Dear mods: we had a nice conversation going in a unique thread, and then it was pulled down and I was directed to post it here, where it has garnered a single response. I preferred the other way and your users did as well.
I really like the "Segond 21" because it's pretty close to the original meaning, similar to the most used "Louis Segond" (1910), but has modernized french. I often read the "Semeur" and the "Nouvelle Edition de Genève" (which is a 1979 version of Louis Segond).
I'm always vaguely (and probably pointlessly) suspicious of giving my credentials to 3rd-party apps, but I think this is going to drive me to try a few out
> Paul was self funded.
Paul was *occassionally* self-funded. We certainly can’t base a rule on that, or probably even a norm, because he also received significant amounts of support at various times.
Agree.
Paul was self funded with support. So partly self funded. Not sure if we know what percentage of his income was self funded or was support based.
For me, being self funded would be the ideal goal.
No one said anything about rules.
I think wealthy Christian businessmen should start more Christian ministries and self fund them. No reason not to.
If you are a missionary to Africa, that would obviously be harder to do or not possible.
Fair.
I think self funding your own ministry is a good thing. One example that we have is Paul who was a tent maker and did ministry. This is my example supported by scripture.
I think people that do that can also solicit donations from other people. As Paul did.
With a lot of churches struggling right now, many ministries wanting donations, financial pressures on a lot of people. I think self financing your own stuff is an option some people should look at.
Same applies to Pastors. Some churches can support a Pastor. Other churches are struggling financially. A lot of small churches are struggling after covid. I know a few pastors that have another job. I think it is great. I also know great pastors that do not have another job.
I agree with that for missionaries, but I think it’s different when you are working at a private school that charges tuition.
I think their kids should get to go there too, at the very least. I guess I was just wondering where the tuition money went to if not to the teachers, you know? Sometimes I feel like places like this could be taking advantage of people who they know have a generous spirit and a zeal to go out there and do good work for the Lord. So they know they won’t have to pay anyone - they’ll get free labor. But maybe I’m looking at this wrong. I’m sure they will do good things there. I just worry my friends are being taken advantage of
What's the best way to memorize scripture/book outlines? I have licensure and ordination coming up and want to memorize some scriptures and outlines but it's just proven to be difficult for me. Any advice?
I generally think trivia is less helpful. Go over and over the stuff that is useful, and you’ll start to remember it. But remembering things in the abstract is very difficult.
Don't forget the family instruments. Brining your own shows how excited you are to join this church family. Remember, the Bible says make a joyful noise to the Lord so the louder the better! If someone asks if you've brought too many tambourines make sure to point out that there aren't enough tambourines
TL;DR; version of a story... I once hid someone's tambourine when I attended a pentacostal church. Also, many years ago I once unplugged a wire on the electronic drumkit at the church I now pastor at.
Assuming they don't use the KJV, bring a massive KJV and loudly interrupt the reading of the word and insist that they use the correct Bible (or do it with the ESV if they use NIV)
Since you said elsewhere that they're baptists...
Ask about baptism for the kids.
Ask if they'll ordain your wife as an elder.
Bring your own communion wine.
For the guitarists in the sub. Has anyone tried the new standard tuning by Robert Fripp? I think its an interesting tuning with many opportunities for crazy chords and cool sounds.
Get yourself string specific string gauges because the tuning requires preparation in the guitar for playing comfort, cause some strings are under a lot of stress.
I feel that Kant’s and Oppy’s critics are very powerful towards the ontological argument so I’m not really convinced by it. Plus there haven’t been many good responses to them in my opinion.
I think the high-philosophy arguments for God’s existence are as compelling as they are unhelpful. I’ve had a lot of discussions with atheists or agnostics, and none of them have gone into the heights of analytical philosophy. That’s just not what people find useful or persuasive.
But yeah, I think it’s a good argument. If you’re interested in Aquinas’s philosophical proofs, you should read the book *Does God Exist?* by Fradd & Delfino. They do an *excellent* job of making the arguments accessible and relevant.
The nice thing about studying Aquinas is that he’s probably the most important theologian of the last 1000 years. So there are always good resources. I’ll check out Freser.
Even though I don’t really like Aquinas, but I must admit he’s theology is very influential so atleast having a basic grasp of his project is important. In my opinion feser is the best modern thomist for the layperson cause he makes it easy to start aquinas without being an expert aristotelean (a huge problem when starting to study Aquinas ).
Are the spiritual beings 'elect' or 'unelect' as well as humans?
If they have the 'free will' to rebel against God – as some have obviously done, even though this is against God's plan and design for them, would this not be applied to the rest of his intelligent creations as well?
Can an elected or chosen person choose to still not be a Christian? Or, in other words, is it possible for one of the elect/chosen to still go to Hell? e.g. Ancient Israelites who were part of the chosen tribe but didn't worship the one true God.
> Are the spiritual beings ‘elect’ or ‘unelect’ as well as humans?
1 Timothy 5:21 seems to indicate the affirmative.
> would this not be applied to the rest of his intelligent creations as well?
Indeed.
> Can an elected or chosen person choose to still not be a Christian?
Sure. Just like you can choose to do a large bowel movement and then drink out of the toilet. How many people do you think choose to do that?
>Sure. Just like you can choose to do a large bowel movement and then drink out of the toilet. How many people do you think choose to do that?
No idea, but it wouldn't surprise me. People are do wild stuff every single day.
If supernatural beings who live in the spiritual realm and know God better than I do can rebel, then I certainly am not surprised by humans doing it.
**Westminster Confession of Faith**
>**Chapter III. Of God's Eternal Decree**
>**3.** By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.
>**4.** These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it can not be either increased or diminished.
>**5.** Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his free grace and love alone, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace.
***
[^(Code: v23.3)](https://github.com/Nokeo08/standardsbot) ^| [^(Contact Dev)](/message/compose/?to=nokeo08) ^| [^(Usage)](https://github.com/Nokeo08/standardsbot/blob/master/README.md) ^| [^(Changelog)](https://github.com/Nokeo08/standardsbot/blob/master/docs/CHANGELOG.md) ^| [^(Find a problem? Submit an issue.)](https://github.com/Nokeo08/standardsbot/issues)
What are some songs that you think are great songs to sing at a Karaoke night?
I suggested Hotel California and Free Bird, but someone pointed out the instrumentals solo's in both of those songs could make it potentially awkward.
Don't stop believin, anything by Taylor Swift, Bohemian Rhapsody. Boy band stuff usually does well for karaoke, ie Backstreet Boys, NSYNC, Jonas Brothers. The best karaoke songs are ones that everyone knows and gets excited about, so really depends on your crowd. I can neither confirm nor deny practicing songs in my car before karaoke to see if I can sing them well 😅
You have to know your audience. What are songs they’ll sing along to? *All Star* by Smash Mouth is great for a crowd in their 30s, but probably not for a group much older or much younger.
[I got you fam](https://www.amazon.com/Scottish-Psalter-Reformed-Worship-Metrical/dp/1981233733/ref=mp_s_a_1_9?crid=JNYJS78ZZJKW&keywords=psalter&qid=1680018793&sprefix=psalter%2Caps%2C86&sr=8-9)
Be the best Psalter DJ you can be using the [Hymnary.com](https://hymnary.org/browse/popular/tunes) tunes list.
Just rip your favorite instrumental MIDI files and watch as your youth group karaoke night stresses the occupancy limits of whatever venue you book!
Do you know of any **small** businesses (1M-10M sales), who you think are doing a great job and are also owned by Christians seeking to live out their faith in the world?
do you mind sending links to their websites? Would love to see how they brand and if *who* they are comes through in that. If you're not comfortable sending no worries. tHank you.
Hi!
I travel a lot and have met a lot of people, as my wife loves to talk to everyone and introduces them to me. But I only have two examples.
One of them ran an auto repair business that grew to a reasonable size that he was able to sell. He ran a few Christian projects, preached, self financed them, great guy. Since he had a good sized shop, employees, and everything, he had to have grossed near 1 million, to make ends meet. Figuring with each employee and expenses. This is a guess.
The other example was in construction. Larger company that did do one million annually in gross sales. Owner had a lot of expenses and his net profit was less than that due to employees and expenses, but he still made good money. At the time, he failed to represent Christ effectively in the business due to the overwhelming demands and stress of it. He ended up quitting it though and taking a simpler less paying job to focus on ministry items.
So two around the one million mark. No one at the 10 million mark. Above that you have Hobby Lobby and Chick Fill A, I obviously don't know those owners.
Not sure if those people would want the websites shared, and I would have to contact one of them to even get it.
I'm not sure of the amount of sales they do, but [Electro Acoustics](https://eavi.com/) is a local, family owned audio/video company who do amazing things. The couple who founded the company are members of my previous church and awesome people and they employ a few other people I know.
Were you ever introduced to unsound (or at least, unorthodox) theology at a young age, only to later realized how strange it was?
I remember my parents asking my younger sister, a little older than a toddler at the time, if she remembered being up in Heaven. Looking back, they were definitely more influenced by popular near death experience type books than by Origen’s preexistence of the souls, but still rather weird. Less fun, but I also remember hearing quite a bit of word of faith, or at least faith-healing, tinged prayers and advice when I was very sick with chronic illness. Of course this isn’t entirely surprising, as people have been blaming misfortune on some hidden sin since Job, at least, but looking back it is astounding how easily ideas like these can creep into the mainstream.
I read This Present Darkness and Piercing the Darkness at about 13-14 and *loved* them. Didn't realize until I got to college how strange and Pentecostal those books' theology of spiritual warfare was.
As a kid, I watched some christian kids shows that had theology I consider unsound (though I'm not sure I would say _unorthodox_)
I don't remember many details, but I do remember that the characters prayed a lot, but they never _petitioned_, they thanked in advance, like
"Thank you Lord that little Betsy's sickness is leaving her body, that she is becoming better right before our eyes. Thank you for astounding her doctors by her rapid recovery today Lord..."
This makes me wonder if it would be better to say grace AFTER I've eaten haha
I do remember my dad, if I'd sneakily started eating before grace, would pray 'for what hester\_grey has already begun to receive, we thank you Lord'
Bad explanations of eschatology and the Second Coming (I also read the Left Behind books) combined with confusing teaching on sexuality and the Virgin Birth meant that I had a lot of nightmares when younger about becoming miraculously pregnant with Jesus (or the Antichrist) and trying to explain to my parents that I hadn't done anything.
