Are musical notes really exist?

[studiot]

How does that old saying go ?

 

"There's none so blind as won't see"

[altaylar2000]

And even if we discard the fact that we do not see light propagating in space, this still does not negate the fact that the light source reflects another light, as any object

So no matter if we see the emitted light, the reflected light we still see, this is fact

[altaylar2000]

And not only reflected light of its own, but also light from other sources, say from stars

[Ghideon]

18 hours ago, altaylar2000 said:

There are two models of light: wave and particle, there is a hybrid.
But this is invariant to the issue under discussion. I have no personal "constructions" here, what is said about absorption and reflection in any model is the same.

So why do your attempts at explanations deviate so much from the currently accepted models? 

[altaylar2000]

27 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

currently accepted

It is necessary to distinguish the "currently accepted" from the scientific.
Scientific is what follows from experience and facts.
For example, let's touch on the history of the Vikings. It is generally accepted that these were strong warriors who conquered the field of Europe, and facts and archeology say that it was a desert land where traders, robbers and pirates hunted, not a single epic battle has been recorded, and the military ammunition that is found there is identical to the lower class of the Roman infantry, these are large wooden shields and the like. Shortly before the new era, there were still running around with stone axes.
So what should we talk about, conventional or scientific?

And additionally there is nothing contradictory to modern teories in what I say. This touched the question of vision of light. I'm not arguing with Einstein or quantum physics here, so don't worry

[joigus]

8 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

I'm guessing at a typo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overtone

And the idea of "concordance" or "consonance" is cultural, not mathematical.
 

 

Loved your video, but here's where we disagree. I think there are mathematical patterns even in the cultural world. Wherever or whenever we don't understand them, I think it's because the pattern has not been discerned as yet. In that sense, I'm Platonic perhaps. I think mathematics underlies everything.

[Ghideon]

1 hour ago, altaylar2000 said:

It is necessary to distinguish the "currently accepted" from the scientific.
Scientific is what follows from experience and facts.

By currently accepted models I mean the models used in established scientific theories; in the context of this thread and the discussion of light that means classical electromagnetism or branches thereof such as optics, electrical and electronic engineering. And, if necessary, Quantum electrodynamics.

[sethoflagos]

55 minutes ago, joigus said:

Loved your video, but here's where we disagree. I think there are mathematical patterns even in the cultural world. Wherever or whenever we don't understand them, I think it's because the pattern has not been discerned as yet. In that sense, I'm Platonic perhaps. I think mathematics underlies everything.

+1

While there are undeniably many cultural differences in musical traditions around the world, I've yet to hear, or hear of, any that are not firmly rooted in the natural harmonic series.

For neolithic references, Chinese forms are best attested -  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_musicology 

This clearly predates known weatern forms by many millenia.

My favorite example of playing around with acoustic resonances is 

   

[Phi for All]

4 hours ago, altaylar2000 said:

It is necessary to distinguish the "currently accepted" from the scientific.

!

Moderator Note

Mainstream science is our best current explanation for various phenomena, and you haven't responded with any, even after being asked to support your ideas. So this thread is closed, and don't bring it up again. Perhaps you should learn to ask more questions, instead of making things up?