Why Chord Progressions work- Harmonic Glue

[ksjazzguitar]

...Whoa, popular fallacy in sight. There's nothing wrong about Newton's laws, they're still taught in school, they are still the basis of classical mechanics, and almost nothing mechanical in the real world could be properly designed without them. This is the problem with your absolute truth approach, to you it has to be either / or, ergo Einstein somehow refuted Newton, and it isn't so. Einstein was right, so was Newton. Scientists have no problem with this. ...

Sorry, I don't want want to get into a big debate. But how can you say that Einstein did not replace Newton? Newton's equations and understanding of motion were replaced by Einstein. Newton made the mistaken assumption that time and space are constant. Einstein showed that this was false and backed it up with empirical evidence.

The fact that Newton is still taught does not prove that it is correct. It is just "close enough" for most work, but any physicist will tell you that they are in accurate if you want great precision, especially at high speeds or gravities (At least that's what both of my physics teachers taught me.) Sometimes old (and ultimately incorrect) models are taught because they are easier for beginners and "good enough" in some situations. Another example would Bohr's model of the atom - we now know that it is wrong, but we teach it anyway. For example, we know that the atomic shells are not discrete sphere's but are complex probability clouds, most of which are not spherical. (Bohr's discreet spheres also violate Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, among other things.) It also requires incorrect values for fudamental atomic values such as the ground state orbital angular momentum. This model almost works for small atoms but gets increasingly inaccurate for larger atoms. But Bohr's model is still the same one that is taught to everyone in their first chemistry class. Why? Because it is easy for beginners to understand and it is "close enough" for some things, in a very isolated range. The same can be said for Newton's mechanics. But no one is saying that Newton's mechanics are correct - just that they are useful training wheels for beginners and that they can be used as approximations where time and space can be assumed constant because they have not been affected by velocity or gravity.

But Einstein's model is the correct one (at least the best that we have.) It is more accurate than Newton. Newton comes close at low velocities and gravity, but quickly falls apart. Einstein's model is correct everywhere that Newton is correct (actually more so, even if below our ability to measure) and is correct long after Newton's model falls apart. I don't know how you can say that Newton's model is correct - and that's probably why my physics teachers have taught the opposite.

No, I'm not saying that Newton is useless. Again, if you are designing a roller-coaster, you can use Newton's equations because they are close enough - again gravity is low as is velocity. True, you would get more accurate numbers if you used Einstein's equations, you would get more accurate numbers, but all the work would get you an increase in accuracy below your ability to measure - hardly worth it. But that doesn't make Newton correct, just close enough in certain applications.

We make incorrect but useful assumptions all the time. If we drew a large right triangle on the ground and wanted to measure the hypotenuse we would assume that all the angles add up to 180 degrees. But that is only true if the surface is flat. True, in this small case, the surface is close to flat, so it is a good enough approximation, depending on the accuracy that we need. But if we keep increasing the size of that triangle, our calculation will get increasingly inaccurate. It was always inaccurate because it was based on a faulty assumption, but now we can start to see it. So, the original assumption was wrong, but close enough in specific cases, i.e. where the scale relative to the size of the sphere is so small that the curvature does not greatly take us far away from Euclidean geometry. That is the nature of elliptical geometries. But that doesn't make it correct - just "close enough."

Maybe this comes down once again to a disagreement about the meaning of the word "true." You can say that Newton's model is "true" only if you change the meaning of the word "true" to allow "untrue" to fade it to a wishy-washy gray state - the "untrueisms" of the theory do not weaken its "trueness." But that's not how I understand the word "true" - once something been shown to be "untrue" in part, then it can no longer be covered with the mantle of "true." It would be like listening to a perjurers testimony and labeling it "true" because it was true at times. I just don't find that to be a useful definition.

Peace,
Kevin

[JohnRoss]

But that's not how I understand the word "true" - once something been shown to be "untrue" in part, then it can no longer be covered with the mantle of "true."