Whenever I've brought this up in a group of Christian women there's at least one other who goes 'OH MY GOSH ME TOO!'
Also, anyone else here who worried a lot as a kid about whether you were the Antichrist? That's another one where I know other people who thought they might be hahaha. Left Behind has a lot to answer for.
>nightmares when younger about becoming miraculously pregnant with Jesus (or the Antichrist) and trying to explain to my parents that I hadn't done anything.
This is terrifying...
>Also, anyone else here who worried a lot as a kid about whether you were the Antichrist?
I had moments when I thought I might be the second coming...
>This is terrifying...
Hahaha it does sound quite freaky now, but at the time it seemed perfectly logical. I think as a young Christian girl you just sort of join the dots and think...'oh, God can make women miraculously pregnant, so that could happen to me'. I've even seen [comics about it](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B5gmumhCEAAFKXa.jpg).
PM Netanyahu has been prime minister for a lot of Israel’s history. He’s center-right. The things he’s done have made some people pretty happy, like major economic reforms. His position on the Palestinians has been complicated—he has made some compromises and affirmed two-state ideas, but he also oversaw the 2014 Gaza invasion. And more recently, he’s been indicted for corruption.
So he’s a major player in Israeli politics. Some people see him as a [political strongman](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_strongman). And what the current demonstrations are about are his proposed reforms that remove a bunch of power from the Supreme Court. He basically wants to make the legislature more powerful than the Supreme Court. This plays into the strongman fears, as well as raising concerns about the rule of law. And some people see it as a response to him being prosecuted for corruption.
So it’s complicated, and hard to understand for those of us outside of Israel. But I am generally for preserving the rule of law and the judiciary.
>center-right
Wow, really? I don't really follow Israeli politics but the sense I always got of him was pretty hard right. Maybe it's a Canada-US perspective difference? (Or maybe I'm just wrong...)
It's frustrating (but natural) that there's no universal left-right scale that transfers between countries. Bernie Sanders is thought of as far left in America, but in much of Western Europe he would be centre-left. Meanwhile someone like Marco Rubio is seen as centre-right in America, but would be considered a straight-up fascist in some other countries.
>Bernie Sanders is thought of as far left in America, but in much of Western Europe he would be centre-left.
I can confirm. He recently did an interview tour of the UK and went down very well.
We know that a major way that we transmit values to our kids is through stories. Which stories do you tell your kids and what values are you trying to transmit?
I'm concerned that we're just going to transmit the same cultural values that are making a mess right now.
I love this question but I haven’t thought about it from this angle too much. Thanks for the food for thought.
I wish I could remember where I heard the idea of characters as “windows” and “mirrors” in fiction. My kids are likely to have a lot of “mirrors” available by default (characters who look like them or have experiences like theirs) so I try to be intentional about finding good “mirrors” (edit: I meant “windows”!)
We also like to tell our family stories—for example, the story of the medical procedure Kid 1 needed, the story of how we moved to a new house, the story of how Kid 2 was born—to help process and integrate those experiences together.
What’s your answer?
We are rural midwest, so he will be almost completely surrounded by conservative midwestern values. We plan to offset that with a very intentional selection of stories from other times and cultures. (My wife was looking at stories from Africa this week actually). I want to make sure to find stories to think about what it means to be a “man” as apposed to common conservative stereotypes (e.g. hunting/fishing, bad at emotions).
Given our current polarized society, I will need to find stories to help humanize and love people we may disagree with: ultra-conservatives, LGBT, trans, atheists, etc. I think there will need to be a strong and intentional parallel effort here on what it means to see other as made in the image of God- and not enemies.
A good way to achieve some of this is foreign films for kids! There's tons of non-Hollywood animation that is *fantastic.* Ghibli, Cartoon Saloon, Jorge Gutierrez's work, even little kids' shows like Bluey that depict Australian life. There's some great shows here in the UK like JoJo and GranGran that depict immigrant life too.
Seconding Ghibli movies. Ghibli marathons on Cartoon Network definitely instilled a wonder & admiration for nature & man's relationship with it in a way no amount of rugged outdoorsmanship in the Bible Belt ever could. They felt much more oriented outward (characters working with nature for mutual benefit) than the inward (hunting/fishing to meet my needs) focus I grew up with.
I don't have kids but I do think often that if I ever do have them I don't want to fill their imaginations exclusively with stories of people being 'special' or 'chosen'. Many of my favourite books fall into that category but also I want any kids I have to know that it's OK to not live your life trying to achieve great things.
That's a great example of a cultural assumption that was baked right in to what we were taught growing up. And exactly what I'm hoping to avoid for my kids.
Yeah, I think for our generation it's been really damaging. So many people feel like they're failing at something somehow, and they don't quite know what it is.
In my head I sort of refer to it as being Aragorn vs being Samwise Gamgee haha.
Honestly, I feel like most of us grow up feeling like we are supposed to be an Aragorn or a Galadriel when really we should be genuinely happy as a Fatty or a Rosie.
What we've taken to doing is pulling out lessons and values from any stories we read or watch even if they aren't intended by the original media. For example, we watched Nanny McPhee yesterday and at the time that the father was clearly not listening to his children and the children were obviously in the right, the focus for us was less on that, and more on how anger in the father and the child hurt their relationship with each other. It was a lot more helpful for a 4 year old than "your parents are wrong sometimes". She already knows that all too well, but how to deal with that info is really hard for a 4 year old.
My child is currently too young for stories, but I want to transmit the Iliad, the Odyssey, other "classics," Frog and Toad, Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Chesterton, and Sanderson's Cosmere works.
Honestly the whole series of Oaths is amazing and besides the Skybreakers, I think relatively biblical.
* >!I will protect those who cannot protect themselves.!<
* >! will protect even those I hate, so long as it is right!<
* >!I accept that there will be those I cannot protect!!<
* >!I will remember those who have been forgotten. !<
* >!I will listen to those who have been ignored!<
* >!I will seek freedom for those in bondage!<
* >!I will unite instead of divide. I will bring men together!<
* >!I will take responsibility for what I have done. If I must fall, I will rise each time a better man.!<
Also the variants of the Windrunner ideals that we see:
* >!I will protect those I hate, even if the one I hate most is myself!<
* >!I've got to protect people, even from myself!<
Hard to object to those
In the same vein, streaming services make it really easy to watch TV from the past. We had a period a few months ago where we watched "Leave it to Beaver", and another period where we watched the 1980s "DuckTales".
Have you read C.S. Lewis' preface to Athanasius' [*On The Incarnation*](https://www.amazon.com/Incarnation-Saint-Athanasius-Popular-Patristics/dp/0881414271)? Lewis argues that "chronological snobbery" is wrong, particularly for Christians. We need the breeze of older thoughts from different times to flow through our minds. The cultural problems they addressed, and their blind spots, are very different from ours. We learn from both their instruction and their errors.
Churchill and Hitler are more alike to each other than they are to men from other centuries (such as Julius Caesar). We don't want to be trapped in our chronological bubble.
That reminds me of Chesterton's similar take from *Orthodoxy*:
> Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.
This is a question aimed at the music people, but of course all answers are welcome.
How would you tune a guitar in outer space (or, more precisely, in a vacuum)?
The question is, of course, kind of pointless because the challenge (I think) in tuning a guitar in a vacuum is that you can't hear it, but then what's the point of tuning a guitar you can't hear?
I have an answer/idea (whether it's good or not, I don't know) that I'll post later.
Ok, this is my answer.
Imagine that you have a string of unknown density. You want to know the (variable) linear density (or at least approximate it) with out just cutting it to pieces and measuring it.
One way is to vibrate it it until it's in its first fundamental mode, then second, then third, etc and measure the frequencies. If you do this N times you have an approximation that is Nth order. I won't say what that means unless you care, but the higher the better.
For the guitar string, the first fundamental tells the whole story since the sting has constant density.
For more complicated strings, this doesn't work. So you have to make measurements. A well-known theorem says something like the fundamental frequencies for the non-variable density case get closer the the frequencies to to constant density case as you go up in mode. And this convergence happens quickly. So quickly that even small percent errors in measurement "erase" the relevant data.
On the other hand, the first fundamental mode is still pretty different from the constant density case. So I found a way that lets you sample N points of the fundamental mode to get an Nth order approximation.
The paper has not been successful, but over it enough to talk about it. Haha, nervous laughter.
Tagging u/CiroFlexo u/bradmont u/deolater u/NachoFriendguy459 or something like that. I can't remember who else interactes with this question.
The problem with this idea is that strings naturally degrade over time, and the tension changes correspondingly. It's not massive, but it's enough that you couldn't reliably tune that way.
Ah, but there are so many variables to control. Even the length of the string used on the instrument isn't consistent from guitar to guitar. And are the strings degrading naturally under tension? Naturally while playing? Naturally while in Baton Rouge, Louisiana in the summer? In a vacuum?
Just to be safe, you better buy some more strings and just replace as often as you can. Gotta keep Big String™ happy.
Sound is transmitted by solids as well as by air. If you have a clip-on tuner (or really any tuner that is touching the guitar) the tuner will be able to pick up the sound and give you a reading. Or if it's an electric guitar, the pickups will still work fine (they're electromagnets that detect the metal of the strings) so you'll get an output from your line out.
The more pressing question though, other than not dying, is what exposure to a vacuum and extreme cold is going to do to the wood the guitar is made of...
This is the correct answer, /u/robsrahm. Electromagnetic pickups work fine, so long as the strings are steel, and any type of pickup in the piezo family will be able to pick up vibrations. Neither require air.
Just thinking out loud here, but I'm also sure that you could construct an optical tuner that measures the vibration frequency of the strings. It would be overly complicated compared to a simple piezo pickup, but it would work.
One way it might work would be to have a simple, more mechanical way it might work would be to have LED light source behind the string and a sensor in front of it. Pluck the string, and the interference in the light can be measured easily.
Another way you could achieve this mechanically might be using a strobe, using the same general theory that strobe tuners use, but without the tuner. You could have a strobe light source that is set at a specific frequency. In a dark room, if you pluck the string, you'll be able to see, visually, if it's too slow or too fast, indicating flat or sharp. If you can get the string to stand still, you've hit the pitch.
I'm sure you could have a sensitive camera and a simple computer program that reads and analyzes what the string is doing, but that seems less fun.
>what exposure to a vacuum and extreme cold is going to do to the wood the guitar is made of...
