science4ever

Thanks for caring words about my Cancer treatment. I fear the worse the prognose is bad. At most two years left if I take the strongest doses and maybe 6 month to 1 years if I don't want the Chemo treatment. Way too short for an impatient person like myself I want at least 5 years and no treatment. So if God give me that then I will pretend I believe in him "it's easy to show why all the religions that exist can't be true." Yes and even if God does exist. Logically there is no way to know anything about God So I see two options. 1. To see God as a social construct, a kind of group tool for cooperation. Very similar to Political Correctness. A group tool for how to behave. Social norms. Very similar in being extremely moral and righteous and supporting the good side. If you have God on your side or Political Correctness on your side how can you be wrong 2. To see God as a ridiculous concept and do ones best to ridicule it. Many atheists seems to go that route and I did that for many decades too but my hatred felt bad I did not like that I hated the ridiculous believers. I could have been one of them. I actually believed in UFO/Alien reports so who am I to condemn crazy faith? I see God as a kind of Group Placebo Construct that works to a certain degree. An old version of the more modern Political Correctness. Same kind of righteousness. I leave this thread now. Continue if you find it interesting. Good bye!

I trust my thinking and the way I express my thoughts are too confusing. But I stand up for what I wrote there. But I will not defend or explain it further. since I wrote it I have had a cancer operation and will be totally absorbed in surviving. So take it for what it is. one atheists way to try to understand the logic of god. I obviously fail to get it. Your explanation did not help me eitehr So Good bye

DoG wrote I think it is my poor command of words and English that makes it looks like that. I don't want fence sitting at all. Like what the title of the thread indicate. "anti-philosophy atheist?" that is a bit too harsh or too strong but in the right direction. I question the whole set up and I find it likely that the Church due to competition from Philosophers wanted to be best at doing philosophy so they came up with more and more fancy defence of their claims. If one really study how religion works then it is more like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology_of_religion Anthropology of religion These are scientists and claim this that means that everything within religion is a cultural product. The way they refer to God is part of their culture. Each religious tradition has their own particular culture about God. That God is supernatural and that God exists is one such claim within these cultures. It is part of how they set it up logically. The believers are given no choice other than to believe that God is supernatural and that God exist or else they are not accepted as believers. So the whole philosophy thing is part of the rhetoric to defend that culture. It is a kind of logical trap set up by the religious culture to keep the members. Now I am no supporter of Anthropology of religion but they do get that part right. from same wikipedia text they quote on of the most famous guy in the field Clifford Geertz. Sadly he uses an abstract way to define his view on religion but hopefully your Egnlish is on par? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology_of_religion#Definition_of_religion This part is most important I guess " (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic" That is what I refer to as the rhetoric trick that the Church has set up. Factuality. God has to be told about in a way that makes God look very factual. They need to "cloth" the words so God seems uniquely realistic. It is a rhetoric trap they force the believer to follow their logical set up or else they are seen as dissenters and apostates and heretics and as atheists. What the Church do is politics. Keep people in line. I fail to find good words for this but to me it is very embarrassing that atheists play along with this logical trap and make the same forced situation instead of trying to at least see religion from a scientific perspective.