Don't see why not, lots of things can be "not true" without contradicting "true." Take this sentence, which is clearly both true and grammatical:
Love is a verb.
In that sentence, is love a noun or a verb? If it's a verb, the sentence is not grammatical, if it's a noun, it is "untrue." It's a fun sort of paradox, but that sort of thinking just takes you round in circles.

I just don't find that to be a useful definition.

Is that important, I mean, 'useful' for what, exactly?

When I think of a unicorn, what I am thinking of is certainly not nothing; if it were nothing, then, when I think of a griffin, I should also be thinking of nothing, and there would be no difference between thinking of a griffin and thinking of a unicorn. But there certainly is a difference; and what can the difference be except that in the one case what I am thinking of is a unicorn, and in the other a griffin? And if the unicorn is what I am thinking of, then there certainly must be a unicorn, in spite of the fact that unicorns are unreal. In other words, though in one sense of the words there certainly are no unicorns–that sense, namely, in which to assert that there are would be equivalent to asserting that unicorns are real–yet there must be some other sense in which there are such things; since, if there were not, we could not think of them.

– G.E. Moore, Philosophical Studies, 1922

[ksjazzguitar]

Just because some aspects of a statement might be true, does not make a statement true. That makes it marginally true or conditionally true. Just because someone has not make it clear what part of speech something is to play word games is in no way informative. In you example, most people (with grammatical knowledge) would have put quotes around "love" to indicate that it is a place holder. Most people would simply solve your paradox, that in your sentence, "love" is referring to the word love (reinforced by your topic of grammar), and the sentence can be thought of as a contraction of the real sentence, "The word 'love' is a verb."

But, sorry, sophomoric word game paradoxes don't interest me. I got enough of that in my weed soaked teen years to last me a life time.

But just because something is true in one sense, I think that it is misleading to assume that it is "true." I could say that "planets have moons." But to you that would be correct because it is true in some cases. To me it is only partially true because there are some cases where it is false. Without a clear qualifier, I would have to label that statement "true in some cases, untrue in others." I hope that if some kid put that on his Astronomy 101 exam, he would get it marked wrong.

And I had to finish my last post in rush to get to a gig. All through the gig , there was something that was nagging me that I should have clarified (try thinking about this stuff while trying to remember the chord changes to "Louisiana Fairytale." When I talk about Einstein replacing Newton, I was originally talking about the theory of gravity (where Einstein clearly replaced Newton) and the laws of motion (where one might argue that Einstein merely modified Newton by taking into account the inconstancy of gravity, mass, time, and space.) Of course, Newton did other work that was untouched by Einstein. Again, Newton's gravity and motion are still taught, but mainly because he is a good stepping stone and works "well enough" in most mundane experience.

Again, I think that we are pretty much in agreement about the difference between "law," "hypotheses," and "theory." We're just getting tangled up on the meaning of "true."

Peace,
Kevin

[pingu]

We're just getting tangled up on the meaning of "true."

But that's the interesting bit !
we find that actually nothing is "True" with a Capital T
and nothing is "provable" without relying on other assumptions
and agreements (even arithmatic amazingly !)

They're both just fairytales we tell the kids .........

BTW
I don't say this to damage the credability of the Scientific Method at all
It is needed now more than ever and it is imperative that the public
understands how science works so that for example
closed minded people can't draw an equivalent worth to
ideas of Creationist theory vs Evolutionary Theory.

Nevertheless

How do you define "True" Kevin and Jonross ?

[JohnRoss]

Just because some aspects of a statement might be true, does not make a statement true. That makes it marginally true or conditionally true.

This is like arguing with a bull terrier, and you can't say I haven't told you - use a dictionary, and stop making up your own definitions.

Just because someone has not make it clear what part of speech something is to play word games is in no way informative.

What's with this 'informative,' here? Since when was being 'informative' one of the requirements for a forum post?

In you example, most people (with grammatical knowledge) would have put quotes around "love" to indicate that it is a place holder.

I have to confess that I set you up there, I knew you'd fall for it. No, punctuation marks don't change it.