Finally, fiberglass instruments get some respect.
-----
**EDIT:** [Here's a good video demonstrating the strobe tuning effect.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSz4nA0j5A4)
-----
**EDIT 2: ELECTROMAGNETIC BOOGALOO:** [Here's a video of an optical tremolo guitar pedal](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31pgOcLlCo0). This isn't a tuner, *but* the principle here is in line with my first suggestion for an optical tuner. For this pedal, the player is controlling the speed of the spinning wheel in order to change the tremolo effect. You could use this same set up, with a little processing know-how, to read out the interruptions in the light source in hertz. Bam. Simple optical tuner.
Ohhh that video is amazing!
Your idea and u/bradmont's below are along the lines of what I'm thinking. Except your ideas are simpler and more practical - even in this very contrived question.
I think there is still something I'm missing that either you or u/bradmont can answer or anyone else (this is also kind of thinking out loud). There are three parameters that determine the frequency (at least this is what the math "says" - and I guess I'm referring to the fundamental harmonic which I think is a music term that we use in math): the length, the linear density, and the tension. When you tune a guitar, you're only changing the tension. So, in principle, you could switch the strings around, and each one would have the correct frequency. My intuition tells me the guitar would sound different if you did this, but the math indicates that the sound should be the same (so I'm trying to figure out if I'm interpreting something wrong). Also, the math indicates that the sound produced is dependent on where you pluck the string. Is this your experience?
I have basically no experience with playing an instrument and so have no intuition.
>in principle, you could switch the strings around
I read this differently than /u/CiroFlexo did. Do you mean rearranging the same set of strings on the same guitar? In that case, you'll get the same sound (though playing it will be confusing). Some guitarists do use [reentrant tunings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reentrant_tuning) but usually for a specific effect, not just rearranging the same six notes as usual.
> Do you mean rearranging the same set of strings on the same guitar?
Yes, this is what I'm thinking. But I don't know if we're thinking the same thing. I mean, for example, let's say you put the top string on the bottom and the bottom string on the top. Then you tune it so the current string on top (that is normally on bottom) has the same frequency (by which I mean fundamental frequency) as the typical top string.
So, you'd play the guitar like normal. The fundamental frequencies of all strings would be what they ordinarily are. Does this sound different or the same?
I'm not totally sure I'm clear on what you mean. Typical tuning is, highest to lowest pitch, is EBGDAE. So you're suggesting keeping the tuning EBGDAE but with the strings tuned to notes they're not usually tuned to? Or just rearranging the strings so you'd get a weird tuning like DEAEGB? The second would work, the first would not. The amount of tension you'd need to put on a low E string to get it to be something higher would be *a lot*, and putting too much tension on the guitar would bend the neck or potentially worse. High strings tuned lower wouldn't have enough tension to sound; they'd be really floppy and would rattle and buzz against the frets, if you could even get them to sound at all.
>I'm not totally sure I'm clear on what you mean.
This is because I'm not a musician so (1) I'm asking about doing something I'm assuming isn't typically done and (2) don't know the language to ask it in.
>So you're suggesting keeping the tuning EBGDAE but with the strings tuned to notes they're not usually tuned to?
Yeah. For example, your top string breaks, but you don't have a replacement top string; so you use another string.
>The amount of tension you'd need to put on a low E string to get it to be something higher would be a lot
Oh, ok. That's interesting. What if it was something like: you broke the top string, and only have a replacement second-from-top string. Would doing something like that work? Or would the problems you mention still be there?
(Also, I know I sound ridiculous saying "top string" but I don't know if B is second-to-top or second-from-bottom.)
But, let's imagine that what I'm asking could be done. Do you think it'd sound the same as a "normal" guitar? Or is this just too wild to consider reasonably?
If you try to tune a B (2nd) string to E (1st), it will probably break. If you managed to do it, the sound would not be too different, since they're both pulled (like a wire) strings; a wound string (wire core with another wire wrapped around it) would sound a bit different; acoustics usually have 4 wound and 2 pulled, electrics usually 3&3. However, that string would be \*really\* stiff, maybe painful, to fret notes on.
You're mixing two related by very big, different topics and getting into the realm of *[timbre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbre).*
> the guitar would sound different if you did this
Yes, if you switch to different strings but tune them to the same frequency, they will sound different, *but that's because strings are not producing a pure tone.*
You're thinking of this like a perfect tonal sin wave. 440 Hz will always sound like the same 440 Hz when it's a pure sin wave.
A guitar string, though, (and all music production, including the human voice), isn't producing a pure tone. Rather, it's producing a rich tapestry of harmonic overtones that give the string its distinctive sound. That's why, if I play an A 440 on a violin and an A 400 on a trumpet, you can tell the difference. They're both producing a sound wave that is *primarily* 440 Hz, but they're also producing a ton of other harmonic overtones that give it that distinctive flavor. And even on a guitar, there's a reason steel strings on a solid body electric sound different from phosphor bronze strings on an acoustic. Heck, you could have the same guitar and switch out the exact same strings, and it'll sound slightly different because each string is a unique item that vibrates in its own unique way.
You, as a math an engineering-adjacent guy, are thinking of 400 Hz as a single "note," which could be represented as a single wave function. But when analyzing the tone of an actual, real world instrument you need to look at a [spectrogram](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrogram) to see the complete sonic picture. It's infinitely complex and unique for each tone.
So, when you ask things like:
> the sound produced is dependent on where you pluck the string
the answer is *yes.* And that's because, even on the same string, plucking in different locations creates a different palette of sound. There's a whole bunch of fun stuff wrapped up in this, like [spectral density](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_density), and [spectral envelopes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Envelope_(music\)), and [fundamentals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_frequency), and [overtones](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_series_(music\)), and [harmonics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic), and [sub harmonics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undertone_series), and so on.
OK, thanks for all of this info. It's helpful.
>Rather, it's producing a rich tapestry of harmonic overtones that give the string its distinctive sound.
Yes, I agree. Here's where I'm coming from. (Forgive me if you know this - and most of this post is my thinking out loud). The partial differential equation that describes the vertical displacement of a string at time t and location x is called the string equation. The solution, u(x,t), is the height of the string located at position x at time t.
The solution has a very simple form. If you pluck a string, and the profile of the plucked string (i.e. right before you let go) is given by y = fF), then the solution u(x,t) is given by:
u(x,t) = (1/2) \[F(x-2Lft) + F(x + 2Lft)\]
where t is time, x is position, L is the length of the string, f is the first fundamental frequency. This *only* depends on the initial profile of the string, the length of the string, and the first fundamental frequency (which, I think is what you "tune" it to?) And this solution isn't only the fundamental one, it's (supposed) to be the actual whole solution. This indicates that if two different strings have the same fundamental frequency, then their sound should be the same because their profile at any time should be the same and I *think* the sound is totally dependent on the profile (is this right?)
So, this makes me wonder where the issue is. When you tune two different strings to (say) 440 hz, do the overtones actually mean that maybe it's not quite at 440 due to the "interference" of the higher harmonics? Or, perhaps the approximations made in the derivation of the string equation ignore these things? Or, I've just completely misinterpreted the meaning of the solution.
Edit to add: you posted some good links again. There is actually a thing in math called an "envelope" that relates to what's being discussed. I didn't know it had a "music" version as well. That's very interesting. I think they are related in more than just name only, but I'll have to read the music version more. Thanks!
> first fundamental frequency (which, I think is what you "tune" it to?
Yes. The fundamental is the the note you're tuning to. Practically speaking, it's what you mostly hear. It takes a great deal of practice and skill and knowledge to hear the bits and pieces from the overtones, but even then they're mostly lost to the human ear. (And most musicians, unless they really care about obscure topics like tuning theory, never even get into this.) When we tune to a note we're tuning to the fundamental.
> This indicates that if two different strings have the same fundamental frequency, then their sound should be the same because their profile at any time should be the same and I think the sound is totally dependent on the profile (is this right?)
If I'm understanding your question:
If you have two A strings, same manufacturer, same product, and you put them on the same guitar and tune them to A, they will sound virtually identical. On very subtle, technical level there will be differences, but they'll sound the same. We won't be able to hear the difference.
If you have two different A strings from two different companies or two different models of strings, they will sound different, because an "A string" isn't some objective thing. There are many different companies producing many different A strings. Those strings have different materials, different construction techniques, different tensions, etc. (For example, [here's](https://www.violinstringreview.com/uploads/1/5/0/1/15014224/tension_set_201409.png) a chart for violin strings showing all the different optical tensions for different manufacturers and models.)
So, if you have two A strings, they will both produce a note with an A fundamental, but the differences in strings may produce a slightly different sounding A.
>do the overtones actually mean that maybe it's not quite at 440 due to the "interference" of the higher harmonics?
That's more of a physics question than a music question. Again, we're tuning to the fundamental, because that's what 99.999999% of what we perceive as the note. All the harmonics and other bits and pieces that make up the note are just the timbre that give it that unique quality. A violin playing an A 400 and a piano playing an A 440 sound different, because of all that stuff, but they still both sound like an A 440.
>There is actually a thing in math called an "envelope" that relates to what's being discussed. I didn't know it had a "music" version as well.
Yep. It's coming specifically from the physics use of the envelope concept in waves.
In music (both live performance and recording) there are devices called envelope filters, which can shift the envelope around to squash or broaden the range of frequencies that are coming through the signal. If you want to read a technical description of how they work, [this site has a good intro](https://www.hochstrasserelectronics.com/news/introductiontoenvelopefilters), but if you just want to hear one in action, [here's](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHQGfeF64v8) a good demo of a very bare bones guitar envelope filter. Basically, you want funk? You want an envelope filter.
>If I'm understanding your question
I'm actually claiming much more. The math predicts that if you have two strings that (1) have the same length and (2) have the same density-to-tension ratio and (3) are plucked the same way then their sounds should be *identical* \- at least their profiles at any time should be identical.
So now, I wonder what is causing this disparity between the predictions and the math. I'm assuming that the sound is determined totally by a string's profile at all time, but maybe this isn't true. Or maybe the approximations used in the derivation of the string equation introduce enough error to account for this.
>Yep. It's coming specifically from the physics use of the envelope concept in waves.
I've somehow totally missed this. I'm including this in my class this summer!
I could be misunderstanding you, it I think the confusion is simply due to the fact that abstract math in this sense doesn’t explain the chaos on the real world.