DoG thanks for caring about my confusing text. I only tried to retell one year of daily discussions with atheists So my confusing text shows how utterly bad I am at logic and to structure words. I agree with what you wrote there. But the atheists that I talked to narrowed it down to only two positions. you are either theist or atheist. They most likely knew what you told me here too but they found that irrelevant because they wanted to force me to chose So the whole gnostic and agnostic part was a distraction to them. Let us first get if you are theist or atheist they demanded of me. My position is that there is something very odd about that demand. The believers have no choice at all. Logically they can only claim that God exist or it looks like if they have no faith in God. Their fellow believers would tell them but if you don't believe that God exist then you are atheist and not one of us believers. Do you see how it is set up? The only logical choice a believer can make is to claim that God exist or else they are seen as atheistic towards God. By both theists and atheists. If you read my post above I try to make that claim with many confusing words. what they maybe can do is to say they are De facto theist following Dawkins suggestion? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability#Dawkins.27_formulation Most atheists seems very disappointed with Dawkins saying he fail to get philosophy. That is one of my main points. If atheist philosophy is so difficult that one of the most known atheist fails at it then it is something odd about it? He is an educated man and he has advisors and friends and they should have been able to explain the extreme simple atheist definition that online active atheists make use of. So why does he fail? I suggest it is because there is something very odd about atheist philosophy. My naive point of view is that believers have no logical choice but to make the claim that God exists. If they don't make it then their fellow believers would ask them if the are atheist and atheists would say these believers are atheists in disguise. The logic of theism is set up that way. Church most likely wanted it that way. Philosophy was seen as the most advanced of the sciences at that time. Church wanted to force the doubting believer to chose faith in God and thus they logically set it up so there where only two choices. Then atheists kind of found that easy to adopt and atheists also force the atheists to chose that there is no God. That is why political Gods are of no significance to atheist philosophy. That the political Gods have political power over millions is irrelevant the atheists tells me. The atheists told me that the only thing relevant is if you believe that God exists or not. You are either with us or against us. The same forced situation. Maybe Dawkins wanted to find a solution to that forced situation. Unfortunately he is not a good philosopher and seems to not read online discussions about atheists or else he would know he would get ridiculed for doing such crazy thing as trying to better a perfect set up? Formally if one can use his suggestion then I am De facto atheist. "De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there." I don't like the word agnostic it fails to work among atheists. But my main take on gods if one go outside the formality of definitions is this: 1. Even if a god existed there would be no way for theists or atheists to know that God. 2. There is no evidence for a supernatural God to exist. 3. The only gods that atheists accept as real gods are faith in an existing supernatural God. 4. But even if such a god would exist there would be no way for anybody to know that God. Do you see he it is set up? By definition there is no way to know a supernatural god. By definition such a god can not be known. We are natural beings and can only know about things that are natural. The supernatural we can know nothing about logically by definition. So the whole thing is a kind of rhetoric logical trap set up by Church way back in time when they realized they had to find the best rhetoric availabe at that time and it worked for some thousand of years until Holbach and the other atheists started to see through the logical flaws. Sadly I am very bad at rhetoric and at logical structured text but this trap set up by Church is being reused by atheists to force people to chose an impossible thing. Logically there is no way to know if there exists a god or not. But many cultures have gods and that shows that politically gods can be a kind of social tool. Why would that be irrelevant to atheists? Is that not very odd?

I am extremely bad at logic but active atheists have told me that only philosophy can say anything about the existence of a god and what one can know about such a god. So Ontology what exists and Epistemology what we can know. 1. My fuzzy logic then tells me that there is no way to know if God exists or not? 2. There is logically know way to get any evidence for an existing god or evidence for a non existing god either. the way they have defined god makes God beyond such evidence? 3. So if there exist a god then neither believers nor atheists can know that it exists at all. I wild guess that some theologians have tried to solve this by saying that the Concept God point to a theoretically possible god that may exist so if there is one then the word God point to that real God even if there is no evidence for such a god. I see that as a kind of cheating. Would be more honest if they admited that they are desperate to at all cost postulate the existence of a possible god. Now if my confused brain get's it right then the whole fight between theists and atheists seems rather futile. There is no way to know if a god exists or not. so to ask if somebody believe that god exist seems to be about personal preferences on supporting an old tradition more than about any real God. I mean the believers have no way to know if a god exists or not. So what is the point asking them? Maybe it is more about sorting people into categories. 1. You are a believer in superstitions about gods so I will be skeptical to anything you say. 2. You lack the believe in gods so now we only have thrillions of other superstitious belief to sort out It is pointless is it not? What is not pointless is the political power of religious traditions. The political power of religion is strong enough to make several countries to have restrictions on sexual education and easy to get contraceptices so a lot of woman get more children than they want. Abortion is forbidden or heavily restricted. Seen from politics God is very much in power but the logical atheists tells me that such realities are totally irrelevant to the question on God. To them politically powerful gods are irrelevant. They are only imagined and the logical atheist only care about an "existing" god. Is that not extremely odd? What is the logical answer that we can have any knowledge for an existing god. the only evidence for a god that de facto have impact on our lives are the imagined gods.