Most people would simply solve your paradox, that in your sentence, "love" is referring to the word love (reinforced by your topic of grammar), and the sentence can be thought of as a contraction of the real sentence, "The word 'love' is a verb."

No, the sentence is what it is, you can't change it to conform to your view of the universe. I might, conceivably, allow your quotation marks, and hey, as I say, nothing has changed. But if you stick in the words 'the word,' it is a different sentence.

But, sorry, sophomoric word game paradoxes don't interest me. I got enough of that in my weed soaked teen years to last me a life time.

Why don't you just lie down and admit you're dead, then? You aren't arguing because anyone is pointing a gun at your forehead, you're doing it because you don't want anyone else to be more right than you.

But just because something is true in one sense, I think that it is misleading to assume that it is "true." I could say that "planets have moons." But to you that would be correct because it is true in some cases. To me it is only partially true because there are some cases where it is false.

Of course. But if you said "moons belong to planets," you would have said something true. And in that case, I would even allow that putting quotation marks around 'belong' would make it truer still.

...I should have clarified...

Yeah, me too. In my case because, while the two of us seem to be enjoying this discussion, it is obviously totally out of context and I know others sometimes find this stuff bothersome. But having got this far, what the f***. My own clarification is that what is now being called 'classical' mechanics and newer things like relativity and quantum mechanics are different things, though physicists are forever in search of their unified theory. And Newton's laws work for most of our understanding of the universe - I could be wrong, but I have the notion that the entire Apollo series was planned without even touching non-classical mechanics. Einsteinonian stuff may be more true, if you like, because it gives more precise figures when you get to that sixth or six-thousandth decimal place or whatever, but that doesn't make the other wrong and much less 'untrue,' it only makes it less accurate.

What you are trying to do is like pinning a blue note down to an exact frequency. It can't be done, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good note. The truth is not the single thing you want it to be.

[cosmic gumbo]

I had to go put on my boots, this is some deep shit.

Anyone got any hip waders? Or a snorkel? We could be drowning in it....

[JohnRoss]

Anyone got any hip waders? Or a snorkel? We could be drowning in it....

If we've got this far off-topic and you're still with us, either you're interested or you aren't bright enough to stop following the thread. I realize that Kevin's insights are breathtakingly perceptive and unmissable (though misled) and my own prose is hypnotically powerful and my logic irresistible, but, nah, you aren't really interested, are you? You're just faking it. So why don't you just, I dunno, not say anything? It isn't as if this were the only thread on this forum.

[ksjazzguitar]

I'll ignore all the semantic onanism.

...My own clarification is that what is now being called 'classical' mechanics and newer things like relativity and quantum mechanics are different things, though physicists are forever in search of their unified theory.

I think that you are confusing something here. "Unification" does not refer to the unification of classical and relativity/quantum mechanics. First of all "classical" mechanics just differentiates from quantum mechanics. And it's widely understood that the Newtonian understanding of classical mechanics is inaccurate, especially as gravity or velocity increases - that's where relativity comes in. Some people do consider relativistic mechanics as non-classical, but some include it as the refinement of what Newton started and include it as classical mechanics - but again, that depends on what textbook you're reading.

And when physicists talk about "unification" they are talking about either a unified field theory (unifying all fundamental atomic forces into a single field equation) or unifying quantum mechanics and relativity. No one is trying to unify Newtonian mechanics and relativistic mechanics, their relationship is well understood - Newtonian mechanics fails in many situations and relativistic mechanics has yet to fail in any. This has been tested several times and can be found in many places. It started with 1919 eclipse (confirming Einstein's gravity correct and Newton's wrong) and has been confirmed over and over to the present day. Every time you use a GPS, know that they had to use relativistic equations because if they used Newton's, the numbers would have been off and we'd all be driving into lakes. It seems like every year I read a new article about a new test that confirms Einstein. In fairness, Newton was as accurate as he could be with the measurements that he had and the mistaken assumption that time and space are constant. But I'm sure a simple Google or Wikipedia search will find many examples of relativity popping up in real world applications - in situations where the Newtonian approximation no longer works. The same goes for quantum mechanics. We may not see it directly in our day to day lives, but it is very real and has some drastic effects on the world around us. Much modern technology could not function without relativity or quantum mechanics.