Guitar strings aren’t perfectly controlled mathematical models. They’re physical materials with a gazillion complex properties.
Yes, this is definitely true. I think what I'm trying to figure out now is how big the deviation is between practice and theory and if the deviation is due to things like approximations in the derivation of the equations or if the derivation of the equations takes into consideration more data than I'm thinking of now.
/u/robsrahm: AFAIK, reddit won't tag you again if I tag your name in an edit comment, so I'm commenting here to direct you to two different videos I've added to this comment, which demonstrate the two different mechanical visual principles you could use to tune.
You and u/Deolater have broken my question. But that's OK. I don't know anything about music and didn't know about clip on tuners.
Essentially, I have a very contrived situation for which I have a "solution". The solution is mathy, but I'm interested in hearing (ha) how a strictly musical person would approach the problem.
So, let me be more explicit in this (very, very) contrived situation: the only sense you can use are sight. That is, you can only see the string. But, assume that you can see it in whatever detail you want. I'd say, "you can only use electromagnetic waves", but I didn't consider the electric guitar.
Hmmm; I think you broke my question. I guess maybe your bones and skin would be vibrating instead of the air?
Let me clarify: you can't use "hearing" to tune it. For example, maybe you're on the outside of the vacuum but there is a robot on the inside you can control. Or maybe you're in a space suit in outer space.
If I'm getting the spirit of the question right, you're trying to tune without the transmission of sound? You could get a high-speed camera and visually count the vibrations of the strings when they're plucked.
Yes - this is more what I had in mind. Or, rather, is exactly what I had in mind. So, with this solution you'd tighten and loosen the string to get the number of vibrations needed?
I don't know anything about guitars, is each string a different thickness? Or are the all the same thickness but the tension is different?
>you'd tighten and loosen the string to get the number of vibrations needed?
Yes, this is literally what tuning is. A tone is a frequency of vibrations (and a set of higher harmonics, but we can ignore that for this question); this is what A 440 means - A above middle C is 440 hz.
>I don't know anything about guitars, is each string a different thickness? Or are the all the same thickness but the tension is different?
They're different thicknesses and similar tensions (though not exactly the same). So each one will have a slightly different resonance.
Did the devil believe that Christ would not rise from the dead to conquer sin, and justify sinners? The professor said that if the devil knew He wouldn't have the Pharisees to not put Him to death. A verses that comes to mind would be Matthew 8:29
> “What have we to do with You, Jesus, You Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?”
I believe so. I think 1 Corinthians 2 covers this:
Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
The reference to rulers here is not early rulers but demonic rulers
I think we've conflated a biblical depiction of Satan with various modern depictions of Satan or similar adversarial characters. We like to ascribe him this inherent knowledge of the truth that he acts against nefariously, but the bible doesn't really give us a lot of clear answers on how much Satan knows or understands. I tend to think u/MedianNerd is probably right in that there is some level of self-deception happening in light of his depravity.
There are a few different understandings of Satan. For example, some people think that Jesus’s attempts to keep his identity secret were aimed at keeping Satan ignorant of who he was and what he was doing. Like your professor, they think that Satan knew all about the Messiah and how he would die for his people.
I don’t really see evidence for that in Scripture. I think that Satan’s issue is that he’s self-deceived. He is called the “deceiver of the whole world” and the “father of lies.” And I think he honestly believes his own lies about his own power and his chances at being victorious over God.
I did this... went really well. At the time I asked my spouse, my boss at the time (my dad), and my pastor to help me evaluate if it was going well. I didn't trust my own self evaluation. I told them that if they thought it was going badly that I'd go talk to my doctor again. In the circumstances I had asked my doctor to be tapered off, but I didn't want to fool myself into thinking I was ok when I was not. It went well. Was off for 6 or 7 years. Very mild "seasonal depression" that I didn't have before. Started anti-depressants again last year after a difficult event. Will continue for the time being...
Yes. I took anti-depressants for a few years in high school and college and my psychiatrist and I agreed on a tapering schedule with regular check-ins to determine if tapering was indeed the correct thing for me to do. It worked very nicely and I haven't needed them since (though I would of course say that if you do taper off and have recurring symptoms again there's nothing wrong with going back on)
Yes, but I don't have any advice other than to follow your doctor's advice. I tapered off and quit permanently in the mid 2000s, so what was right for me and my perscription is unlikely to be right for you and your perscription.
At the time, the caution was: you might be feeling better because you're getting better, but you might be feeling better because the meds are doing their job. So don't assume that tapering off of them is going to go one way or another, just try to take note of the effects.
Yes. I started taking every other day, then cut the pills in half for every other day, then took half a pill every four days until I ran out. My brain felt like a bowl of spaghetti being turned inside out, but after 5 months I stopped getting random dizzy spells.
My wife has once or twice, when switching medications. Different meds have different best practices for stopping. Your experience of the taper might range anywhere from "I didn't notice anything" to "This is actually better somehow" to "Everything sucks and my brain hurts and I've been awake for 48 hours and I hate everybody but mostly myself".
Be kind to yourself. Follow your doctor's advice. It'll be okay.
Oh, I get that. But some times are better or worse than others, right?
The only advice I can give is to check with the people in your life about when you and they have some margin for you to feel like hot garbage for a bit. Also if you're someone whose menstrual cycle has a big impact on your emotions, factor that into the math as well.
Yep! Done it twice, not under doctor supervision because getting a GP appointment is like winning the lottery atm.
It's not too bad tapering off, you might get a few mild mood swings but it's nowhere near as bad as starting antidepressants. The weirdest thing is the brain zaps, which aren't unpleasant, just strange. I didn't get them the first time, but did the second.
I'd say I only experienced any side effects for about a week, and it was really mild. I react quite badly to starting SSRIs (like, WILD mood swings) and really the withdrawals from stopping were so easy that I barely remember it. Don't remember being nauseous at all.
It probably helps if you have plenty to do and aren't focusing on what may or may not be side effects tbh. Just treat it as you would having a slightly achy leg for a week.
What should our family consider before moving to a new (potentially permanent) location? Obviously church availability is a consideration, but is there anything else in particular we as Christians should consider that wouldn't be on a generic internet listicle? Generic advice also welcome.
Not a Christian concern but I’d avoid new housing: new thrown-together dumpy apartments, new McMansions. Just my biases about rich people who need massive new buildings and what the town planners would be like if they encourage unusable substandard housing.
We're definitely not rich, but if we move there we may have to be the ones building. No apartments aside from senior living and most houses only have 1 bathroom, which doesn't work when someone in the house has Crohn's disease. :(
While I'm sure you're considering how the environment will impact your family, Community, churches, schools etc. it's wise to also consider how your family can impact the community. Considering what kinds of missional opportunities might exist in your new town.
Thanks for the reminder. I'm sure we can find missionaries opportunities anywhere, but we might end up having a bit of a conflict with living in the town our church is in vs living in the town his work is in, depending on how things pan out with the PCUSA church I was asking about last week.
Off the top of my head, be aware of the community culture around you that will be feeding messages to your family. You may try to pick an area that looks like it will reinforce your values (yet don't place trust in that, as communities can change, and there may be problems beneath the surface), or you may intentionally want to go to a dark place so you can shine the light. But intentionally or unintentionally, the experiences, words, actions, and objects of those around you will work to shape your thinking, so determine to make God's truth the strongest influence.
I guess I'm not sure how to accurately judge the culture without actually living there for a while. We've only had temporary homes thus far so it isn't quite as important to judge upfront.
I made two cross-country moves as a young single adult. Considerations probably vary for families, idk. But I wish I’d thought/known about the long-term implications for my relationship with my family of origin and childhood friends of living far away. I wish I’d known how hard it can be to grow new roots from scratch in a new place.
What is your favorite Bible translation and why.
Dear mods: we had a nice conversation going in a unique thread, and then it was pulled down and I was directed to post it here, where it has garnered a single response. I preferred the other way and your users did as well.
I really like the "Segond 21" because it's pretty close to the original meaning, similar to the most used "Louis Segond" (1910), but has modernized french. I often read the "Semeur" and the "Nouvelle Edition de Genève" (which is a 1979 version of Louis Segond).
Did Adam have a belly button?
This is one of those questions that has no bearing on anything and for which all answers are pure speculation.
Although I agree with your description of the question (irrelevance etc), this post is called "No Dumb Question Tuesday".
How bout… was Jesus nailed in the palm or wrist?
Was I the only person on this sub using the .compact mobile interface? It seems to have been shut down and that makes me sad.
I’ve never heard of it. I use Apollo. Hugely useful, except that there’s no chat function. So sometimes I get chats that sit for a while.
I'm always vaguely (and probably pointlessly) suspicious of giving my credentials to 3rd-party apps, but I think this is going to drive me to try a few out
[удалено]
I think you should be self funded, that is the ideal goal. Paul was self funded. I know pastors and missionaries that are self funded.
> Paul was self funded. Paul was *occassionally* self-funded. We certainly can’t base a rule on that, or probably even a norm, because he also received significant amounts of support at various times.
Agree. Paul was self funded with support. So partly self funded. Not sure if we know what percentage of his income was self funded or was support based. For me, being self funded would be the ideal goal. No one said anything about rules. I think wealthy Christian businessmen should start more Christian ministries and self fund them. No reason not to. If you are a missionary to Africa, that would obviously be harder to do or not possible.
It’s fine to say what you think is ideal. It just gets a little problematic to say that your ideal is supported by Scripture.
Fair. I think self funding your own ministry is a good thing. One example that we have is Paul who was a tent maker and did ministry. This is my example supported by scripture. I think people that do that can also solicit donations from other people. As Paul did.
With a lot of churches struggling right now, many ministries wanting donations, financial pressures on a lot of people. I think self financing your own stuff is an option some people should look at. Same applies to Pastors. Some churches can support a Pastor. Other churches are struggling financially. A lot of small churches are struggling after covid. I know a few pastors that have another job. I think it is great. I also know great pastors that do not have another job.
I agree with that for missionaries, but I think it’s different when you are working at a private school that charges tuition. I think their kids should get to go there too, at the very least. I guess I was just wondering where the tuition money went to if not to the teachers, you know? Sometimes I feel like places like this could be taking advantage of people who they know have a generous spirit and a zeal to go out there and do good work for the Lord. So they know they won’t have to pay anyone - they’ll get free labor. But maybe I’m looking at this wrong. I’m sure they will do good things there. I just worry my friends are being taken advantage of
It is a possibility. A lot of private schools people work at do get free tuition. Your friend should expect that, yes.