Thanks Bill, I've that category before and most likely I did buy that book too. How many of the most active online in forum atheists are aware of it and use it? Now that you remind me then I do remember that I have read it before but I had no spontaneous access to it. I had to be reminded that I have known but then forgotten about it. And Richard wrote that book very long time ago? It confirms my experience that the online active atheists only care about their own preferred definitions and see no value in suggestion neither from Dawkins not you nor from me. To the most active on forum atheists there are statistically only two options. you are either atheist or theist. They don't accept that one can be agnostic only to them one are only agnostic atheist and that is same as atheist. One can be agnostic theist but that is theist to them they have only two categories. I've been an aggressive Anti-theist all my life and that is acknowledge by wikipedia but the on forum active atheists only saw that as another way to say atheist to them there are no separate category anti-theists there are only atheists or theists. So I trust that Richard Dawkins either have no time to read through atheist forums so he was not aware of that nothing he write will have any impact on the active atheists. I go do a google on this definition now De Facto atheist: "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there." if the result is very defferent from what I thought I get back and give links. cool that Dawkins De facto atheist is mention in one of the wiki though. Usually the on forum active atheists don't have high opinion on wiki AFAIK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism I feel rather sure of that the on forum active atheists would complain that Dawkins is no philosopher. Facebook has an automatic entry on De facto atheism how many million atheist are active on Facebook. 56 likes is extremely few is it not? Here is a gerenal Student forum with all kinds of topics it is not an exclusive atheist forum they wrote about 2011 http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1708418 and next in line is from 2010. The Happy Atheist Forum http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=5560.0 Just a former Catholic that introduce himself it created no comment on his use of De facto atheists. My wild guess is that the term is only known to those how care about what Dawkins writes and they seems not to be very active in the most known atheist forums? Am I wrong? did a search on http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/ People know about it through Dawkins but very few seems to support it? Believers admit that if God does not exist then the rest of their Religious culture is built on a land slide. So atheists seems to concentrate on that fact that they make a claim. "I believe that God exists" and then ask for evidence and the believers fail to give evidence that the atheists can accept. My take then is that the claim that God exist is part of the religious tradition. it is a kind of test for to get approved of for to be part of that religious tradition as a believer. If you chose another way to see God than the official view then you are seen as a dissenter a heretic and way back in time that mean you had to be killed and maybe that exist still in some traditions? So to me there is something very odd about the extreme instrumental question. "Do you believe that God exist? " Logically they have no choice. They have to believe to be part of the religious culture. If they chose to not believe they are seen as atheist or as a betrayal of the family tradition. To claim that God exist is required of them they have no choice to not believe. "You are either with us or against us" kind of dichotomy and the "cute" thing is that atheists buy into this dichotomy instead of realising that there are numerous options to chose among one of them is what Dawkins suggested. Not once did any of the active on forum atheists suggest that I made use of Dawkibs definition to them there where only two categories. You either believe in god are are the enemy or you lack believe and are atheist.

I hereby happily ignore you. your answers confirmed how hopelessly far out the philosophy atheists are. I am no supporter of Anthropology because being soft science I don't trust them to have done much experiment but the wikipedia has not been challenged for years so most likely very few see any wrong with the fact side so I make use of it until some new info arrive. If I ever forgot that I ignore you do remind me.

Lightburst I disagree look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism or here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism or here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism So logically one can be a non-philosophical atheist. the only reason they don't mention it is that these atheists love philosophy and can not understand that one can be anti-philosophy. I trust they lack the imagnitation that one can be skeptical to philosophy. when I read what the Anthropology of religion writes then it is clear as sky that humans make up their gods. look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology_of_religion and Clifford Geertz definition further down describe how they create their religion with their God. (4) and (5) describe how they do it. That is how their God appear live and existing to them. Philosophy does not even realize this and are so literal in it's reading that takes religious tradition as if some real god existed outside of their community culture. If one ask philosophy minded atheists about it then they say. "but that is what the believer claim. That their God is existing" That is why Clifford Geertz explain how the believers do it in practice. " (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic" (Geertz 1966)." I wish Geertz had used less abstract language there but it is clear as sky if one get it. Even my poor and confusing English get what Geertz really say.

deductive? Yes I have heard the word before But I don't trust I can live up to being deductive. I maybe is reductive Haha nope I am not deductive maybe would be cool to have that talent or skill but that is not me.

If there exists all these kind of atheists apatheistic atheists, igtheistic atheists agnostic atheists, gnostic atheists then logically there can exist anti-philosophy atheist Or do I do some kind of philosophy error there? Maybe the word anti-philosophy is too strong? What about unwilling atheist, reluctant atheist, don't feel at home with the label atheist? An adjective is a word that describe how the substantive is? Agnostic atheist is adjective plus substantive. Same with reluctant as adjective so how can it be wrong? http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reluctant sounds very logical to me. agnostic atheist describe an atheist that care about epistemology and reluctant describe and atheist that unwillingly has to accept the lable against their personal self identity. [from Latin reluctārī to resist; Have you heard of the Borg? We are the Borg. Resistance is futile! that is how I feel against the philosophical definition that force me to be an atheist agaibst my conscious will. I resist I am unwilling I feel reluctant to accept it. adjective explained like this 1. The part of speech that modifies a noun or other substantive by limiting, qualifying, or specifying and ... So I am a reluctant atheist or unwilling atheist.