And Newton's laws work for most of our understanding of the universe - I could be wrong, but I have the notion that the entire Apollo series was planned without even touching non-classical mechanics.

Yes, but the missions to the moon were manned (allowing in situ adjustment) and did not require perfect precision. They just had to get into orbit and then the astronauts landed the craft. Even so, they were making adjustments along the way. I'd have to do some research, but I'd be surprised if they didn't use relativistic formulas, knowing what nerdy sticklers for details they were. But they may not have needed to, especially since there was human intervention going on and other uncontrollable factors probably had more of an effect (imperfections in trust, friction with the atmosphere, etc.) And the Lunar Laser Ranger experiment (the reflector left by the Apollo and Soviet mission) has been used to once again (can you feel it coming?) confirm Einstein and refute Newton - the moons orbit is predicted by relativistic equations, not by Newton's. Again, Einstein is confirmed to within the precision of the best instrument that we can build - we have yet to build anything accurate or precise enough to challenge relativity.

But things like satellites definitely do require relativity - the Newtonian error gets compounded on each revolution. (I remember doing some of the calculations in my physics class, comparing the two.) Again, if you don't need perfection, Newton is close enough. But unless gravity=0 and velocity=0, Newton is wrong. It has been shown over and over and over. You may as well argue that the earth is flat. No serious scientist doubts this. Newton's equations work OK for low gravity (like earth) and low velocities.

Einsteinonian stuff may be more true, if you like, because it gives more precise figures when you get to that sixth or six-thousandth decimal place or whatever, but that doesn't make the other wrong and much less 'untrue,' it only makes it less accurate.

I can't think of a better definition of "true" and "untrue" - a "true" theory gives good results and an "untrue" one doesn't. The fact that one theory is "sort of" true most of the time and is only "untrue" in some situations - to me that makes it "untrue" - just being true part of the time is not good enough. I'll save "true" for the one that is true all of the time. Again, for me "true" is an absolute - I'll leave the quibbling over it for the lawyers.

And the point isn't that the relativistic equations are more precise but that they are flat-out accurate (we have not been able to measure inaccuracy in them, unlike Newton which is full of holes.) Not just more accurate, they are perfectly accurate as near as we can tell. Even before Einstein, Newton's gravity and motion equations were starting to have problems. To the best of my knowledge, Einstein's have always been accurate within our ability to measure. The last century has been one of continued confirmation of Einstein and increasing refutation of Newton. Can you find me a reputable scientist that says otherwise? I know of none.

Again, Newton works as an approximation (and teaching tool.) Another example - we know that pi is about 3.14. That is an approximation, but the statement "pi=3.14" would be patently false. If I put that on a math test (without qualification) it would be marked wrong. The fact that it is "close enough" for many things does not make it true. The fact that it is easier than doing the Leibniz series to come up with a more accurate number doesn't make it "true." The fact that it may have been once accepted as "true," doesn't make it "true." An approximation, by definition, is not "true" - that's why it's an approximation - it is close to (but no quite) the truth. Newton is an approximation and is false (sometimes drastically so) in cases where gravity and velocity are non-zero - not a very useful range (especially since we are talking about motion and gravity fields.) Einstein is true in every case that we've been able to measure to the accuracy that we can measure.

But I'm tired of this. If the best you can come up with is word games and scientific misinformation and misdirection, then I'm done here. You can have the last word if you want, but I'm outta here - this is just too silly.

Maybe someday we can grab a beer and have this debate in it's proper environment - a poorly lit bar.

Peace,
Kevin

[cosmic gumbo]

On the farm, we use serious shovels like this to move piles of it.

[ksjazzguitar]

Cosmic, I know that for you that passes for "clever" (no matter how many different ways you tell the same joke.) But if it really bothers you that much, why bother reading it? Was it that important for you to go out of your way to add an insult into the mix? At least we were being sincere.

And I'm not aware that anything that we've said is BS, which I usually take as meaning something meant to deceive or worthless. You may find it boring or OT - but to us it is not boring.

Sometimes I think that the only reason that you log on is to throw cryptic insults around and clog up bandwidth with meaningless graphics. Really, you spend more time on your nihilistic pseudo-funny one-liners than actually contributing. What's the point?? Many times, over and over, you've made the point that you don't like thinking or thinkers. You can stop telling us - we know.

If you don't want to participate, then fine - don't. But why the childish need to interject just to throw in a puerile insult? Oh, I'm sorry, I miscounted, that is the third time for this thread.

Peace,
Kevin

[cosmic gumbo]

Anyone ever hear the story about the kettle calling the pot black?

[ksjazzguitar]

If you can show me of an example of where I chose not to participate but just popped my head in to throw an insult without anything constructive, I'll be in your debt. As near as I can tell, that describes the majority of your posts. At least I'm trying to contribute instead of just taking pot shots. If you don't like it, then don't read it. There are threads and sub-threads that don't interest me, so I don't read them - I don't hop in and throw a snide, pseudo-clever insult at the participants.

You tried to interject the same lame insult three separate times into the same thread. It might have been forgivable if you were trying to do something constructive, but just mocking people trying to have an intellectual discussion is not constructive - it's being a troll.

Peace,
Kevin

[cosmic gumbo]

I think Kevin would like me to fit into some little box that would suit his personal vision of how this public forum should be used. Does that seem arrogant to anybody else? If Kevin can come here and feel free to be himself, and express his views, isn't that something the rest of us are entitled to do without being judged? Some folks don't tolerate diversity very well.

[wordsmith]

On the farm, we use serious shovels like this to move piles of it.

Hi, cosmic gumbo!

You think you're funny.

I don't.

[ksjazzguitar]

But the cosmic, the point of a forum is for people to discuss and contribute. This is a "jazz guitar" forum, not a "make childish snide remarks to insult people you disagree with and then run away and hide" forum.

True, my language may get regrettably a little insulting sometimes, but at least it is in the process of trying to make a point in the discussion, not just taking a cheap shot. Some threads, the only "contribution" that you make is to make childish insults. In this thread you made the same childish insult three times.

Really, that kind of behavior would get you booted or at least censured or a more heavily moderated forum.

I guess it's a victory for juvenile insults.

Peace,
Kevin

[wordsmith]

But the cosmic, the point of a forum is for people to discuss and contribute. This is a "jazz guitar" forum, not a "make childish snide remarks to insult people you disagree with and then run away and hide" forum.

True, my language may get regrettably a little insulting sometimes, but at least it is in the process of trying to make a point in the discussion, not just taking a cheap shot. Some threads, the only "contribution" that you make is to make childish insults. In this thread you made the same childish insult three times.

Really, that kind of behavior would get you booted or at least censured or a more heavily moderated forum.

I guess it's a victory for juvenile insults.

Peace,
Kevin

I couldn't have put it better myself. Down on the farm in England, we tell people where to stick their shovel.

[Baltar Hornbeek]

But the cosmic, the point of a forum is for people to discuss and contribute. This is a "jazz guitar" forum, not a "make childish snide remarks to insult people you disagree with and then run away and hide" forum.

True, my language may get regrettably a little insulting sometimes, but at least it is in the process of trying to make a point in the discussion, not just taking a cheap shot. Some threads, the only "contribution" that you make is to make childish insults. In this thread you made the same childish insult three times.

Really, that kind of behavior would get you booted or at least censured or a more heavily moderated forum.

I guess it's a victory for juvenile insults.

Peace,
Kevin

Yeah but, you're still getting plenty of face time. so...it's all good, right?