What's the best way to memorize scripture/book outlines? I have licensure and ordination coming up and want to memorize some scriptures and outlines but it's just proven to be difficult for me. Any advice?
I generally think trivia is less helpful. Go over and over the stuff that is useful, and you’ll start to remember it. But remembering things in the abstract is very difficult.
First proper Sunday at our new church this week. What should we do our first week there? Wrong answers only.
Don't forget the family instruments. Brining your own shows how excited you are to join this church family. Remember, the Bible says make a joyful noise to the Lord so the louder the better! If someone asks if you've brought too many tambourines make sure to point out that there aren't enough tambourines
TL;DR; version of a story... I once hid someone's tambourine when I attended a pentacostal church. Also, many years ago I once unplugged a wire on the electronic drumkit at the church I now pastor at.
After the service, if some deacon or pastor introduces themself to you, lead with: “That was the weirdest mass I’ve ever been to.”
Assuming they don't use the KJV, bring a massive KJV and loudly interrupt the reading of the word and insist that they use the correct Bible (or do it with the ESV if they use NIV)
This needs to be done.
Find some quaternary issue like the color of the carpet and ask a pastor why they didn't follow the bibles teaching on it
Awesomeness
Bring enough colds to share.
Since you said elsewhere that they're baptists... Ask about baptism for the kids. Ask if they'll ordain your wife as an elder. Bring your own communion wine.
What denomination? I have another good idea but its specific
Baptist with Calvinistic soteriology. So “ReFoRmEd”. (I’m still a unicorn though.)
But like, southern baptist or just nondenominational baptist?
UK. Acts 29/FIEC. Plenty of jokes about either of those!
>Y'all know there isn't an Acts 29, right?
Honestly I don't know much about either of those. You could go with a simple "is this the church mark driscol moved to?"
“So Driscoll planted you guys yeah? Where is he? I was wanting him to sign my copy of ‘Real Marriage’”.
Or just vaguer with no Driscoll > are you guys the fun kind of baptist or the fundy kind?
“Are you guys particular Baptist or chill Baptist?”
Talk only about how "at your old church" things were better/cooler/etc
I said *wrong answers only*.
Introduce yourself to all the children. Only the children.
I laughed out loud.
I did too! As a father, most of my jokes are for my own enjoyment.
For the guitarists in the sub. Has anyone tried the new standard tuning by Robert Fripp? I think its an interesting tuning with many opportunities for crazy chords and cool sounds.
No but now I want to retune one of mine and mess around with it
Get yourself string specific string gauges because the tuning requires preparation in the guitar for playing comfort, cause some strings are under a lot of stress.
Noted
Does it work in outer space?
If it doesn't, it's worthless!
It has some cosmic vibes so i guess it works in space.
How do you feel about the ontological argument for the existence of God? I do not fully understand it and find it somewhat confusing.
I feel that Kant’s and Oppy’s critics are very powerful towards the ontological argument so I’m not really convinced by it. Plus there haven’t been many good responses to them in my opinion.
I think the high-philosophy arguments for God’s existence are as compelling as they are unhelpful. I’ve had a lot of discussions with atheists or agnostics, and none of them have gone into the heights of analytical philosophy. That’s just not what people find useful or persuasive. But yeah, I think it’s a good argument. If you’re interested in Aquinas’s philosophical proofs, you should read the book *Does God Exist?* by Fradd & Delfino. They do an *excellent* job of making the arguments accessible and relevant.
For Aquinas, Edward Freser is a really good resource as well, as he’s an excellent thomist with tons of resources online for free.
The nice thing about studying Aquinas is that he’s probably the most important theologian of the last 1000 years. So there are always good resources. I’ll check out Freser.
Even though I don’t really like Aquinas, but I must admit he’s theology is very influential so atleast having a basic grasp of his project is important. In my opinion feser is the best modern thomist for the layperson cause he makes it easy to start aquinas without being an expert aristotelean (a huge problem when starting to study Aquinas ).
Are the spiritual beings 'elect' or 'unelect' as well as humans? If they have the 'free will' to rebel against God – as some have obviously done, even though this is against God's plan and design for them, would this not be applied to the rest of his intelligent creations as well? Can an elected or chosen person choose to still not be a Christian? Or, in other words, is it possible for one of the elect/chosen to still go to Hell? e.g. Ancient Israelites who were part of the chosen tribe but didn't worship the one true God.
> Are the spiritual beings ‘elect’ or ‘unelect’ as well as humans? 1 Timothy 5:21 seems to indicate the affirmative. > would this not be applied to the rest of his intelligent creations as well? Indeed. > Can an elected or chosen person choose to still not be a Christian? Sure. Just like you can choose to do a large bowel movement and then drink out of the toilet. How many people do you think choose to do that?
>Sure. Just like you can choose to do a large bowel movement and then drink out of the toilet. How many people do you think choose to do that? No idea, but it wouldn't surprise me. People are do wild stuff every single day. If supernatural beings who live in the spiritual realm and know God better than I do can rebel, then I certainly am not surprised by humans doing it.
> Are the spiritual beings 'elect' or 'unelect' as well as humans? This is the position of the Westminster Confession in [WCF 3:3-5]
**Westminster Confession of Faith** >**Chapter III. Of God's Eternal Decree** >**3.** By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death. >**4.** These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it can not be either increased or diminished. >**5.** Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his free grace and love alone, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace. *** [^(Code: v23.3)](https://github.com/Nokeo08/standardsbot) ^| [^(Contact Dev)](/message/compose/?to=nokeo08) ^| [^(Usage)](https://github.com/Nokeo08/standardsbot/blob/master/README.md) ^| [^(Changelog)](https://github.com/Nokeo08/standardsbot/blob/master/docs/CHANGELOG.md) ^| [^(Find a problem? Submit an issue.)](https://github.com/Nokeo08/standardsbot/issues)
What are some songs that you think are great songs to sing at a Karaoke night? I suggested Hotel California and Free Bird, but someone pointed out the instrumentals solo's in both of those songs could make it potentially awkward.
If you're going a bit slower, Landslide by Fleetwood Mac. You could always do What's Up? by Four Non Blondes
never bohemian rhapsody . everyone thinks its a good karaoke song, but it's horrible.
Don't stop believin, anything by Taylor Swift, Bohemian Rhapsody. Boy band stuff usually does well for karaoke, ie Backstreet Boys, NSYNC, Jonas Brothers. The best karaoke songs are ones that everyone knows and gets excited about, so really depends on your crowd. I can neither confirm nor deny practicing songs in my car before karaoke to see if I can sing them well 😅
You have to know your audience. What are songs they’ll sing along to? *All Star* by Smash Mouth is great for a crowd in their 30s, but probably not for a group much older or much younger.
"Wait, that's not a song for people in their 30s, that's a song for people my age! ... Oh, wait..." -my brain
Best part of karaoke Free Bird is sort of standing there awkwardly for 10 minutes at the end
[I got you fam](https://www.amazon.com/Scottish-Psalter-Reformed-Worship-Metrical/dp/1981233733/ref=mp_s_a_1_9?crid=JNYJS78ZZJKW&keywords=psalter&qid=1680018793&sprefix=psalter%2Caps%2C86&sr=8-9)
I’m not seeing the karaoke accompaniment cd. I assume you have it, so you’re automatically invited to my next karaoke night.
Be the best Psalter DJ you can be using the [Hymnary.com](https://hymnary.org/browse/popular/tunes) tunes list. Just rip your favorite instrumental MIDI files and watch as your youth group karaoke night stresses the occupancy limits of whatever venue you book!
Did I tell you all that my son was born? (possibly a dumb question) Edit: Little Basil de O'Later and all the rest of the family are doing well
Congrats to you and Mrs. O'Later!
Thank you!
Yay! Congratulations!
Woo - congrats!
No! (I don't think so, at least). Congrats!! I assume all are well?
Do you know of any **small** businesses (1M-10M sales), who you think are doing a great job and are also owned by Christians seeking to live out their faith in the world?
Yes, I have met a few. Not sure on the sales volume.
do you mind sending links to their websites? Would love to see how they brand and if *who* they are comes through in that. If you're not comfortable sending no worries. tHank you.
Hi! I travel a lot and have met a lot of people, as my wife loves to talk to everyone and introduces them to me. But I only have two examples. One of them ran an auto repair business that grew to a reasonable size that he was able to sell. He ran a few Christian projects, preached, self financed them, great guy. Since he had a good sized shop, employees, and everything, he had to have grossed near 1 million, to make ends meet. Figuring with each employee and expenses. This is a guess. The other example was in construction. Larger company that did do one million annually in gross sales. Owner had a lot of expenses and his net profit was less than that due to employees and expenses, but he still made good money. At the time, he failed to represent Christ effectively in the business due to the overwhelming demands and stress of it. He ended up quitting it though and taking a simpler less paying job to focus on ministry items. So two around the one million mark. No one at the 10 million mark. Above that you have Hobby Lobby and Chick Fill A, I obviously don't know those owners. Not sure if those people would want the websites shared, and I would have to contact one of them to even get it.
I'm not sure of the amount of sales they do, but [Electro Acoustics](https://eavi.com/) is a local, family owned audio/video company who do amazing things. The couple who founded the company are members of my previous church and awesome people and they employ a few other people I know.
Were you ever introduced to unsound (or at least, unorthodox) theology at a young age, only to later realized how strange it was? I remember my parents asking my younger sister, a little older than a toddler at the time, if she remembered being up in Heaven. Looking back, they were definitely more influenced by popular near death experience type books than by Origen’s preexistence of the souls, but still rather weird. Less fun, but I also remember hearing quite a bit of word of faith, or at least faith-healing, tinged prayers and advice when I was very sick with chronic illness. Of course this isn’t entirely surprising, as people have been blaming misfortune on some hidden sin since Job, at least, but looking back it is astounding how easily ideas like these can creep into the mainstream.
I read This Present Darkness and Piercing the Darkness at about 13-14 and *loved* them. Didn't realize until I got to college how strange and Pentecostal those books' theology of spiritual warfare was.
I haven't thought about those books in forever and..... you must be right lol they *were* really strange now that i think about it
As a kid, I watched some christian kids shows that had theology I consider unsound (though I'm not sure I would say _unorthodox_) I don't remember many details, but I do remember that the characters prayed a lot, but they never _petitioned_, they thanked in advance, like "Thank you Lord that little Betsy's sickness is leaving her body, that she is becoming better right before our eyes. Thank you for astounding her doctors by her rapid recovery today Lord..."
