minor, not melodic minor.

You didn't read my post.
I already pointed out that the harmonic minor contains the augmented second. I also pointed out that which you seem unaware of: The ascending and descending melodic minors are variations of the harmonic minor, which is also know as the true melodic minor.

QUOTE
That's your first screw up. I know you're just confused by them, so I'll forgive you.

How can it be a screw up even by your own standards when you agreed with me?
laugh.gif

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
That's your first screw up. I know you're just confused by them, so I'll forgive you.

How can it be a screw up even by your own standards when you agreed with me?
laugh.gif

Your Chakravakam scale  = C Db E  F G  A  Bb = mixolydian b2

What's the formula there? H W* H W W H W. The inversion of the harmonic minor (I'll use the more common terminology, since my use of more technical terminology is obviously confusing you.)

QUOTE
It's not associated with either harmonic nor melodic minor scales. I think it is an Indian scale.

It is an indian scale (I figured the name made that obvious to anyone reading, but apparently not so to you). It's also the inversion of the harmonic minor.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
It's not associated with either harmonic nor melodic minor scales. I think it is an Indian scale.

It is an indian scale (I figured the name made that obvious to anyone reading, but apparently not so to you). It's also the inversion of the harmonic minor.

So you are plain wrong in the very first step.

Wrong. I answered the 'wrong' question. I skimmed the question, then glanced at a keyboard, then came back an answered. I missed your mention of the two forms, which changed the question in my mind. In answer to the question "what is the inversion of the harmonic minor scale?" the correct answer is "the chakravakam scale".

QUOTE
Every musician that knows their scales will correct you so far.

Wrong. Not every musician even knows what we're talking about. Those who do will either make a mistake, or agree with me.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Every musician that knows their scales will correct you so far.

Wrong. Not every musician even knows what we're talking about. Those who do will either make a mistake, or agree with me.

So, try now having the maturity to admit your error.

If you'd read my post, you'd have seen where I already admitted to misunderstanding your question. Why can't you acknowledge the accuracy of the information I provided once you account for that misunderstanding?
Hell, for that matter, why can't you read my posts?

QUOTE
Or would you like a pile of links to show you it?

You still haven't addressed the fact that the chakravakam is the inversion of the harmonic minor (don't forget, the harmonic minor is also known as the true melodic minor!), or that the minor 7, b9 is the inversion of the ascending melodic minor.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Or would you like a pile of links to show you it?

You still haven't addressed the fact that the chakravakam is the inversion of the harmonic minor (don't forget, the harmonic minor is also known as the true melodic minor!), or that the minor 7, b9 is the inversion of the ascending melodic minor.

From here, having ascertained the correct mirror scales, you still need to work out how I spotted a new mirror scale from all the information.

There is no new scale here. It is IMPOSSIBLE for you to produce a new, octave-repeating scale in a 12 tone octave, because all such scales have already been described. I can't do it, either.
If you want to produce a 'new' octave-repeating scale in a 12 tone octave, you need to travel back in time about a thousands years or more.
Boneidol
27th August 2008 - 06:30 PM
Here's some more everyday music theory for you Matt:


QUOTE
If you put a b2 into a G mixolydian scale you'll get (technically) a G mixolydian b2 scale. This is very close to the sound we get from the 7th mode of the melodic minor scale which is basically a mixolydian scale with a b2 and a b6 which, has the best mode name of them all theeeeeeeee.....SUPER LOCRIAN!!!! Tan Ta tata tan tata tan tata!
Well it's one note off! Treat it like a watered down Superlocrian type color.

http://www.alloutguitar.com/lessons/style/...ominants_part_2



So, add the b6 to your mixolydian b2 scale and you get the super locrian mode from the melodic minor.
MjolnirPants
27th August 2008 - 06:34 PM
QUOTE (Boneidol+Aug 27 2008, 06:30 PM)
Here's some more everyday music theory for you Matt:

Have you gone back and read my posts yet?
Did you read this part?
QUOTE
The formula for a melodic minor scale is W H W W H W* H (W* is an augmented 2nd).
The notes you give are for an ascending melodic minor in A, not a true melodic minor. (otherwise known as a harmonic minor)

What about this part?
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The formula for a melodic minor scale is W H W W H W* H (W* is an augmented 2nd).
The notes you give are for an ascending melodic minor in A, not a true melodic minor. (otherwise known as a harmonic minor)

What about this part?
While that's not the A melodic minor (it's the A ascending melodic monir), you got one thing right, I didn't get the question the way you apparently meant it.
So using the ascending melodic minor, we get the formula W H W W W W H.
It's inversion is the minor 7, b9.
Boneidol
27th August 2008 - 06:37 PM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Aug 27 2008, 06:29 PM)
You didn't read my post.
I already pointed out that the harmonic minor contains the augmented second. I also pointed out that which you seem unaware of: The ascending and descending melodic minors are variations of the harmonic minor, which is also know as the true melodic minor.


