The speed of light in sound form

Things that don't belong anywhere else. (Check first).

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

scratch123
Posts: 236
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:18 pm UTC

The speed of light in sound form

Postby scratch123 » Tue Feb 12, 2013 4:41 pm UTC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmPyYJiHLec

This was created by taking the number for the speed of light in the units planck seconds and mapping each number to a key. For example middle c would be 0, the next key to the right would be 1, etc. I have made some more based on other numbers in physics and chemistry so I can post more if anyone is interested.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: The speed of light in sound form

Postby Роберт » Tue Feb 12, 2013 5:03 pm UTC

Didn't we have an existing thread for your quackery?
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=89248
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

scratch123
Posts: 236
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:18 pm UTC

Re: The speed of light in sound form

Postby scratch123 » Tue Feb 12, 2013 7:42 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:Didn't we have an existing thread for your quackery?
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=89248


Except this isn't quackery. In fact I am not the first person to come up with this idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonification. I have seen other people apply sonification to the decay rates of atoms but I decided I was going to try to make something more fundamental.

User avatar
DaBigCheez
Posts: 833
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 8:03 am UTC

Re: The speed of light in sound form

Postby DaBigCheez » Tue Feb 12, 2013 7:54 pm UTC

Again, since you didn't seem to pick up on it last time: It seems as though your "mapping" is based on a base-10 representation of the speed of light, making it have no "fundamental" meaning at all. I could make many possible sequences of notes that are equally "fundamental" just by putting them in different numeric bases. Geiger counters don't have the same problem, because it's just an intensity based on count of events.

I realize that you're not trying to "prove" anything with this, I just don't think it's a very interesting mapping of a constant to a sound, for the aforementioned reason.
existential_elevator wrote:It's like a jigsaw puzzle of Hitler pissing on Mother Theresa. No individual piece is offensive, but together...

If you think hot women have it easy because everyone wants to have sex at them, you're both wrong and also the reason you're wrong.

brenok
Needs Directions
Posts: 507
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:35 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: The speed of light in sound form

Postby brenok » Tue Feb 12, 2013 7:55 pm UTC

What exactly is "the speed of light in the units planck seconds "

scratch123
Posts: 236
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:18 pm UTC

Re: The speed of light in sound form

Postby scratch123 » Tue Feb 12, 2013 8:47 pm UTC

DaBigCheez wrote:Again, since you didn't seem to pick up on it last time: It seems as though your "mapping" is based on a base-10 representation of the speed of light, making it have no "fundamental" meaning at all. I could make many possible sequences of notes that are equally "fundamental" just by putting them in different numeric bases. Geiger counters don't have the same problem, because it's just an intensity based on count of events.

I realize that you're not trying to "prove" anything with this, I just don't think it's a very interesting mapping of a constant to a sound, for the aforementioned reason.


The reason 10 works so well is because it is one of the simplest products of 2 distinct prime numbers. The only one simpler than 10 is 6 but 6 is within certain human memory limits (the 7 plus or minus 2 rule for memory) which would make it too simple. Its also close to the 12 note scale that is popular in music. Other bases near 10 may work as well so if you have a base near 10 you want to try let me know and I will make it.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: The speed of light in sound form

Postby Роберт » Tue Feb 12, 2013 8:50 pm UTC

scratch123 wrote:
Роберт wrote:Didn't we have an existing thread for your quackery?
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=89248


Except this isn't quackery. In fact I am not the first person to come up with this idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonification. I have seen other people apply sonification to the decay rates of atoms but I decided I was going to try to make something more fundamental.

Then what is it? It's certainly not beautiful music.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
Posts: 1374
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: The speed of light in sound form

Postby Radical_Initiator » Tue Feb 12, 2013 9:17 pm UTC

I'd agree that it's not quackery, as quackery often carries with it the connotation of an attempt to defraud. And it's not "wrong", as something being "wrong" would presume that arbitrarily translating numbers into sound has a "right" answer. He took a number, applied a mapping that associates parts of that number to sounds, and then played the sounds. It's something.