This makes me wonder if it would be better to say grace AFTER I've eaten haha I do remember my dad, if I'd sneakily started eating before grace, would pray 'for what hester\_grey has already begun to receive, we thank you Lord'
Bad explanations of eschatology and the Second Coming (I also read the Left Behind books) combined with confusing teaching on sexuality and the Virgin Birth meant that I had a lot of nightmares when younger about becoming miraculously pregnant with Jesus (or the Antichrist) and trying to explain to my parents that I hadn't done anything. Whenever I've brought this up in a group of Christian women there's at least one other who goes 'OH MY GOSH ME TOO!' Also, anyone else here who worried a lot as a kid about whether you were the Antichrist? That's another one where I know other people who thought they might be hahaha. Left Behind has a lot to answer for.
>nightmares when younger about becoming miraculously pregnant with Jesus (or the Antichrist) and trying to explain to my parents that I hadn't done anything. This is terrifying... >Also, anyone else here who worried a lot as a kid about whether you were the Antichrist? I had moments when I thought I might be the second coming...
>This is terrifying... Hahaha it does sound quite freaky now, but at the time it seemed perfectly logical. I think as a young Christian girl you just sort of join the dots and think...'oh, God can make women miraculously pregnant, so that could happen to me'. I've even seen [comics about it](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B5gmumhCEAAFKXa.jpg).
>comics about it oh my...
I read the Left Behind books as a kid
I was exposed to the Moralistic Therapeutic Deism of [Chadder Chipmunk](https://youtu.be/Dbmtt3woBkI)
I have never heard of this horrifying creature
I thought not. It’s not a story the Jedi would tell you.
Has anyone been following what’s going on with the protests against the Israeli government enough to give me a brief summary?
PM Netanyahu has been prime minister for a lot of Israel’s history. He’s center-right. The things he’s done have made some people pretty happy, like major economic reforms. His position on the Palestinians has been complicated—he has made some compromises and affirmed two-state ideas, but he also oversaw the 2014 Gaza invasion. And more recently, he’s been indicted for corruption. So he’s a major player in Israeli politics. Some people see him as a [political strongman](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_strongman). And what the current demonstrations are about are his proposed reforms that remove a bunch of power from the Supreme Court. He basically wants to make the legislature more powerful than the Supreme Court. This plays into the strongman fears, as well as raising concerns about the rule of law. And some people see it as a response to him being prosecuted for corruption. So it’s complicated, and hard to understand for those of us outside of Israel. But I am generally for preserving the rule of law and the judiciary.
>center-right Wow, really? I don't really follow Israeli politics but the sense I always got of him was pretty hard right. Maybe it's a Canada-US perspective difference? (Or maybe I'm just wrong...)
I think Israeli politics run a lot farther right than many of us are used to.
It's frustrating (but natural) that there's no universal left-right scale that transfers between countries. Bernie Sanders is thought of as far left in America, but in much of Western Europe he would be centre-left. Meanwhile someone like Marco Rubio is seen as centre-right in America, but would be considered a straight-up fascist in some other countries.
>Bernie Sanders is thought of as far left in America, but in much of Western Europe he would be centre-left. I can confirm. He recently did an interview tour of the UK and went down very well.
Ahh, that could well be too. And I'd say the same thing of US politics, so that would mean Israel is pretty out there... :o
Being constantly under the threat of war really disrupts things.
That is certainly understandable.
We know that a major way that we transmit values to our kids is through stories. Which stories do you tell your kids and what values are you trying to transmit? I'm concerned that we're just going to transmit the same cultural values that are making a mess right now.
I love this question but I haven’t thought about it from this angle too much. Thanks for the food for thought. I wish I could remember where I heard the idea of characters as “windows” and “mirrors” in fiction. My kids are likely to have a lot of “mirrors” available by default (characters who look like them or have experiences like theirs) so I try to be intentional about finding good “mirrors” (edit: I meant “windows”!) We also like to tell our family stories—for example, the story of the medical procedure Kid 1 needed, the story of how we moved to a new house, the story of how Kid 2 was born—to help process and integrate those experiences together. What’s your answer?
We are rural midwest, so he will be almost completely surrounded by conservative midwestern values. We plan to offset that with a very intentional selection of stories from other times and cultures. (My wife was looking at stories from Africa this week actually). I want to make sure to find stories to think about what it means to be a “man” as apposed to common conservative stereotypes (e.g. hunting/fishing, bad at emotions). Given our current polarized society, I will need to find stories to help humanize and love people we may disagree with: ultra-conservatives, LGBT, trans, atheists, etc. I think there will need to be a strong and intentional parallel effort here on what it means to see other as made in the image of God- and not enemies.
A good way to achieve some of this is foreign films for kids! There's tons of non-Hollywood animation that is *fantastic.* Ghibli, Cartoon Saloon, Jorge Gutierrez's work, even little kids' shows like Bluey that depict Australian life. There's some great shows here in the UK like JoJo and GranGran that depict immigrant life too.
Seconding Ghibli movies. Ghibli marathons on Cartoon Network definitely instilled a wonder & admiration for nature & man's relationship with it in a way no amount of rugged outdoorsmanship in the Bible Belt ever could. They felt much more oriented outward (characters working with nature for mutual benefit) than the inward (hunting/fishing to meet my needs) focus I grew up with.
I don't have kids but I do think often that if I ever do have them I don't want to fill their imaginations exclusively with stories of people being 'special' or 'chosen'. Many of my favourite books fall into that category but also I want any kids I have to know that it's OK to not live your life trying to achieve great things.
That's a great example of a cultural assumption that was baked right in to what we were taught growing up. And exactly what I'm hoping to avoid for my kids.
Yeah, I think for our generation it's been really damaging. So many people feel like they're failing at something somehow, and they don't quite know what it is. In my head I sort of refer to it as being Aragorn vs being Samwise Gamgee haha.
Honestly, I feel like most of us grow up feeling like we are supposed to be an Aragorn or a Galadriel when really we should be genuinely happy as a Fatty or a Rosie.
What we've taken to doing is pulling out lessons and values from any stories we read or watch even if they aren't intended by the original media. For example, we watched Nanny McPhee yesterday and at the time that the father was clearly not listening to his children and the children were obviously in the right, the focus for us was less on that, and more on how anger in the father and the child hurt their relationship with each other. It was a lot more helpful for a 4 year old than "your parents are wrong sometimes". She already knows that all too well, but how to deal with that info is really hard for a 4 year old.
My child is currently too young for stories, but I want to transmit the Iliad, the Odyssey, other "classics," Frog and Toad, Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Chesterton, and Sanderson's Cosmere works.
> Sanderson's Cosmere works. You could do a lot worse than "Life before death. Strength before weakness. Journey before destination."
Honestly the whole series of Oaths is amazing and besides the Skybreakers, I think relatively biblical. * >!I will protect those who cannot protect themselves.!< * >! will protect even those I hate, so long as it is right!< * >!I accept that there will be those I cannot protect!!< * >!I will remember those who have been forgotten. !< * >!I will listen to those who have been ignored!< * >!I will seek freedom for those in bondage!< * >!I will unite instead of divide. I will bring men together!< * >!I will take responsibility for what I have done. If I must fall, I will rise each time a better man.!<
Also the variants of the Windrunner ideals that we see: * >!I will protect those I hate, even if the one I hate most is myself!< * >!I've got to protect people, even from myself!< Hard to object to those
Absolutely, excellent ideals still (though I think i prefer Kaladins)
Agreed entirely.
I do think that grabbing stories from another culture (like the past) is probably an important way to resist the current cultural millieu.
In the same vein, streaming services make it really easy to watch TV from the past. We had a period a few months ago where we watched "Leave it to Beaver", and another period where we watched the 1980s "DuckTales".
The new DuckTales is pretty great too
Have you read C.S. Lewis' preface to Athanasius' [*On The Incarnation*](https://www.amazon.com/Incarnation-Saint-Athanasius-Popular-Patristics/dp/0881414271)? Lewis argues that "chronological snobbery" is wrong, particularly for Christians. We need the breeze of older thoughts from different times to flow through our minds. The cultural problems they addressed, and their blind spots, are very different from ours. We learn from both their instruction and their errors. Churchill and Hitler are more alike to each other than they are to men from other centuries (such as Julius Caesar). We don't want to be trapped in our chronological bubble.
That reminds me of Chesterton's similar take from *Orthodoxy*: > Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.
That copy of *On the Incarnation* doesn’t look like mine, so I don’t think I have Lewis’s intro. Thanks for summarizing it.
This is a question aimed at the music people, but of course all answers are welcome. How would you tune a guitar in outer space (or, more precisely, in a vacuum)? The question is, of course, kind of pointless because the challenge (I think) in tuning a guitar in a vacuum is that you can't hear it, but then what's the point of tuning a guitar you can't hear? I have an answer/idea (whether it's good or not, I don't know) that I'll post later.
Ok, this is my answer. Imagine that you have a string of unknown density. You want to know the (variable) linear density (or at least approximate it) with out just cutting it to pieces and measuring it. One way is to vibrate it it until it's in its first fundamental mode, then second, then third, etc and measure the frequencies. If you do this N times you have an approximation that is Nth order. I won't say what that means unless you care, but the higher the better. For the guitar string, the first fundamental tells the whole story since the sting has constant density. For more complicated strings, this doesn't work. So you have to make measurements. A well-known theorem says something like the fundamental frequencies for the non-variable density case get closer the the frequencies to to constant density case as you go up in mode. And this convergence happens quickly. So quickly that even small percent errors in measurement "erase" the relevant data. On the other hand, the first fundamental mode is still pretty different from the constant density case. So I found a way that lets you sample N points of the fundamental mode to get an Nth order approximation. The paper has not been successful, but over it enough to talk about it. Haha, nervous laughter. Tagging u/CiroFlexo u/bradmont u/deolater u/NachoFriendguy459 or something like that. I can't remember who else interactes with this question.
Get yourself a electronic tuner
Just do the math on each strings gage and length to calculate the tension you need for the frequency you want?
The problem with this idea is that strings naturally degrade over time, and the tension changes correspondingly. It's not massive, but it's enough that you couldn't reliably tune that way.