Yes each instrument seems to be indivdidual so not predictable from case to case so those that have been measured one hope them where good versions and not just a random sample that maybe where not optimal craftmanship. I will need to test many options until it works to get two octaves that sound at least close to being in tune. It is only for the fun of it so no big deal if it fails in the end. that is a way to learn that it was difficult. When visiting the Music shop I tried to play their P-bone Trombone and I had more difficulty with that one than with my one octave only cylindrical "Cylinetto" just made that term up such does not exist and these have no mouth piece one just use the end of the tube as the MP. One is 300mm long and 1/2 Inch about 13 mm inner tube and the other one 400mm 16mm inner tube 20 mm outer and that sound more like a small clarinett 8 fingerholes on both. But one need to get them conical because they sound too muted lacking the overtones harmonics due to being cylindrical.

Thanks imatfaal Yes I agree there can be a real existing god but that the culture of a community still create their interpreation and try their best to get what that real God really is. So one have kind of the real God that maybe is beyond human grasp and one have the cultural norms and tradiitons on how to relate to that God but that these practices has no way to know anything evidential about God. So the religions and their images and stories about god are human creations even if a real god would exist. Yes philosophy being set up as it is have made itself kind of immune that way. it does not have to care about such things they deal with words and their usages and relate to if the usage is consistent with definitions. it makes me highly skeptic of philosophy. I mean Ludwig Feuerbach 1841 wrote almost identical text as Steward Guthries wrote 2000 and both are anthropology minded and despite that I have been atheist since before 1964 I never heard a philosopher refer to that quote by Feuerbach. Philosophers kind of don't have to care about real people and what goes on in our heads Feuerbach cared about us already 1841. He see God as a projection of man idealized but described to be features of God. Man see himself reflected in God. A projection. a created mirror image. Much appreciated that you cared. Anthropology seems to not be very popular

I guess my confused thinking throw everybody off guard? I try to get the logical implications of this claim they make. That is a quote from Steward Guthrie that he wrote year 2000 and he has reused a very similar text by Ludwig Feuerbach that he wrote 1841. So if it had been something very few agree with then the anthropologists would have asked for some better definition to be in wikipedia by now. If one ask atheists about the definitions of atheism they say that the default weak definition makes everybody into an atheist even if that person don't want to be one. The only way to not be an atheist is to really believe that God exists and are supernatural. Now some atheists are not that categorical they allow theists to construct their gods but the most strident atheists say that if the believer know they believe in a constructed faith then they are not true believers. A true believer have to trust that God is real and logically if all gods are as anthropologys says then all gods by definition are created gods by the community that practice that faith. So does that not make all believers into deceived atheists. The weak atheist definition makes everybody born into an atheist. You can only be theist if you truly believe in a real God you have to be in a kind of delusion not knowing that your religious tradition created the god they believe in. Only these theists are true theists the others know there is no real god only the god their tradition created. Compare with the title of the famous book by Richard Dawkins. the God Delusion. that titles show that atheists see God as a delusion. Logically a believer is a delusional atheist deceived to think that they are true theists. I contrast anthroplogy with atheist philosophy. They have to be consistent or one of them get it all wrong? Now somebody may suggest there are real gods. But that is not what Anthropology says. Every religion ... So if there exists real gods then no religion knows about these real gods.