But it's just not interesting. I mean, is the algorithm meant to accomplish anything? Geiger-Muller counters alert us to the presence and intensity of radiation. Sonification has an idea behind it that one can restructure some data into a form that is meaningful or useful. But it must be done in such a way as to convey meaning, rather than produce noise. This seems, at best, a novelty. If you could tell me that you can convert the fine structure constant to Judas Priest, sure, I'll chip in $20 for a copy of Scratch and the Physical Constants' debut album "Songs in the Key of Vacuum Permittivity", but other than that, it's basically just "Hey! Look at this!", right?
I looked out across the river today …

User avatar
Schrollini
Posts: 515
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:20 pm UTC

Re: The speed of light in sound form

Postby Schrollini » Tue Feb 12, 2013 9:26 pm UTC

brenok wrote:What exactly is "the speed of light in the units planck seconds "

Dunno, but the speed of light in Planck units is 1. Which means that scratch123 was beaten to this composition by Gary Larson.
For your convenience: a LaTeX to BBCode converter

User avatar
Noc
Put on her robe and wizard hat ALL NIGHT LONG
Posts: 1339
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 7:36 pm UTC
Location: Within a 50 mile radius.
Contact:

Re: The speed of light in sound form

Postby Noc » Tue Feb 12, 2013 9:54 pm UTC

I'm...actually rather disappointed that this is isn't a joke. Conveying information in an audio format is a thing, but conveying a scalar value that's most notable for the fact that it doesn't change as audio by rights should be something akin to John Cage's 4'33", which strikes me as kind of funny. But this isn't that.

There's definitely probably some interesting results to be had by sonifying emission spectra or something. And even what scratch123 did -- just digitizing values and converting them to music notation -- can get you some fun results if you feed it longer strings of data. (See: what PI sounds like. It doesn't provide any particular insight, but it's kind of neat. I'm actually curious to see what, like, a string of Unicode text looks like if look at it as hex values, and I think they're right that something around Base 10 is probably ideal for this: too high a base and you get less repetition, too low and you don't have many distinct notes.) But converting a single, shortish number to musical notation isn't particularly compelling, nor is it particularly "based off the physical properties of light."
Have you given up?

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26207
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: The speed of light in sound form

Postby SecondTalon » Tue Feb 12, 2013 9:57 pm UTC

scratch123 wrote:
DaBigCheez wrote:Again, since you didn't seem to pick up on it last time: It seems as though your "mapping" is based on a base-10 representation of the speed of light, making it have no "fundamental" meaning at all. I could make many possible sequences of notes that are equally "fundamental" just by putting them in different numeric bases. Geiger counters don't have the same problem, because it's just an intensity based on count of events.

I realize that you're not trying to "prove" anything with this, I just don't think it's a very interesting mapping of a constant to a sound, for the aforementioned reason.


The reason 10 works so well is because it is one of the simplest products of 2 distinct prime numbers. The only one simpler than 10 is 6 but 6 is within certain human memory limits (the 7 plus or minus 2 rule for memory) which would make it too simple. Its also close to the 12 note scale that is popular in music. Other bases near 10 may work as well so if you have a base near 10 you want to try let me know and I will make it.

Base 12 works better as it's divisible by six numbers (12, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1), as opposed to 10 which only has four (10, 5, 2, 1).
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

scratch123
Posts: 236
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:18 pm UTC

Re: The speed of light in sound form

Postby scratch123 » Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:08 pm UTC

Radical_Initiator wrote:I'd agree that it's not quackery, as quackery often carries with it the connotation of an attempt to defraud. And it's not "wrong", as something being "wrong" would presume that arbitrarily translating numbers into sound has a "right" answer. He took a number, applied a mapping that associates parts of that number to sounds, and then played the sounds. It's something.


But it's just not interesting. I mean, is the algorithm meant to accomplish anything? Geiger-Muller counters alert us to the presence and intensity of radiation. Sonification has an idea behind it that one can restructure some data into a form that is meaningful or useful. But it must be done in such a way as to convey meaning, rather than produce noise. This seems, at best, a novelty. If you could tell me that you can convert the fine structure constant to Judas Priest, sure, I'll chip in $20 for a copy of Scratch and the Physical Constants' debut album "Songs in the Key of Vacuum Permittivity", but other than that, it's basically just "Hey! Look at this!", right?


