Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner A Lesson in Lumbricales

Sorry, but this is really pathetic. You'd sooner try to discredit me by asking to me prove mechanical facts (in detail which you would never understand) than bother to think about the implications of my practically illustrated point regarding a chain?

I'll say once more:

If you have the slightest interest in discussing what is and isn't physically possible in piano playing (rather than in argument for its own sake) you'll ask yourself why you cannot produce a photo of a chain doing what I have asked you to make it do. A human arm cannot do that either. The onus is you to prove that you can defy mechanics, not on me to prove a simple truth.

....and pretty seriously, that's a lot of the answer right there.

Nyir: You seem to be trying very hard to be responsive and reasonable, and I think on this thread you've done pretty well at it. But it seems that you're not realizing some limitations of what you're doing -- and what KBK just said is actually very relevant to those. While indeed you're dealing a lot with hard science, you don't appreciate the extent to which much of it involves subjectivity and selectivity, much of which comes from one's own experience, and which in your case has a very strong underpinning from that. I don't know how much KBK might have intended this as a specific hint, but it's right -- your material seems to be much in the nature of 'autobiography.'

Asking for sources is hardly pathetic - supplying them is de rigueur! if you wish to be taken seriously.

"I can't think of one non-fiction volume or paper I own or have ever seen without them - unless it's autobiography!"


Perhaps that's because you have never read one on mechanics. Do you believe that every law of foundation mechanics is cited in mechanical papers? Stop fooling around with this irrelevant and ill-informed nonsense and keep it to the subject please.

I'm going to keep repeating this as long as you keep trying to change the subject, instead of dealing with the issue:

"If you have the slightest interest in discussing what is and isn't physically possible in piano playing (rather than in argument for its own sake) you'll ask yourself why you cannot produce a photo of a chain doing what I have asked you to make it do. A human arm cannot do that either. The onus is you to prove that you can defy mechanics, not on me to prove a simple truth."

What? There are books on mechanics with no citations? You have led a sheltered life.

Maybe if I illustrate: yesterday you were convinced that the intrinsics were strong muscles. Today you aren't. Now is that because I kept on telling you this? Or is it because I supplied such good references that you had no choice but accept it?

No it's your turn convince me.

Elementary laws of mechanics do not require citations. They are accepted. I did not say that mechanical papers have no citations. However, they do not need to cite every fundamental law of foundation level mechanics. There is no dispute over them.

I'll repeat myself once more:

"If you have the slightest interest in discussing what is and isn't physically possible in piano playing (rather than in argument for its own sake) you'll ask yourself why you cannot produce a photo of a chain doing what I have asked you to make it do. A human arm cannot do that either. The onus is you to prove that you can defy mechanics, not on me to prove a simple truth."

and if you have nothing better to offer than sarcastic attempts to change the subject and discredit me, rather than further the topic (as you have done over a number of successive posts now) I will be reporting you and seeing how the moderators view it.

It doesn't help you look smart to keep copy/pasting the same thing over and over -- regardless of your reason.

A little less persistence would probably help you.

If I get a credible follow up to that point, rather than a flimsy attempt to discredit it, I'll stop repeating it. When kbk can produce a photo of a chain doing what I asked him to, then I'll consider the possibility that the mechanical laws are in error.

Maybe you missed this:
Maybe if I illustrate: yesterday you were convinced that the intrinsics were strong muscles. Today you aren't. Now is that because I kept on telling you this? Or is it because I supplied such good references that you had no choice but accept it?

No it's your turn convince me.

I'll repeat this part again first, in direct response to your attempt to change the subject.

"Elementary laws of mechanics do not require citations. They are accepted. I did not say that mechanical papers have no citations. However, they do not need to cite every fundamental law of foundation level mechanics. There is no dispute over them."

classical mechanics have been established for hundreds of years.

and I'll repeat this once more, to remind you of the point that you are trying to change the subject from:

"If you have the slightest interest in discussing what is and isn't physically possible in piano playing (rather than in argument for its own sake) you'll ask yourself why you cannot produce a photo of a chain doing what I have asked you to make it do. A human arm cannot do that either. The onus is you to prove that you can defy mechanics, not on me to prove a simple truth."

If you have a point of relevance to make then make it. Stop trying to tell me to prove established mechanics and start proving how YOU supposedly defy it.

I don't think you get it. You convince people with the authorities you can call on just as I convinced you. There's no other way.

If you don't believe me then do this and prove that I'm wrong:

"If you dispute that then get a chain that is attached at two points that are at a distance of the chains length. Then show me that chain dropping to the floor. Alternately, attach a chain at one end only and show me a photo of it being supported horizontally without collapsing."

Trying to duck the point is of no use to anybody here. If you do not have anything to contribute then stop trying to change the subject and simply do not contribute.

Personally, if I reach a point in an argument where I have no credible follow up, that is where I stop and rethink.

I am completely neutral in this debate and I happen to like both kbk and N! However I must chime in here and say that there is another way to get at truth: experiment. You do not need an authority to tell you that if you drop an apple from some height on this planet it will drop to the ground.

It took an authority to write about it!

Yes, precisely. The man who claims it will not drop is the man who is required to make a proof- hence:

"If you dispute that then get a chain that is attached at two points that are at a distance of the chains length. Then show me that chain dropping to the floor. Alternately, attach a chain at one end only and show me a photo of it being supported horizontally without collapsing."

Show me that a chain can do that and I'll believe that an arm can "hang" at piano without a point of support at the finger.

OK Prof, start experimenting! Though no doubt you're re-inventing the wheel.

I already did the gedanken experiment.

Seriously, you ever seen any experiments without sources?

If you are so determined not to think then keep changing the subject. Alternatively, try this experiment:

"If you dispute that then get a chain that is attached at two points that are at a distance of the chains length. Then show me that chain dropping to the floor. Alternately, attach a chain at one end only and show me a photo of it being supported horizontally without collapsing."

Are you seriously more interested in trying to ask me to prove the law of physics that proves the above impossible than THINKING about the implications of what know full well to be impossible? You'd seriously sooner hope to push this fact of nature aside to promote a predetermined argument than think about it?

Personally I have no predetermined views on piano technique. If I did, I'd have views similar to your own. However, I threw all those beliefs out after I realised that they were not working and that neither did they stand up to rational scrutiny.