LOL
Nice one!
Lex van Sante
Op 17 feb 2009, om 14:36 heeft Peter Nightingale het volgende
geschreven:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009, David Tayler wrote:
I only play a toy theorbo in public.
The Lorentz Fitzgerald contractions. Horrible.
dt
The theorbo player last night,
His fingers much faster than light;
He started his play,
In a relative way,
The fall fell the previous night.
(freely adapted from: There was a young lady called Bright)
At 07:47 PM 2/16/2009, you wrote:
And then, since we are in a gravity well, you'll need to account
for the
local curvature of space...
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Clair [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 7:29 PM
To: Lute List
Cc: howard posner
Subject: [LUTE] Theorbo Relativity
While I think that Howard has made an excellent beginning on a
theory
of Relativity of Theorbo Toyness, I think it's
incomplete as it stands. To completely specify whether the
theorbo is
toy or not we need to know if the theorbo is
in motion relative to the listener, the speed, whether the
theorbo is
oriented perpendicular of parallel to the direction of motion (if
parallel, the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction will affect the
string
length) and whether the theorbo is approaching or receding
(the Doppler effect will modify the pitch standard).
You can have hours of fun by guessing exactly what "relatively small
size" makes a theorbo a "toy" under Martin's criteria, then changing
the assumed pitch level and doing it again. Martin misses the fun
because he doesn't acknowledge that pitch is relevant to the
question
of instrument size, which spares him a lot of work with the more
advanced branches of mathematics, such as multiplication and
division.
The part about Martyn's view of what size theorbos I "favor" -- as
if
I actually had theorbo preferences based on size, and there were
someone else on the planet who cared what those preferences were --
is new, I think, and is silly without being funny. As far as I can
tell, if Martyn thought about such things, he would say my theorbo
is
a toy at A92, definitely not a toy at AD0, and probably not a toy
at AA5, before realizing that there was something wrong with his
categorical one-size-fits-all construct. But he doesn't think of
such things. Hence the joke.
--
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
the next auto-quote is:
The gods can either take away evil from the world and will not,
or, being willing to do so, cannot; or they neither can nor will,
or lastly, they are able and willing.
If they have the will to remove evil and cannot, then they are not
omnipotent. If they can, but will not, then they are not benevolent.
If
they are neither able nor willing, they are neither omnipotent nor
benevolent.
Lastly, if they are both able and willing to annihilate evil, why
does it exist?
(Epicurus)
/\/\
Peter Nightingale Telephone (401) 874-5882
Department of Physics, East Hall Fax (401) 874-2380
University of Rhode Island Kingston, RI 02881