Its pretty much just another way to experience light using year ears instead of your eyes. Your experiencing something familiar in a completely different way. Its almost like synthesia. If you make the translation simple enough it isn't really as arbitrary as you think it is. People are great at pattern recognition so they can figure out what its supposed to mean. I have had many people I showed this to in real life tell me that it does sound like light.

User avatar
ConMan
Shepherd's Pie?
Posts: 1667
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 11:56 am UTC
Location: Beacon Alpha

Re: The speed of light in sound form

Postby ConMan » Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:12 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote:
scratch123 wrote:
DaBigCheez wrote:Again, since you didn't seem to pick up on it last time: It seems as though your "mapping" is based on a base-10 representation of the speed of light, making it have no "fundamental" meaning at all. I could make many possible sequences of notes that are equally "fundamental" just by putting them in different numeric bases. Geiger counters don't have the same problem, because it's just an intensity based on count of events.

I realize that you're not trying to "prove" anything with this, I just don't think it's a very interesting mapping of a constant to a sound, for the aforementioned reason.


The reason 10 works so well is because it is one of the simplest products of 2 distinct prime numbers. The only one simpler than 10 is 6 but 6 is within certain human memory limits (the 7 plus or minus 2 rule for memory) which would make it too simple. Its also close to the 12 note scale that is popular in music. Other bases near 10 may work as well so if you have a base near 10 you want to try let me know and I will make it.

Base 12 works better as it's divisible by six numbers (12, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1), as opposed to 10 which only has four (10, 5, 2, 1).

And because the Western musical scale has 12 semitones in it, which would mean that you're actually using all available notes.
pollywog wrote:
Wikihow wrote:* Smile a lot! Give a gay girl a knowing "Hey, I'm a lesbian too!" smile.
I want to learn this smile, perfect it, and then go around smiling at lesbians and freaking them out.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: The speed of light in sound form

Postby Роберт » Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:25 pm UTC

Noc wrote:But converting a single, shortish number to musical notation isn't particularly compelling, nor is it particularly "based off the physical properties of light."

Exactly.

scratch123 wrote:Its pretty much just another way to experience light using year ears instead of your eyes. Your experiencing something familiar in a completely different way. Its almost like synthesia. If you make the translation simple enough it isn't really as arbitrary as you think it is. People are great at pattern recognition so they can figure out what its supposed to mean. I have had many people I showed this to in real life tell me that it does sound like light.


I stand by my use of the term "quackery".
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Noc
Put on her robe and wizard hat ALL NIGHT LONG
Posts: 1339
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 7:36 pm UTC
Location: Within a 50 mile radius.
Contact:

Re: The speed of light in sound form

Postby Noc » Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:27 pm UTC

scratch123 wrote:Its pretty much just another way to experience light using year ears instead of your eyes. Your experiencing something familiar in a completely different way. Its almost like synthesia. If you make the translation simple enough it isn't really as arbitrary as you think it is. People are great at pattern recognition so they can figure out what its supposed to mean. I have had many people I showed this to in real life tell me that it does sound like light.

...except the speed of light isn't a component of how we experience light!

We experience lots of things about light. We experience wavelength and intensity, in the form of brightness and color; we experience an image composed from a number of points arrayed in a two-dimensional field; out brain does a ton of analysis on that raw data, giving us sense of movement, of depth, of discrete objects. When the speed of light is relevant to the way we perceive the world, it manifests as a shift in wavelength -- redshifting and blueshift, as a modifier on one of those other properties.

The scalar value that denotes the speed of light has exactly zero manifestation in the our visual perception of the world. It's an extremely important concept in terms of physics, but in terms of visual experience it's pretty irrelevant.

There's also sorts of awesome stuff you can do to take visual data and synesthetically convert it to audio data. This isn't it. People are telling you that it "sounds like light" because you presented it as a quick series of notes in the upper register of a piano, in a major key, so it sounds light and airy -- if you played the same sequence on a lower register on a cello in a minor key (treating '3' as Eb instead of E, etc), for instance, you'd get something more dark and ominous. People might tell you it sounds like DARKNESS or SPACE instead: that impression is due to the presentation you chose, not the data you processed.
Have you given up?