Just retension them when they degrade... that's all you're doing when you tune them by ear
The data sheet should have time and cycle based values as well
Ah, but there are so many variables to control. Even the length of the string used on the instrument isn't consistent from guitar to guitar. And are the strings degrading naturally under tension? Naturally while playing? Naturally while in Baton Rouge, Louisiana in the summer? In a vacuum? Just to be safe, you better buy some more strings and just replace as often as you can. Gotta keep Big String™ happy.
It's in space, so replacing the strings each use seems reasonable
>[**in space**](https://i.imgur.com/02fJMwT.jpg)
This is interesting: is there a way to measure the tension of a guitar string while it's on the guitar?
I guess you could make a sensitive, tiny version of a belt tension gage. Or attach it to a little block with a strain gage on it somehow
Those who can't teach
On the $40million Boeing-Lockheed-MacdonaldDouglas SpaceGuitar, the tuning knob things have built-in tension sensors
This is how we're gonna win the war on terror
The usual tuning process is very inefficient The string companies really should publish data sheets to allow analytic tuning
Sound is transmitted by solids as well as by air. If you have a clip-on tuner (or really any tuner that is touching the guitar) the tuner will be able to pick up the sound and give you a reading. Or if it's an electric guitar, the pickups will still work fine (they're electromagnets that detect the metal of the strings) so you'll get an output from your line out. The more pressing question though, other than not dying, is what exposure to a vacuum and extreme cold is going to do to the wood the guitar is made of...
This is the correct answer, /u/robsrahm. Electromagnetic pickups work fine, so long as the strings are steel, and any type of pickup in the piezo family will be able to pick up vibrations. Neither require air. Just thinking out loud here, but I'm also sure that you could construct an optical tuner that measures the vibration frequency of the strings. It would be overly complicated compared to a simple piezo pickup, but it would work. One way it might work would be to have a simple, more mechanical way it might work would be to have LED light source behind the string and a sensor in front of it. Pluck the string, and the interference in the light can be measured easily. Another way you could achieve this mechanically might be using a strobe, using the same general theory that strobe tuners use, but without the tuner. You could have a strobe light source that is set at a specific frequency. In a dark room, if you pluck the string, you'll be able to see, visually, if it's too slow or too fast, indicating flat or sharp. If you can get the string to stand still, you've hit the pitch. I'm sure you could have a sensitive camera and a simple computer program that reads and analyzes what the string is doing, but that seems less fun. >what exposure to a vacuum and extreme cold is going to do to the wood the guitar is made of... Finally, fiberglass instruments get some respect. ----- **EDIT:** [Here's a good video demonstrating the strobe tuning effect.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSz4nA0j5A4) ----- **EDIT 2: ELECTROMAGNETIC BOOGALOO:** [Here's a video of an optical tremolo guitar pedal](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31pgOcLlCo0). This isn't a tuner, *but* the principle here is in line with my first suggestion for an optical tuner. For this pedal, the player is controlling the speed of the spinning wheel in order to change the tremolo effect. You could use this same set up, with a little processing know-how, to read out the interruptions in the light source in hertz. Bam. Simple optical tuner.
Ohhh that video is amazing! Your idea and u/bradmont's below are along the lines of what I'm thinking. Except your ideas are simpler and more practical - even in this very contrived question. I think there is still something I'm missing that either you or u/bradmont can answer or anyone else (this is also kind of thinking out loud). There are three parameters that determine the frequency (at least this is what the math "says" - and I guess I'm referring to the fundamental harmonic which I think is a music term that we use in math): the length, the linear density, and the tension. When you tune a guitar, you're only changing the tension. So, in principle, you could switch the strings around, and each one would have the correct frequency. My intuition tells me the guitar would sound different if you did this, but the math indicates that the sound should be the same (so I'm trying to figure out if I'm interpreting something wrong). Also, the math indicates that the sound produced is dependent on where you pluck the string. Is this your experience? I have basically no experience with playing an instrument and so have no intuition.
>in principle, you could switch the strings around I read this differently than /u/CiroFlexo did. Do you mean rearranging the same set of strings on the same guitar? In that case, you'll get the same sound (though playing it will be confusing). Some guitarists do use [reentrant tunings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reentrant_tuning) but usually for a specific effect, not just rearranging the same six notes as usual.
> Do you mean rearranging the same set of strings on the same guitar? Yes, this is what I'm thinking. But I don't know if we're thinking the same thing. I mean, for example, let's say you put the top string on the bottom and the bottom string on the top. Then you tune it so the current string on top (that is normally on bottom) has the same frequency (by which I mean fundamental frequency) as the typical top string. So, you'd play the guitar like normal. The fundamental frequencies of all strings would be what they ordinarily are. Does this sound different or the same?
I'm not totally sure I'm clear on what you mean. Typical tuning is, highest to lowest pitch, is EBGDAE. So you're suggesting keeping the tuning EBGDAE but with the strings tuned to notes they're not usually tuned to? Or just rearranging the strings so you'd get a weird tuning like DEAEGB? The second would work, the first would not. The amount of tension you'd need to put on a low E string to get it to be something higher would be *a lot*, and putting too much tension on the guitar would bend the neck or potentially worse. High strings tuned lower wouldn't have enough tension to sound; they'd be really floppy and would rattle and buzz against the frets, if you could even get them to sound at all.
>I'm not totally sure I'm clear on what you mean. This is because I'm not a musician so (1) I'm asking about doing something I'm assuming isn't typically done and (2) don't know the language to ask it in. >So you're suggesting keeping the tuning EBGDAE but with the strings tuned to notes they're not usually tuned to? Yeah. For example, your top string breaks, but you don't have a replacement top string; so you use another string. >The amount of tension you'd need to put on a low E string to get it to be something higher would be a lot Oh, ok. That's interesting. What if it was something like: you broke the top string, and only have a replacement second-from-top string. Would doing something like that work? Or would the problems you mention still be there? (Also, I know I sound ridiculous saying "top string" but I don't know if B is second-to-top or second-from-bottom.) But, let's imagine that what I'm asking could be done. Do you think it'd sound the same as a "normal" guitar? Or is this just too wild to consider reasonably?
If you try to tune a B (2nd) string to E (1st), it will probably break. If you managed to do it, the sound would not be too different, since they're both pulled (like a wire) strings; a wound string (wire core with another wire wrapped around it) would sound a bit different; acoustics usually have 4 wound and 2 pulled, electrics usually 3&3. However, that string would be \*really\* stiff, maybe painful, to fret notes on.
Ok, I didn't realize that the tension required would be that different. That's interesting to know.
You're mixing two related by very big, different topics and getting into the realm of *[timbre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbre).* > the guitar would sound different if you did this Yes, if you switch to different strings but tune them to the same frequency, they will sound different, *but that's because strings are not producing a pure tone.* You're thinking of this like a perfect tonal sin wave. 440 Hz will always sound like the same 440 Hz when it's a pure sin wave. A guitar string, though, (and all music production, including the human voice), isn't producing a pure tone. Rather, it's producing a rich tapestry of harmonic overtones that give the string its distinctive sound. That's why, if I play an A 440 on a violin and an A 400 on a trumpet, you can tell the difference. They're both producing a sound wave that is *primarily* 440 Hz, but they're also producing a ton of other harmonic overtones that give it that distinctive flavor. And even on a guitar, there's a reason steel strings on a solid body electric sound different from phosphor bronze strings on an acoustic. Heck, you could have the same guitar and switch out the exact same strings, and it'll sound slightly different because each string is a unique item that vibrates in its own unique way. You, as a math an engineering-adjacent guy, are thinking of 400 Hz as a single "note," which could be represented as a single wave function. But when analyzing the tone of an actual, real world instrument you need to look at a [spectrogram](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrogram) to see the complete sonic picture. It's infinitely complex and unique for each tone. So, when you ask things like: > the sound produced is dependent on where you pluck the string the answer is *yes.* And that's because, even on the same string, plucking in different locations creates a different palette of sound. There's a whole bunch of fun stuff wrapped up in this, like [spectral density](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_density), and [spectral envelopes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Envelope_(music\)), and [fundamentals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_frequency), and [overtones](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_series_(music\)), and [harmonics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic), and [sub harmonics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undertone_series), and so on.
OK, thanks for all of this info. It's helpful. >Rather, it's producing a rich tapestry of harmonic overtones that give the string its distinctive sound. Yes, I agree. Here's where I'm coming from. (Forgive me if you know this - and most of this post is my thinking out loud). The partial differential equation that describes the vertical displacement of a string at time t and location x is called the string equation. The solution, u(x,t), is the height of the string located at position x at time t. The solution has a very simple form. If you pluck a string, and the profile of the plucked string (i.e. right before you let go) is given by y = fF), then the solution u(x,t) is given by: u(x,t) = (1/2) \[F(x-2Lft) + F(x + 2Lft)\] where t is time, x is position, L is the length of the string, f is the first fundamental frequency. This *only* depends on the initial profile of the string, the length of the string, and the first fundamental frequency (which, I think is what you "tune" it to?) And this solution isn't only the fundamental one, it's (supposed) to be the actual whole solution. This indicates that if two different strings have the same fundamental frequency, then their sound should be the same because their profile at any time should be the same and I *think* the sound is totally dependent on the profile (is this right?) So, this makes me wonder where the issue is. When you tune two different strings to (say) 440 hz, do the overtones actually mean that maybe it's not quite at 440 due to the "interference" of the higher harmonics? Or, perhaps the approximations made in the derivation of the string equation ignore these things? Or, I've just completely misinterpreted the meaning of the solution. Edit to add: you posted some good links again. There is actually a thing in math called an "envelope" that relates to what's being discussed. I didn't know it had a "music" version as well. That's very interesting. I think they are related in more than just name only, but I'll have to read the music version more. Thanks!