How can it be a screw up even by your own standards when you agreed with me?
laugh.gif


What's the formula there? H W* H W W H W. The inversion of the harmonic minor (I'll use the more common terminology, since my use of more technical terminology is obviously confusing you.)


It is an indian scale (I figured the name made that obvious to anyone reading, but apparently not so to you). It's also the inversion of the harmonic minor.


Wrong. I answered the 'wrong' question. I skimmed the question, then glanced at a keyboard, then came back an answered. I missed your mention of the two forms, which changed the question in my mind. In answer to the question "what is the inversion of the harmonic minor scale?" the correct answer is "the chakravakam scale".


Wrong. Not every musician even knows what we're talking about. Those who do will either make a mistake, or agree with me.


If you'd read my post, you'd have seen where I already admitted to misunderstanding your question. Why can't you acknowledge the accuracy of the information I provided once you account for that misunderstanding?
Hell, for that matter, why can't you read my posts?


You still haven't addressed the fact that the chakravakam is the inversion of the harmonic minor (don't forget, the harmonic minor is also known as the true melodic minor!), or that the minor 7, b9 is the inversion of the ascending melodic minor.


There is no new scale here. It is IMPOSSIBLE for you to produce a new, octave-repeating scale in a 12 tone octave, because all such scales have already been described. I can't do it, either.
If you want to produce a 'new' octave-repeating scale in a 12 tone octave, you need to travel back in time about a thousands years or more.

What a complete pile of dung. you've just caused mass laugter in the music world.
This is what you said:

QUOTE
The formula for a melodic minor scale is W H W W H W* H (W* is an augmented 2nd).
The notes you give are for an ascending melodic minor in A, not a true melodic minor. (otherwise known as a harmonic minor)


Pile of dung mate. I think any music prof you know must be Pinky or Perky.
Go away and study you little idiot. That's my "justified" insult to you, you friggin MO. Trying to wiggle your way out of it by declaring that kind of BS above is only harming your own learning curve.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The formula for a melodic minor scale is W H W W H W* H (W* is an augmented 2nd).
The notes you give are for an ascending melodic minor in A, not a true melodic minor. (otherwise known as a harmonic minor)


Pile of dung mate. I think any music prof you know must be Pinky or Perky.
Go away and study you little idiot. That's my "justified" insult to you, you friggin MO. Trying to wiggle your way out of it by declaring that kind of BS above is only harming your own learning curve.


There is no new scale here. It is IMPOSSIBLE


Well there you go little narrow-minded boy. Bet you can't wait for volume two now, where I show the new scale and also offer two compositions using it.

Must dash Matt. It's my tuirn to watch a bit of sci-fi now.
MjolnirPants
27th August 2008 - 06:45 PM
QUOTE (Boneidol+Aug 27 2008, 06:37 PM)
What a complete pile of dung. you've just caused mass laugter in the music world.
...
Pile of dung mate. I think any music prof you know must be Pinky or Perky.

How typical. As soon as I demonstrate you to be wrong, you resort to unqualified insults.

QUOTE
Go away and study you little idiot. That's my "justified" insult to you, you friggin MO. Trying to wiggle your way out of it by declaring that kind of BS above is only harming your own learning curve.

It's not justified. You haven't proven anything I said wrong except that the chakravakam scale is not the inversion of the ascending melodic minor, and I not only pointed that out before you did, but showed how it was a claim I made only because I misunderstood your question.
Even if I didn't misunderstand the question, and even if I didn't provide the correct answer the second time, I've still shown your idiocy several times over, through your incorrect (not just improper, this time) use of the word "retrograde" in place of the word "inversion", through demonstrating that you simply made up a term (12 tone row theory), and in a few other ways.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Go away and study you little idiot. That's my "justified" insult to you, you friggin MO. Trying to wiggle your way out of it by declaring that kind of BS above is only harming your own learning curve.