Seems that Guthrie has quoted this old text http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Anthropology+of+religion So Guthrie at most added the words cultural product and changed worship to practice? that every religion is created by the human community that worships it that every religion is a cultural product created by the human community that practice it so Guthrie build on Feuerbach making the words more modern maybe relating it to Cultural Anthropology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology_of_religion they say this about religion. They also present a definition on religion by Clifford Geertz but I am not clever enough to get that one So I hope somebody read up on Anthropology can confirm that the quote from year 2000 still holds or if the consensus has changed after 13 years? My own naive definition would be like this Religious traditions are expressions of a particular culture and each such culture have their own particular religions and gods. Features of a particular God is part of the way that culture made up the tradition. That means that if their God has features like being alive and real and existing and supernatural and the creator of all there is all such claims are part of how they made that religious tradition their particular way to express that tradition. Sadly I have no talent for to structure such text so my confusing text only makes a mess out of it. What I try to ask for is a confirmation and a better text than the very short one from Guthrie and the very complex one from Geertz. Some comprimize that is for the lay person and not the academic. Edit I guess I have to add that this is Anthropology and not philosophy like ontology or epistemology. I know that atheists love to change everything to logical questions like Do you believe that these gods really exists? An answer from Anthropology of religion then would be " that every religion is a cultural product created by the human community that practices it. Quote from Guthrie 2000 (page 225-6)" the philosophy is part of each particular expression. The religious traditions each of them has their way to deal with the philosophy of their religious tradition one has to ask each one of them. I just believe that every religion is a cultural product created by the human community that practices it. I don't deal with the philosophy part that is for philosophers to do if them find it interesting.

"bugle": item 350712757879 sells for 30 dollar item 200938513000 sells for 60 dollar That is a very good price indeed. They sound cool. I agree that Cornetto/Zink has limits but when you write this Maybe I have not learned what the word really means AFAIK a well built Cornetto does allow that one get one octave higher on each of the holes so at least two registers the low and high a continues scale from g to g to g and the xpert player can play even higher up but that needs much practice. One can see and hear that that is so on the videos they shift between lower and higher in the music pieces while the cylindrical bore that I have on my flute trumpets with fingerholes they can only make the lower register and the longer ones like a Clarinet they can one and a half octave higher on the lowest fingers. Most likely I use the word overblow wrong this guy here name it harmonics instead? http://www.flutetunes.com/articles/flute-harmonics/ I thought the correct word for teh lowest scale was ground tone and the first harmonics being one octave higher is named first harmonic or first over tone or first over blown. Flues are open air so they allow at least the ground tone and the first octave harmonic whole Clarinet and very short Trumpet like instement being closed air tube miss the first harmonic and instead give the one one and a half above being the second harmonic? I know nothing I only guess based on having blown home made flutes since some 50 years Hehe what you dislike about the sound of a Cornetto/Zink is most likely what we love about it. it sounds heavenly to us who love it. so it is a matter of taste most likely. The constrained sound is the charm it has for our ears. Intonation is very hard to master I know. So that maybe is why there is no such for school orchestras The others would scream to the Cornetto play on tune or get lost. wiki says about overblowing this So that is how I understood the term too and ahve used it but I forgot the word fundamental so a good Cornetto should at least have two octaves first the fundamental and then the first overtome scale same note/tone so a fingering for G also gets a G one octave higher but next harmonics gets you to D seven halfnotes higher? and next harmonics to G again Only my wild guessing but that is how flutes acts.

First things first Much appreciated that you share all this knowledge Sadly self centered naivety misled you I thought I told you I gave up on Baroque trumpet Ooops sorry I did not realize my English is this confusing I have already given up on the Baroque. I now concentrate on The Cornetto/Zink instrumenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornett So maybe maybe making the cone out of "brass" would be easiest for me being able to glue the joint together so it get water tight and air tight and easy to make cheap new ones in plastic with same dimension as the "brass" as prototypes? I would need to stabilize the plastic sheets with something thicker so they does not vibrate and wobble and disturbe the "impedance" making tone not stable? Yes there do exists Cornetto/Zink instruments made out of "recin" but in practice it is Epoxy "recin" and they say such need heavy ventilation very dangerous to inhale in a small room like I have. And it easily get bubbles and maybe cost much to use for prototypes. One guy took a 3D printer and made 4 cones and then glued them together to get one long instrument 23 to 24 inches some 600mm But 3D printing cost a lot and take rather long time to print out too but the plastic used seems to be strong I would not trust that I can glue four pieces togher and it looks good after when finished