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: The speed of light in sound form

Postby Роберт » Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:29 pm UTC

Noc wrote:There's also sorts of awesome stuff you can do to take visual data and synesthetically convert it to audio data. This isn't it. People are telling you that it "sounds like light" because you presented it as a quick series of notes in the upper register of a piano, in a major key, so it sounds light and airy -- if you played the same sequence on a lower register on a cello in a minor key (treating '3' as Eb instead of E, etc), for instance, you'd get something more dark and ominous. People might tell you it sounds like DARKNESS or SPACE instead: that impression is due to the presentation you chose, not the data you processed.

Also, because he told them it was derived from light. Bias is VERY powerful in subjective experiences like art.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Noc
Put on her robe and wizard hat ALL NIGHT LONG
Posts: 1339
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 7:36 pm UTC
Location: Within a 50 mile radius.
Contact:

Re: The speed of light in sound form

Postby Noc » Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:33 pm UTC

Also that.
Have you given up?

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: The speed of light in sound form

Postby Роберт » Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:42 pm UTC

Also, the tempo was really fast - making it feel more "light", and because homophones affect our thinking...
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: The speed of light in sound form

Postby eSOANEM » Wed Feb 13, 2013 4:25 pm UTC

scratch123 wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmPyYJiHLec

This was created by taking the number for the speed of light in the units planck seconds and mapping each number to a key. For example middle c would be 0, the next key to the right would be 1, etc. I have made some more based on other numbers in physics and chemistry so I can post more if anyone is interested.


planck seconds aren't a measure of speed. Therefore this is meaningless.

Besides, by definition, the value of the speed of light in planck units is 1.

Radical_Initiator wrote:I'd agree that it's not quackery, as quackery often carries with it the connotation of an attempt to defraud. And it's not "wrong", as something being "wrong" would presume that arbitrarily translating numbers into sound has a "right" answer. He took a number, applied a mapping that associates parts of that number to sounds, and then played the sounds. It's something.


Indeed. But Scratch certainly didn't do it the way they said they did (for the aforementioned reason). In that sense they are wrong.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
Posts: 1374
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: The speed of light in sound form

Postby Radical_Initiator » Wed Feb 13, 2013 7:44 pm UTC

eSOANEM wrote:
Radical_Initiator wrote:I'd agree that it's not quackery, as quackery often carries with it the connotation of an attempt to defraud. And it's not "wrong", as something being "wrong" would presume that arbitrarily translating numbers into sound has a "right" answer. He took a number, applied a mapping that associates parts of that number to sounds, and then played the sounds. It's something.


Indeed. But Scratch certainly didn't do it the way they said they did (for the aforementioned reason). In that sense they are wrong.

Fair enough. And the idea that people recognize "light", like Noc and others have mentioned, has a lot to do with tempo, choice of mapping, and especially whether or not you tell them what it is before you play it. All in all, a meaningless frivolity.
I looked out across the river today …

User avatar
Lostdreams
Posts: 650
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 5:19 pm UTC

Re: The speed of light in sound form

Postby Lostdreams » Wed Feb 13, 2013 8:49 pm UTC

Spoiler:
Image
The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:
TrlstanC wrote:But, I'm still curious, did no one else ever learn about creationism in science class at some point, at least those who went to public school?

Sorry, we just learned science.

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: The speed of light in sound form

Postby eSOANEM » Wed Feb 13, 2013 11:54 pm UTC

Spoiler:
Image
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

scratch123
Posts: 236
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:18 pm UTC

Re: The speed of light in sound form

Postby scratch123 » Thu Feb 14, 2013 5:05 pm UTC

eSOANEM wrote:
scratch123 wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmPyYJiHLec

This was created by taking the number for the speed of light in the units planck seconds and mapping each number to a key. For example middle c would be 0, the next key to the right would be 1, etc. I have made some more based on other numbers in physics and chemistry so I can post more if anyone is interested.


planck seconds aren't a measure of speed. Therefore this is meaningless.

Besides, by definition, the value of the speed of light in planck units is 1.

Radical_Initiator wrote:I'd agree that it's not quackery, as quackery often carries with it the connotation of an attempt to defraud. And it's not "wrong", as something being "wrong" would presume that arbitrarily translating numbers into sound has a "right" answer. He took a number, applied a mapping that associates parts of that number to sounds, and then played the sounds. It's something.


