Scale Length - 24.75" VS 25.5"

  • Thread starter Thread starter miroslav
  • Start date Start date
miroslav said:
How about you put it in reverse and back up the bus 'cuz now you are taking this too seriously. :)

In one of your earlier comments you used the phrase "universe of dependant relationships"...which sounded very much like it came from a discussion about "string theory" as it applies to the cosmos (not guitar scale length)...
…so that's where the segue happened.

You are right…it has NO relevance to the discussion about guitar scale length...
…that's why I said it’s a segue. ;)
(Segues happen a lot on forum threads). :D
Click to expand...

A universe of dependant relationships has nothing to do with string theory.

String theory has to do with particle physics and failed attempts to square the box with general relativity. Dependant relationships have to do with Euclid geometry and explaining real world phenomenon using whole number sections and geometry.

The two concepts although linked by mathematics are thousand of years and several scientific disciplines apart. What is your point in all this. They don't have any relationship to each other. Euclidean concepts do relate to vibrating strings and the concepts used to understand them.:confused:
 
muttley600 said:
A universe of dependant relationships has nothing to do with string theory.

String theory has to do with particle physics and failed attempts to square the box with general relativity.
Click to expand...

Boy...why is this so difficult? :)

String theory attempts to connect particle physics and general relativity as a dependent relationship rather than leave them independent of each other.

You're being WAY too literal for something that was an amusing segue off of a play on words.


The two concepts although linked by mathematics are thousand of years and several scientific disciplines apart. What is your point in all this. They don't have any relationship to each other. Euclidean concepts do relate to vibrating strings and the concepts used to understand them. :confused:
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

THERE IS NO POINT...it was an amusing (though I think it's fading) seque.

Hey...at least you now confirmed that it IS about mathematics. ;)
 
miroslav said:
Boy...why is this so difficult? :)

String theory attempts to connect particle physics and general relativity as a dependent relationship rather than leave them independent of each other.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't..


You're being WAY too literal for something that was an amusing segue off of a play on words.




:rolleyes:

THERE IS NO POINT...it was an amusing (though I think it's fading) seque.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

If understanding what things are is being too literal I apologise but there simply is no link or humour in the connections you seem to think you have made. Sorry but you just don't understand string theory and seem to think you can substitute the term for quantum mechanics. You can't. I also have my doubts that you fully comprehend what general relativity is at least from the context in which you have applied it.

Hey...at least you now confirmed that it IS about mathematics. ;)
Click to expand...
I have confirmed what is about mathematics?

Have you studied particle physics or any physics for that matter?
 
muttley600 said:
...there simply is no link or humour in the connections you seem to think you have made.
Click to expand...

Never mind...your eagerness to lecture must be blocking your sense of humor. ;)
Like I said you are taking all this WAY too seriously.

muttley600 said:
Sorry but you just don't understand string theory...
Click to expand...

I can read as well as most...but since the foremost scientists in the world are still having trouble with it and it has yet to be fully defined/explained, I’m not sure what light you wish to shed on it….but you go for it if you like. :)
I had no desire to get into a deep discussion on string theory...like I said...it was just a play on words….though somehow lost in the mix.

But thanks for the info on scale length...that’s really all I was asking about.
 
miroslav said:
Never mind...your eagerness to lecture must be blocking your sense of humor. ;)
Like I said you are taking all this WAY too seriously.



I can read as well as most...but since the foremost scientists in the world are still having trouble with it and it has yet to be fully defined/explained, I’m not sure what light you wish to shed on it….but you go for it if you like. :)
I had no desire to get into a deep discussion on string theory...like I said...it was just a play on words….though somehow lost in the mix.

But thanks for the info on scale length...that’s really all I was asking about.
Click to expand...
Forgive me if I've got this wrong but so far in this thread I and others have given you the answer you wanted. You have started some other fully divergent tangent that escapes us and I am now lecturing and am at odds with the best scientists in the world?

I haven't tried to enter a debate about string theory, there is no debate to be had about it other than it's ability to explain certain possible quantum phenomena and those have pretty much been dismissed. In fact I think I offered to provide some guidance to you on the subject. That is because I can, I understand it. I'm not a genius I'm just a luthier who happens to be a physicist. I can't help that, it kind of happened over a period spanning decades. I don't really care about that label though. If there was humour in your confusion I apologise for missing it. I shan't bother answering your threads aimed at "luthier types" again.

I would politely suggest that it is you that need to back up the bus a bit..:)

Now can you tell me how and what (I) "confirmed that it IS about mathematics.".:confused:
 
Never mind...it's really not that important...it never was...go back to your whatever.
 
miroslav said:
Apparently scale length has nothing to do with math! ;)
Click to expand...

Right you want to act the cock, fine we shall take the gloves off. Your call.

miroslav said:
So then there is NO mathematical advantage to any particular scale length?
Click to expand...

To this you were given the answer NO by several people. That is because there is no advantage to any numerically derived scale length. The division of the octave is what matters and that is a matter of ratio's not units. Understand maths and you might understand the answers you have been given.

You have since demonstrated a desire to play sophist and be semantic about a subject that you are clueless about. Others here are not clueless about it. You pretend you know shit about it, You don't. If you did you wouldn't have asked the question in the first place.

You can now stop the bus and remove the keys before you steer it into more tight corners.;)
 
Now I KNOW humor is wasted on you! :laughings:

I think you are the one getting a bit dicky here

DUDE....I GOT IT THE FIRST 5 TIMES ---- MATH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCALE LENGTH. :D

Everything after that has been just goofing around and play on words...which I've already pointed out several times...but you keep lecturing for some reason???

Why are you trying to turn this into a serious argument? :confused:
 
miroslav said:
Now I KNOW humor is wasted on you! :laughings:

I think you are the one getting a bit dicky here

DUDE....I GOT IT THE FIRST 5 TIMES ---- MATH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCALE LENGTH. :D

Everything after that has been just goofing around and play on words...which I've already pointed out several times...but you keep lecturing for some reason???

Why are you trying to turn this into a serious argument? :confused:
Click to expand...

Dude I'm playing with you relacks..;)
 
ggunn said:
Chemistry is a Pauling.
Physics is a Bohr.
Click to expand...

If it's pointless it's maths
If it smells it's biology
If it explodes it's chemistry
If it doesn't work it's physics.


Science explained.;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top