It's not justified. You haven't proven anything I said wrong except that the chakravakam scale is not the inversion of the ascending melodic minor, and I not only pointed that out before you did, but showed how it was a claim I made only because I misunderstood your question.
Even if I didn't misunderstand the question, and even if I didn't provide the correct answer the second time, I've still shown your idiocy several times over, through your incorrect (not just improper, this time) use of the word "retrograde" in place of the word "inversion", through demonstrating that you simply made up a term (12 tone row theory), and in a few other ways.

Well there you go little narrow-minded boy. Bet you can't wait for volume two now, where I show the new scale and also offer two compositions using it.

Give me a 'new' octave-repeating scale in a 12 tone octave. I'll give you the EXISTING name or description. smile.gif
Boneidol
27th August 2008 - 07:00 PM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Aug 27 2008, 06:45 PM)
How typical. As soon as I demonstrate you to be wrong, you resort to unqualified insults.


It's not justified. You haven't proven anything I said wrong except that the chakravakam scale is not the inversion of the ascending melodic minor, and I not only pointed that out before you did, but showed how it was a claim I made only because I misunderstood your question.
Even if I didn't misunderstand the question, and even if I didn't provide the correct answer the second time, I've still shown your idiocy several times over, through your incorrect (not just improper, this time) use of the word "retrograde" in place of the word "inversion", through demonstrating that you simply made up a term (12 tone row theory), and in a few other ways.



QUOTE
Harmonic and Melodic Minor Scales
All of the scales above are natural minor scales. They contain only the notes in the minor key signature. There are two other kinds of minor scales that are commonly used, both of which include notes that are not in the key signature. The harmonic minor scale raises the seventh note of the scale by one half step, whether you are going up or down the scale. Harmonies in minor keys often use this raised seventh tone in order to make the music feel more strongly centered on the tonic. (Please see Beginning Harmonic Analysis for more about this.) In the melodic minor scale, the sixth and seventh notes of the scale are each raised by one half step when going up the scale, but return to the natural minor when going down the scale. Melodies in minor keys often use this particular pattern of accidentals, so instrumentalists find it useful to practice melodic minor scales.

http://cnx.org/content/m10856/latest/

http://www.free-online-piano-lessons.com/p...onic-minor.html




Let's analyse what you said again:


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Harmonic and Melodic Minor Scales
All of the scales above are natural minor scales. They contain only the notes in the minor key signature. There are two other kinds of minor scales that are commonly used, both of which include notes that are not in the key signature. The harmonic minor scale raises the seventh note of the scale by one half step, whether you are going up or down the scale. Harmonies in minor keys often use this raised seventh tone in order to make the music feel more strongly centered on the tonic. (Please see Beginning Harmonic Analysis for more about this.) In the melodic minor scale, the sixth and seventh notes of the scale are each raised by one half step when going up the scale, but return to the natural minor when going down the scale. Melodies in minor keys often use this particular pattern of accidentals, so instrumentalists find it useful to practice melodic minor scales.

http://cnx.org/content/m10856/latest/

http://www.free-online-piano-lessons.com/p...onic-minor.html




Let's analyse what you said again:



The formula for a melodic minor scale is W H W W H W* H (W* is an augmented 2nd).



Wrong. Can you see whny this is wrong? You have given the formula for the harmonic minor.


QUOTE
The notes you give are for an ascending melodic minor in A, not a true melodic minor. (otherwise known as a harmonic minor)


Wrong, I gave the notes for a Melodic minor scale. Can you see how you are confused here?


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The notes you give are for an ascending melodic minor in A, not a true melodic minor. (otherwise known as a harmonic minor)


Wrong, I gave the notes for a Melodic minor scale. Can you see how you are confused here?


Give me a 'new' octave-repeating scale in a 12 tone octave. I'll give you the EXISTING name or description. smile.gif


Here's another hint for you. the new mirror scale is an eight note scale, not standard seven note scale.

I have a book here by a guy with a Russian sounding name (can't remember it offhand), with more scales in it than a fish factory after a major haul. The new mirror scale is nowhere to be seen.