wow Cool that you know so much. Not many have that insight? Sure i am a nobody on all this but I do have a long experience on building ultra simple versions of Nay or Kaval flutes without mouthpieces and from testing different inner diameters and lengths I know that what you tell me there is reliable knowledge. Some say that one don't need to have the bore linear? Some books describe that it should be linear from mouthpiece to the end. They mention the magic number 1/32 related to the narrow mouthpiece and the wide part in the end where the Clock? should be to make the sound bright. where I live we have outer diameter of the tubes 16 and 20 mm and the inner diameter is about 13 to 16 so they fit rather okay one in the other. So for to make a hasty mockup just for to be able to practice overblowing and to test out where to place the holes I wanted to start with the IEC Halogenfrei some kind of European standard so like you suggested I need to fill the first part of the tube to get about 3 to 6 mm start and then go up to the inner diameter 13 mm and then go up to over 16 mm inner diameter and then open that one up and combine two of these so I get a diameter of some 26 to 32 mm dependent on length of the tube if I make a G tuned one or a higher pitched one. Do you know from your experience or could you understand from your know how what would happen if I let the 3 to 6 nn inner diameter to be several inches long and then change to the 13 mm some inches long and then 16 a few more and then go up to 20 to 30 mm rather steeply? would such irregularity disturbe the nodes too much? does it need to be very smooth changes from one inner diameter to another? The Cormetto that I will make in the end should be a regular one made out of wood but I only have material for one such so I don't want to fail with that one having no experience so I want to make mock up version out of cheap plastic first. And the tubes that I have blown now sounds okay but lack half of the over tones due to it is cylindrical unstead of conical. Sorry to quote this much but what you say nere is very interesting. My little experience from making ultra simplistic versions of Turkish Kaval without mouthpiece confirm thatone need to make them until they sound good. To try to use math and expect a final good result based solely on that math seems to fail. It has to be built on true know how from having built many and having experience on what happens when one do small changes and what to avoid. So much appreciated that you share your knowledge. I used google for to try to find others on my extreme low level that we could encourage each other and share our experiences but that seems not very successful Either you have experts that make them and sell them and they keep that know how secret or you have no interest at all. Or me have failed to use the right key words. I should be rich enough to buy one but there is a one year waiting on the reputed masters so they only make them when they get enough customers on the wait list. As you can see above that is a Funnel for pouring gas into the tank when it is difficult to reach it on some engines? Extra long tip. Cost almost nothing. I made the tip about 3 inch longer and that allowed me to play both the lowest tone and the first overtone while if I use a cylindrical tube then it only play lowest and one and a half octave above So looking crazy but seems to work accoustically at least without holes. I come to think of it as a Cow Horn or Buffalo horn or Shofar horn but with fingerholes. Such where used way back in time here in Scandinavia and they could be played in lower register and maybe on tone on the first overtone. so how can I find out what is most likely to work here Should I make the funnel part a bit shorter or keep that? How many tones may it allow to play on both register? I could maybe fill the funnel with something to make it less steep? Another possibility are the "Drain" tubes for Loo? These comes in two dimensions 32mm and 40 mm but they don't tell if it is inner or outer but the Other tubes did get listed with outer diameter so maybe same thinking here? Taht means that I have 16 mm and 20 mm and 32 mm and 40 and could couple these together and try to make a crazy looking cornetto out of them smooting out the overlap inside using model clay or BeeWax They sell in 1 meter length and cost very little less than 8 dollars.

Much appreciated you shared this. My Tinnitues is two or three high pitched noisy "tones" way about what musical instruments play. Higher then the highest note on the Piano. These two or three tones are close to each other so they create a low freq wobble and they change in phase or pace with the heart beat so I wild guess one hear the flow of blood in the ear??? So like you noticed the only way to get "rid of it" is to ignore that it is there. If one are lucky then after some minutes one don't notice it anymore and suddenly get aware of it hours later. But it sure is there all the time. Very hard to wild guess at what internal dB level it is . The volume is rather annoyingly high. could ot be 35 to 65 dB? How can one find out? Thanks also for the suggestions from Enthalpy on eliminating some sounds by using recording way away from the body. Yes I know much about hum from transformers and from fans too. I worked for a few years as a Radio Repair Assistent helping the Master out in a local shop. When the capacitors got old the hum from the power supply got really annoying so they came to us and we desoldered the old and put a new one and it cure it. I don't know if we have the "Hum" in Sweden. But like Griffon point out it sure could be a big Lorry parked well away for the higher overtones to not reach the room but the low frequency below hearing is strong enough to travel hundreds of yards without much attenuation and is felt like a vibration. i've heard that the extreme low freq "Bangs" of the very big airplane from Paris to New York? Concorde? that bang can be seen on good measurements all over Europe so extreme low frequences travel many hundred of miles. Big twirly rivers can give noises that travel far too. So to find the source for the Hum can be challenging? I shared it here more as an amusement to dream of solving once for all. There are so much wild speculation about what it is. Communication to Sub Marin boats? whatever people has wild fantasies.

Thanks Enthalpy. You are so right about this one i bought a real Kelly 7C MP for to have something to compare with when I later will try to make my own cornetto mouthpieces. The Baroque trumpet that I made following his imstructions has no such small holes and some tones are extremely unstable and waver to and fro wobble style. Sounds terrible. I know too little to find a solution to it and the fact that I am no musician and really want a Cornetto and this Baroque experiment was more for to get somethign going fast so I had some encouraging result but it failed. Mouth pieces are extremely important. A small change in the diameter change the sound dramatically. Just now I experiment with trying to make a PVC tube version of Cornetto but has not found an easy way to make the tapering smooth. I want to combine two 1/2 Inch tubes so they goes from 1/4 about 6mm in the blowing end and then up to some one inch or wider in the other end. that would allow me to eaily bore the holes but it is rather difficult to glue these together and to find a way to fill the blow end with some material taht makes it narrower. So just now I practive my blowing tech by accepting to treat it as a cowhorn them too only use the lowest scale.

will be interesting if some other group get funding to confirm it or to challenge it. I can think of that big churches would want to show that it is the other way around. the more zealous the better brain Yes sorry about the title being confusing. as you say correlation ... So could it be that those that fall for letting them be born again have some vulnerability to be easily persuaded and that that correlate then? Would be cool if they look at mindfulness meditation. Would not such have a heavy impact too. Jus tme wildly speculating obviously. I find the tpoic of religious faith very interesting so what I hope is that science one day can explain exactly what is going on. Religious faith reminds me of a typical human tendency to see oneself in a brighter color than what others do. Many do think they are good at things that if tested would show them are average or low on such things. That kind if blindness or at least bias could be one way that religious faith works. My God is real whíle your god is a false non-existing made up god. As an atheist I even see such tendencies in that many atheists dismiss agnostics very easily.

How does one know if this is real science or not? http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0017006 Religious Factors and Hippocampal Atrophy in Late Life Amy D. Owen, R. David Hayward Harold G. Koenig, David C. Steffens, Martha E. Payne Will be interesting to see if it can be replicated.

Tinnitus is usually very high freqences way above 3KHz but whow knows some 2% may have an unusual variant with muscletension that couple to the eardrum and they maybe hear a lowfrequent hum then. But having gone on for 50 years i trust they would know if it is Tinnitus because usually one have that constant and this "Hum" comes randomly and last for a while and then is gone. So I agree it can be HVAC or why not a Truck or Lorry at a distance and the room accoustics resonate with that frequency of the motor and if it comes randomly somebody visiting and let the motor running while they eat their Fish and chips or Burger whatever and then drive home. I have heard cars that drive people home from late work and they sit a talk a while before the person step out and when the engine has low tourque? then it sometimes resonate with the room I sleep in and the volume get really high which is disturbing. So maybe that is the best answer.

Some most likely say it is imagined and not real. it has gone on for some 50 years or so but seems to come rather randomly which makes it unpredictable. The Hum is a low freqency sound that is most easy to hear inside a quite room and it seems that you have to be past middle age to hear it. Could that indicate it is somethin in our body? Anyway those afflicted are very disturbed by it. Here is a typical Daily Mail retelling of it. It is late here now 10.20PM so I did not feel for finding the most scientific retelling of the story. The conspirators love to suggest wild sources for it. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2380368/Can-hear-The-Hum-How-1-50-world-affected-low-droning-noise-scientists-explain.html So if you are a retired scientist and knows how to set up an acoustic dB meter and love to investigate things close to urban myths then this is the chance to make a different. I don't trust that I have heard it but what I have felt in my body is something very similar not a Hum but a low frequency that is only felt but not heard. Very low period. way below 20Hz I trust it was the plumbing in that house and when I moved to another house they had it too but several houses did never have it or very seldom. it always came at night or very early morning so I wild guessed it is the pumps that regulate the temperatur for the central heating in the house and that when cold water meet warm water the plumbing start to vibrate. so this could be something similar but at a higher frequency that is heard and not felt. So a good dB meter should be able to record it and show level and how it fluktuate.

Thanks sorry for delay in answer. I forgot to set it to send me reminders that I got responses. I bought a Trumpet mouth piece and tested it on different tubes and one very close to what that youtube video show and despite being a MP for beginners it was much harder to get a clear musical sound than what I expected. I will carry on my totally naive experiments.