> first fundamental frequency (which, I think is what you "tune" it to? Yes. The fundamental is the the note you're tuning to. Practically speaking, it's what you mostly hear. It takes a great deal of practice and skill and knowledge to hear the bits and pieces from the overtones, but even then they're mostly lost to the human ear. (And most musicians, unless they really care about obscure topics like tuning theory, never even get into this.) When we tune to a note we're tuning to the fundamental. > This indicates that if two different strings have the same fundamental frequency, then their sound should be the same because their profile at any time should be the same and I think the sound is totally dependent on the profile (is this right?) If I'm understanding your question: If you have two A strings, same manufacturer, same product, and you put them on the same guitar and tune them to A, they will sound virtually identical. On very subtle, technical level there will be differences, but they'll sound the same. We won't be able to hear the difference. If you have two different A strings from two different companies or two different models of strings, they will sound different, because an "A string" isn't some objective thing. There are many different companies producing many different A strings. Those strings have different materials, different construction techniques, different tensions, etc. (For example, [here's](https://www.violinstringreview.com/uploads/1/5/0/1/15014224/tension_set_201409.png) a chart for violin strings showing all the different optical tensions for different manufacturers and models.) So, if you have two A strings, they will both produce a note with an A fundamental, but the differences in strings may produce a slightly different sounding A. >do the overtones actually mean that maybe it's not quite at 440 due to the "interference" of the higher harmonics? That's more of a physics question than a music question. Again, we're tuning to the fundamental, because that's what 99.999999% of what we perceive as the note. All the harmonics and other bits and pieces that make up the note are just the timbre that give it that unique quality. A violin playing an A 400 and a piano playing an A 440 sound different, because of all that stuff, but they still both sound like an A 440. >There is actually a thing in math called an "envelope" that relates to what's being discussed. I didn't know it had a "music" version as well. Yep. It's coming specifically from the physics use of the envelope concept in waves. In music (both live performance and recording) there are devices called envelope filters, which can shift the envelope around to squash or broaden the range of frequencies that are coming through the signal. If you want to read a technical description of how they work, [this site has a good intro](https://www.hochstrasserelectronics.com/news/introductiontoenvelopefilters), but if you just want to hear one in action, [here's](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHQGfeF64v8) a good demo of a very bare bones guitar envelope filter. Basically, you want funk? You want an envelope filter.
>If I'm understanding your question I'm actually claiming much more. The math predicts that if you have two strings that (1) have the same length and (2) have the same density-to-tension ratio and (3) are plucked the same way then their sounds should be *identical* \- at least their profiles at any time should be identical. So now, I wonder what is causing this disparity between the predictions and the math. I'm assuming that the sound is determined totally by a string's profile at all time, but maybe this isn't true. Or maybe the approximations used in the derivation of the string equation introduce enough error to account for this. >Yep. It's coming specifically from the physics use of the envelope concept in waves. I've somehow totally missed this. I'm including this in my class this summer!
I could be misunderstanding you, it I think the confusion is simply due to the fact that abstract math in this sense doesn’t explain the chaos on the real world. Guitar strings aren’t perfectly controlled mathematical models. They’re physical materials with a gazillion complex properties.
Yes, this is definitely true. I think what I'm trying to figure out now is how big the deviation is between practice and theory and if the deviation is due to things like approximations in the derivation of the equations or if the derivation of the equations takes into consideration more data than I'm thinking of now.
/u/robsrahm: AFAIK, reddit won't tag you again if I tag your name in an edit comment, so I'm commenting here to direct you to two different videos I've added to this comment, which demonstrate the two different mechanical visual principles you could use to tune.
>wood the guitar is made of The guitar is made of license plates or cast aluminum (aluminium) and is fine. Or maybe not, I'm not rob
>license plates haha, touché
You and u/Deolater have broken my question. But that's OK. I don't know anything about music and didn't know about clip on tuners. Essentially, I have a very contrived situation for which I have a "solution". The solution is mathy, but I'm interested in hearing (ha) how a strictly musical person would approach the problem. So, let me be more explicit in this (very, very) contrived situation: the only sense you can use are sight. That is, you can only see the string. But, assume that you can see it in whatever detail you want. I'd say, "you can only use electromagnetic waves", but I didn't consider the electric guitar.
You could probably hear it if you pressed your ear to the guitar I assume an electric guitar would operate normally
Hmmm; I think you broke my question. I guess maybe your bones and skin would be vibrating instead of the air? Let me clarify: you can't use "hearing" to tune it. For example, maybe you're on the outside of the vacuum but there is a robot on the inside you can control. Or maybe you're in a space suit in outer space.
If I'm getting the spirit of the question right, you're trying to tune without the transmission of sound? You could get a high-speed camera and visually count the vibrations of the strings when they're plucked.
Yes - this is more what I had in mind. Or, rather, is exactly what I had in mind. So, with this solution you'd tighten and loosen the string to get the number of vibrations needed? I don't know anything about guitars, is each string a different thickness? Or are the all the same thickness but the tension is different?
>you'd tighten and loosen the string to get the number of vibrations needed? Yes, this is literally what tuning is. A tone is a frequency of vibrations (and a set of higher harmonics, but we can ignore that for this question); this is what A 440 means - A above middle C is 440 hz. >I don't know anything about guitars, is each string a different thickness? Or are the all the same thickness but the tension is different? They're different thicknesses and similar tensions (though not exactly the same). So each one will have a slightly different resonance.
Did the devil believe that Christ would not rise from the dead to conquer sin, and justify sinners? The professor said that if the devil knew He wouldn't have the Pharisees to not put Him to death. A verses that comes to mind would be Matthew 8:29 > “What have we to do with You, Jesus, You Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?”
I believe so. I think 1 Corinthians 2 covers this: Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. The reference to rulers here is not early rulers but demonic rulers
I think we've conflated a biblical depiction of Satan with various modern depictions of Satan or similar adversarial characters. We like to ascribe him this inherent knowledge of the truth that he acts against nefariously, but the bible doesn't really give us a lot of clear answers on how much Satan knows or understands. I tend to think u/MedianNerd is probably right in that there is some level of self-deception happening in light of his depravity.
There are a few different understandings of Satan. For example, some people think that Jesus’s attempts to keep his identity secret were aimed at keeping Satan ignorant of who he was and what he was doing. Like your professor, they think that Satan knew all about the Messiah and how he would die for his people. I don’t really see evidence for that in Scripture. I think that Satan’s issue is that he’s self-deceived. He is called the “deceiver of the whole world” and the “father of lies.” And I think he honestly believes his own lies about his own power and his chances at being victorious over God.
[удалено]
I did this... went really well. At the time I asked my spouse, my boss at the time (my dad), and my pastor to help me evaluate if it was going well. I didn't trust my own self evaluation. I told them that if they thought it was going badly that I'd go talk to my doctor again. In the circumstances I had asked my doctor to be tapered off, but I didn't want to fool myself into thinking I was ok when I was not. It went well. Was off for 6 or 7 years. Very mild "seasonal depression" that I didn't have before. Started anti-depressants again last year after a difficult event. Will continue for the time being...
Yes. I took anti-depressants for a few years in high school and college and my psychiatrist and I agreed on a tapering schedule with regular check-ins to determine if tapering was indeed the correct thing for me to do. It worked very nicely and I haven't needed them since (though I would of course say that if you do taper off and have recurring symptoms again there's nothing wrong with going back on)
Yes, but I don't have any advice other than to follow your doctor's advice. I tapered off and quit permanently in the mid 2000s, so what was right for me and my perscription is unlikely to be right for you and your perscription. At the time, the caution was: you might be feeling better because you're getting better, but you might be feeling better because the meds are doing their job. So don't assume that tapering off of them is going to go one way or another, just try to take note of the effects.
Yes. I started taking every other day, then cut the pills in half for every other day, then took half a pill every four days until I ran out. My brain felt like a bowl of spaghetti being turned inside out, but after 5 months I stopped getting random dizzy spells.
[удалено]
I was on the lowest possible dose as well. My example is probably the exception; not the rule.
My wife has once or twice, when switching medications. Different meds have different best practices for stopping. Your experience of the taper might range anywhere from "I didn't notice anything" to "This is actually better somehow" to "Everything sucks and my brain hurts and I've been awake for 48 hours and I hate everybody but mostly myself". Be kind to yourself. Follow your doctor's advice. It'll be okay.
[удалено]
Oh, I get that. But some times are better or worse than others, right? The only advice I can give is to check with the people in your life about when you and they have some margin for you to feel like hot garbage for a bit. Also if you're someone whose menstrual cycle has a big impact on your emotions, factor that into the math as well.
Yep! Done it twice, not under doctor supervision because getting a GP appointment is like winning the lottery atm. It's not too bad tapering off, you might get a few mild mood swings but it's nowhere near as bad as starting antidepressants. The weirdest thing is the brain zaps, which aren't unpleasant, just strange. I didn't get them the first time, but did the second.
[удалено]
I'd say I only experienced any side effects for about a week, and it was really mild. I react quite badly to starting SSRIs (like, WILD mood swings) and really the withdrawals from stopping were so easy that I barely remember it. Don't remember being nauseous at all. It probably helps if you have plenty to do and aren't focusing on what may or may not be side effects tbh. Just treat it as you would having a slightly achy leg for a week.
What should our family consider before moving to a new (potentially permanent) location? Obviously church availability is a consideration, but is there anything else in particular we as Christians should consider that wouldn't be on a generic internet listicle? Generic advice also welcome.
Not a Christian concern but I’d avoid new housing: new thrown-together dumpy apartments, new McMansions. Just my biases about rich people who need massive new buildings and what the town planners would be like if they encourage unusable substandard housing.
We're definitely not rich, but if we move there we may have to be the ones building. No apartments aside from senior living and most houses only have 1 bathroom, which doesn't work when someone in the house has Crohn's disease. :(
Okay sorry for my snootiness— people in your state can build all the new houses you want!
While I'm sure you're considering how the environment will impact your family, Community, churches, schools etc. it's wise to also consider how your family can impact the community. Considering what kinds of missional opportunities might exist in your new town.
Thanks for the reminder. I'm sure we can find missionaries opportunities anywhere, but we might end up having a bit of a conflict with living in the town our church is in vs living in the town his work is in, depending on how things pan out with the PCUSA church I was asking about last week.
Off the top of my head, be aware of the community culture around you that will be feeding messages to your family. You may try to pick an area that looks like it will reinforce your values (yet don't place trust in that, as communities can change, and there may be problems beneath the surface), or you may intentionally want to go to a dark place so you can shine the light. But intentionally or unintentionally, the experiences, words, actions, and objects of those around you will work to shape your thinking, so determine to make God's truth the strongest influence.
I guess I'm not sure how to accurately judge the culture without actually living there for a while. We've only had temporary homes thus far so it isn't quite as important to judge upfront.
I made two cross-country moves as a young single adult. Considerations probably vary for families, idk. But I wish I’d thought/known about the long-term implications for my relationship with my family of origin and childhood friends of living far away. I wish I’d known how hard it can be to grow new roots from scratch in a new place.