MjolnirPants
27th August 2008 - 07:18 PM
QUOTE (Boneidol+Aug 27 2008, 07:00 PM)
Wrong. Can you see whny this is wrong? You have given the formula for the harmonic minor.

Quote mining. You left out the very next sentence:
QUOTE
The notes you give are for an ascending melodic minor in A, not a true melodic minor. (otherwise known as a harmonic minor)

You are completely unaware of the term "true melodic minor", because of your lack of formal music education. It is an archaic term, not often used today, however any music history course will teach it to you. It is synonymous with "harmonic minor", and any educated musician will think of a harmonic minor when someone says merely "melodic minor" instead of "ascending/descending melodic minor".
The reason for this is that the ascending and descending melodic minor scales are variations of the harmonic minor scale, invented because they contain more natural transitions than the harmonic minor, thus rendering them more suitable for performance by vocals and aserial instruments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melodic_minor...d_melodic_minor

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The notes you give are for an ascending melodic minor in A, not a true melodic minor. (otherwise known as a harmonic minor)

You are completely unaware of the term "true melodic minor", because of your lack of formal music education. It is an archaic term, not often used today, however any music history course will teach it to you. It is synonymous with "harmonic minor", and any educated musician will think of a harmonic minor when someone says merely "melodic minor" instead of "ascending/descending melodic minor".
The reason for this is that the ascending and descending melodic minor scales are variations of the harmonic minor scale, invented because they contain more natural transitions than the harmonic minor, thus rendering them more suitable for performance by vocals and aserial instruments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melodic_minor...d_melodic_minor

Wrong, I gave the notes for a Melodic minor scale. Can you see how you are confused here?

Wrong. You gave me the notes for an ascending melodic minor scale. As I said already, when you say merely "melodic minor", any educated musician will think immediately of a harmonic minor.

QUOTE
Here's another hint for you. the new mirror scale is an eight note scale, not standard seven note scale.

Octatonic scales already exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octatonic_scale

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Here's another hint for you. the new mirror scale is an eight note scale, not standard seven note scale.

Octatonic scales already exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octatonic_scale

I have a book here by a guy with a Russian sounding name (can't remember it offhand), with more scales in it than a fish factory after a major haul. The new mirror scale is nowhere to be seen.

So you can't remember the guy's name, but you know with absolute assurance that not only is your 'new' scale not it, but it contains every named or described scale? laugh.gif
AlphaNumeric
27th August 2008 - 07:38 PM
QUOTE (Boneidol+Aug 26 2008, 01:47 PM)
Peer reviewers give their names away, you know where they are working and their history.

Actually, when you submit a paper to a journal, you never find out who reviewed it. It's to avoid people like truthmost doing this.
Boneidol
27th August 2008 - 08:08 PM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Aug 27 2008, 07:18 PM)
Quote mining. You left out the very next sentence:

You are completely unaware of the term "true melodic minor", because of your lack of formal music education. It is an archaic term, not often used today, however any music history course will teach it to you. It is synonymous with "harmonic minor", and any educated musician will think of a harmonic minor when someone says merely "melodic minor" instead of "ascending/descending melodic minor".
The reason for this is that the ascending and descending melodic minor scales are variations of the harmonic minor scale, invented because they contain more natural transitions than the harmonic minor, thus rendering them more suitable for performance by vocals and aserial instruments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melodic_minor...d_melodic_minor


Wrong. You gave me the notes for an ascending melodic minor scale. As I said already, when you say merely "melodic minor", any educated musician will think immediately of a harmonic minor.


Octatonic scales already exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octatonic_scale


So you can't remember the guy's name, but you know with absolute assurance that not only is your 'new' scale not it, but it contains every named or described scale? laugh.gif

I know what matt. let's both go to a music theory forum, where we can have a nice laugh about your latest stunt here. are you prepared to do so?

When you play a melodic minor, is it a harmonic minor? when you give a formula for a harmonic minor, should I call it melodic minor? You would rather play the role you adopt here. I say we settle it at a music theory forum where people can tell you to stfu. Wanna play away from home?

Now, about the new scale Matt. Do you think that kind of thing not possible? Whether it be new or old, where is your knowledge of it?

yeah, I know octatonic scales exist. What's that got to do with anything? Nine notes scales exist too. Five note and six note scales exist, so what?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.