Indeed. But Scratch certainly didn't do it the way they said they did (for the aforementioned reason). In that sense they are wrong.


In order to specify a speed you need a unit of distance and a unit of time. In this case the unit of distance is planck length and the unit of time is seconds.

User avatar
Schrollini
Posts: 515
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:20 pm UTC

Re: The speed of light in sound form

Postby Schrollini » Thu Feb 14, 2013 6:19 pm UTC

scratch123 wrote:In order to specify a speed you need a unit of distance and a unit of time. In this case the unit of distance is planck length and the unit of time is seconds.

Wouldn't it be more logical to use the Planck time instead of seconds?
For your convenience: a LaTeX to BBCode converter

brenok
Needs Directions
Posts: 507
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:35 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: The speed of light in sound form

Postby brenok » Thu Feb 14, 2013 7:49 pm UTC

Schrollini wrote:
scratch123 wrote:In order to specify a speed you need a unit of distance and a unit of time. In this case the unit of distance is planck length and the unit of time is seconds.

Wouldn't it be more logical to use the Planck time instead of seconds?


I believe he thought D mononote would be a bit dull as music.

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: The speed of light in sound form

Postby eSOANEM » Thu Feb 14, 2013 9:57 pm UTC

scratch123 wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:
scratch123 wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmPyYJiHLec

This was created by taking the number for the speed of light in the units planck seconds and mapping each number to a key. For example middle c would be 0, the next key to the right would be 1, etc. I have made some more based on other numbers in physics and chemistry so I can post more if anyone is interested.


planck seconds aren't a measure of speed. Therefore this is meaningless.

Besides, by definition, the value of the speed of light in planck units is 1.

Radical_Initiator wrote:I'd agree that it's not quackery, as quackery often carries with it the connotation of an attempt to defraud. And it's not "wrong", as something being "wrong" would presume that arbitrarily translating numbers into sound has a "right" answer. He took a number, applied a mapping that associates parts of that number to sounds, and then played the sounds. It's something.


Indeed. But Scratch certainly didn't do it the way they said they did (for the aforementioned reason). In that sense they are wrong.


In order to specify a speed you need a unit of distance and a unit of time. In this case the unit of distance is planck length and the unit of time is seconds.


Well, you need a unit of speed. Depending on your choice of basis (in dimension-space), this could require a unit of distance and one of time or it could involve a single unit of speed or it could involve a unit of speed and one of momentum or infinitely many other sets of quantities units of which could be used to define c. Furthermore, you can then choose the scale of each of those units so that each choice of quantity leads to infinitely many choice of units.

Anyway, it is important to note that planck lengths/second is a completely different different thing from "planck seconds" like you said in the first post (which is a common way to refer to the planck time when used as a unit). Furthermore, this still says nothing about anything fundamental about light because only one of the two units you chose is natural. Choosing your unit of time to be natural is actually equivalent to taking your unit of speed to be c in which case this comes out as 1. Just like all your other numerology, this produces arbitrary results.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

User avatar
el matematico
Posts: 113
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 12:20 pm UTC

Re: The speed of light in sound form

Postby el matematico » Fri Feb 15, 2013 4:15 am UTC

People are great at pattern recognition so they can figure out what its supposed to mean.
No, we are terrible at pattern recognition because we see patterns were they aren't. Would you call "great" any testing method that returns lots of false positives?

I have had many people I showed this to in real life tell me that it does sound like light.

I have synesthesia and your sound looks like strings, not light. /anecdotal evidence
This is my blog (in Spanish). It's not perfect, but it's mine. http://falaci.blogspot.com/

User avatar
Carlington
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:46 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia.

The speed of sound in light form

Postby Carlington » Fri Feb 15, 2013 2:39 pm UTC

Image

This was created by taking the number for the speed of sound in the units planck seconds and expressing it as a hex color code. I have made some more based on other numbers in physics and chemistry so I can post more if anyone is interested.
Kewangji: Posdy zwei tosdy osdy oady. Bork bork bork, hoppity syphilis bork.

Eebster the Great: What specifically is moving faster than light in these examples?
doogly: Hands waving furiously.