[JohnW400]

Not to move off topic but , If you don't like when someone throws in a post like Cosmic does then skip over it or use the ignore function on your profile.

[JonnyPac]

Ignoring Kevin, however, would eliminate about 75% of the text on the whole forum. lol.

Keep it fun and positive, guys. We are all real people and students of different levels. Cheers!

***

(KS and JR are actually both on my ignore list. This thread is dead to me know... lol)

[wordsmith]

Not to move off topic but , If you don't like when someone throws in a post like Cosmic does then skip over it or use the ignore function on your profile.

Thanks for that tip!

All gone!

I might start ignoring myself .

[pingu]

Kevin , your post re unified theory etc was a cogent argument
fully in accord with the Scientific Method ......... cool

Sorry JR , but if something is accurate then it is 'true'
(when true = an acurate representation of what we experience)
So if something (eg newtonian mechanics) is measurably inaccurate
then its not true is it ?

Cosmicgrumble , if you can't understand something
you call it BS , this is just childish

[JohnRoss]

Gosh, is this thread still going? I've been ignoring it in the hope that Cosmic would lose interest or find a straw to chew on or an insect with legs he could pull off or something.

- in situations where the Newtonian approximation no longer works. The same goes for quantum mechanics. We may not see it directly in our day to day lives, but it is very real and has some drastic effects on the world around us. Much modern technology could not function without relativity or quantum mechanics.

Not denying any of that.

You may as well argue that the earth is flat. No serious scientist doubts this. Newton's equations work OK for low gravity (like earth) and low velocities.

Id est, Newton's equations work OK for most real world situations, therefore they are true.

I can't think of a better definition of "true" and "untrue" - a "true" theory gives good results and an "untrue" one doesn't.... just being true part of the time is not good enough. I'll save "true" for the one that is true all of the time.

So you admit that your definition is personal and not general. I have tried to refer you to dictionaries and you resist, this is simply not what the word 'true' means, except, apparently, to you. What's more, if you've ever done any experimental work, you know that measurements are buggers, you have to calibrate, all the conditions have to be right, there is an acceptable error and even so you're still going to get outliers, always. This, according to you, disqualifies the whole process. Well, no, when a lab technician puts a blood sample through a machine and the answer comes up X, and the physician uses that as the basis for his diagnosis, neither you nor I will say that that is untrue because it has an error of 2%. And believe me, there is nothing truer than a medical diagnosis. Even if it turns out to be wrong.

The last century has been one of continued confirmation of Einstein and increasing refutation of Newton. Can you find me a reputable scientist that says otherwise? I know of none.

I'm not and have never been arguing with you about how right Einstein was. On the other hand, I don't know of any reputable scientist who would say "Newton was wrong," though this could be because I don't get out enough. But in any case, you are confusing two concepts, or rather four, because of the similarity of the relationships between them - right and wrong, and true and untrue. They aren't the same. Please, buy a dictionary.

You can have the last word if you want, but I'm outta here - this is just too silly.

Ciao.

but if something is accurate then it is 'true'
(when true = an acurate representation of what we experience)
So if something (eg newtonian mechanics) is measurably inaccurate
then its not true is it ?

If something has to be measurably accurate to be true, there is no truth, for there are always, always, limitations to the accuracy of measurements. Accurate does not equate with true.

[pingu]

Hi JR

Would you accept that if the results a law (eg Newtons) predicts are measurably and demonstrably inaccurate then the law
must be untrue or wrong ?

You seem to be saying that Newton and Einstine can both be true

Newton may well be usefull for many design processes in the real world
but that doesn't make it true does it ??

[JonnyPac]

I think Kevin would like me to fit into some little box that would suit his personal vision of how this public forum should be used. Does that seem arrogant to anybody else? If Kevin can come here and feel free to be himself, and express his views, isn't that something the rest of us are entitled to do without being judged? Some folks don't tolerate diversity very well.

I'm right there with you 100%. Keep it fun.

[pingu]

By calling it BS three times in a row ?