Please use he/him/his pronouns when referring to me.

User avatar
PolakoVoador
Posts: 1028
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:11 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: The speed of sound in light form

Postby PolakoVoador » Fri Feb 15, 2013 3:35 pm UTC

Carlington wrote:Image

This was created by taking the number for the speed of sound in the units planck seconds and expressing it as a hex color code. I have made some more based on other numbers in physics and chemistry so I can post more if anyone is interested.


This website is pretty cool :)

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: The speed of light in sound form

Postby Роберт » Fri Feb 15, 2013 3:47 pm UTC

el matematico wrote:
People are great at pattern recognition so they can figure out what its supposed to mean.
No, we are terrible at pattern recognition because we see patterns were they aren't. Would you call "great" any testing method that returns lots of false positives?
Yep, depending on the purpose.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26207
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: The speed of light in sound form

Postby SecondTalon » Fri Feb 15, 2013 4:39 pm UTC

el matematico wrote:
People are great at pattern recognition so they can figure out what its supposed to mean.
No, we are terrible at pattern recognition because we see patterns were they aren't. Would you call "great" any testing method that returns lots of false positives?
Yes.. and no?

The issue is that there are patterns where we see them. But the patterns are completely and utterly meaningless, products not of a design but of random happenstance. If you threw a bunch of pebbles or coins or some other small objects on the ground and then looked for how many fell into straight lines, you'd see lots and lots and lots.... because you only need three to be a "straight line of three" and we don't need them perfectly in line to be considered straight enough for the purposes of our eyeballing.

But the odds of no three objects being in a line when you threw a few dozen at the ground is probably higher than the odds of three being in a line.

It doesn't mean we're crap at pattern recognition - we're good at it. We're crap at pattern filtering - we take all patterns to have basically the same weight and meaning when only rarely do they actually matter.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
Menacing Spike
Posts: 2982
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:25 pm UTC
Location: Fighting the Zombie.

Re: The speed of sound in light form

Postby Menacing Spike » Sun Feb 17, 2013 8:24 am UTC

Carlington wrote:Image

This was created by taking the number for the speed of sound in the units planck seconds and expressing it as a hex color code. I have made some more based on other numbers in physics and chemistry so I can post more if anyone is interested.


I took the liberty to note down the 6 last digits of your post number and convert them to RGB.

Now, we can experience it in all its visual glory.

Image

scratch123
Posts: 236
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:18 pm UTC

Re: The speed of light in sound form

Postby scratch123 » Sat Jun 22, 2013 9:51 pm UTC

https://soundcloud.com/chemical-formula

So I finally got around to updating this topic by uploading 4 sounds based on chemical formulas. The best way to explain how this works is with an example using h2o. First I need to convert it to number form. There are 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen so those numbers are obvious. Then I use the number of protons (atomic number) in hydrogen and oxygen which gives me 1 and 8. Then I combine it together to get "21 18". The space represents a slight pause in the sound which separates the atoms into 2 groups. Then I just convert it to a sound using the same method of converting numbers to sounds that I did with the speed of light sound.

screen317
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 7:46 pm UTC

Re: The speed of light in sound form

Postby screen317 » Sun Jun 23, 2013 10:41 pm UTC

Almost sounds as bad as the Schoenberg 2nd Symphony.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: The speed of light in sound form

Postby Роберт » Mon Jun 24, 2013 7:37 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

cphite
Posts: 1277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: The speed of light in sound form

Postby cphite » Tue Jun 25, 2013 9:31 pm UTC

https://soundcloud.com/chemical-formula

So I finally got around to updating this topic by uploading 4 sounds based on chemical formulas. The best way to explain how this works is with an example using h2o. First I need to convert it to number form. There are 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen so those numbers are obvious. Then I use the number of protons (atomic number) in hydrogen and oxygen which gives me 1 and 8. Then I combine it together to get "21 18". The space represents a slight pause in the sound which separates the atoms into 2 groups. Then I just convert it to a sound using the same method of converting numbers to sounds that I did with the speed of light sound.


If you play Cortisone and beta endorphine at the same time, it sounds like Dueling Banjos. I don't know what that means in terms of the underlying framework of the universe; but in terms of this thread, it seems completely appropriate.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests