According to TP such noise is harmful - I am referring to the noise in nightclubs, which as stated on page 81, is three times too loud.
But what is three times too loud?
How loud would you say a nightclub is? It seems to get louder and people get drunker, but let's say it's 100 db (probably more, closer to the speakers).
So when one thinks three times more, 33db would be the suitable noise level, correct?
33db x 3 ~ 99db
Now here is where my lack of mathematical knowledge probably caused me the confusion:
Wouldn't 100db be more like 100 000 000 times as loud as 33db?
Noise that is three times too loud
Moderator: Moderators
Bit of complex. Depends on what Thao means by Loudness.
Check..
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/dB.html
I think 65db-70db is a safe limit
Check..
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/dB.html
I think 65db-70db is a safe limit
This is a subject that has been on my mind for some time now. My own perception of this limit is what is tolerable to my ear, anything beyond this limit gives me headaches. I still have to measure itbomohwkl wrote:I think 65db-70db is a safe limit
During summer in Portugal we have a huge amount of rock festivals where absurdly loud music and free beer abounds (of course some of the sponsors are the beer producers themselves) with the unfortunate results among young people we all know.
I think there should be a maximum limit for noise by law, in all circumstances, and of course sanctions for those who go beyond it. I don't see much being done in this regard... alas, of course that most people still ignore the existence of an Astral Being... Nevertheless we have a law prohibiting the making of noise (with a fixed limit) after 22:00 (10pm) at night. Through the newspapers I learned about the case of a lady who sued a party organization (actually it was an open air concert) because of this (she won the case because she was fortunate to have the guys from a quality control institute to come over during the night in a weekend to officially measure the noise level - her own measurements and device wouldn't have been accepted as proof in court
).In the 2004 edition of Rock in Rio - Lisbon, they had a forum where they discussed "For a better planet" (actually this is the motto of the organization... go figure) kind of things... I meant to go there to speak about the danger of loud noise, but then again speaking about the danger of noise in a rock concert would seem funny for most people there and probably a waste of time and energy. I figured that it's best that this concern is brought to the attention of competent circles... where a serious investigation and proper decisions can be made.
well, this is slightly off topic, but Barbara Brennan, a sensitive, describes drugs as being 'astral mucous' which I found interesting.
Id also like to find out if she notices people exposed to noise having some sort of astral distortions.
[Corrected typo by Ptex -- 2006-08-31]: from "benig" to "being" (above) with the author's consent.
Id also like to find out if she notices people exposed to noise having some sort of astral distortions.
[Corrected typo by Ptex -- 2006-08-31]: from "benig" to "being" (above) with the author's consent.
Precisely what does see mean with mucous??
The Dictionary wrote:Mucus: A thick slippery fluid produced by the membranes lining certain organs such as the nose, mouth, throat, and vagina. Mucus is the Latin word for "a semifluid, slimy discharge from the nose." Note that mucus is a noun while the adjective is mucous.
Don't read my signature.
it was in her book 'hands of light' i believe --- she said I think it had to do with a blockage introduced into the astral body. basically like an elusive difficult/tenacious contaminant in there.
this concept of phlegm, *actually is present in chinese medicine, the word 'phlegm' is regarded in TCM as a pathogenic factor, and can be either tangible [physiological blockage] or 'invisible', as in emotional, or perhaps as observed by Barbara Brennan.
I should go get her book , I only scanned it in a bookstore and seems very interesting.
this concept of phlegm, *actually is present in chinese medicine, the word 'phlegm' is regarded in TCM as a pathogenic factor, and can be either tangible [physiological blockage] or 'invisible', as in emotional, or perhaps as observed by Barbara Brennan.
I should go get her book , I only scanned it in a bookstore and seems very interesting.
On page 92 of her "hands of light" book she saysRezo wrote:well, this is slightly off topic, but Barbara Brennan, a sensitive, describes drugs as benig 'astral mucous' which I found interesting.
I believe you were trying to quote the above. From its context I take that Barbara intends to picture drugs as inducing a kind of 'astral mucous' in the Aura, a kind of a blurr area where the colors are dim and dark.(...)drugs like lsd, marijuana, cocaine and alcohol are detrimental to the brilliant, healthy colors of the Aura and create "etheric mucus", as does disease.
I'm sorry but I was mislead by your typo "benig" and I read it as "benign" (which is absurd
)but you actually must have meant "being". I ask your permission for a moderator to change the "benig" to "being" because if it remains as is it may also mislead other forum readers.To clarify the purpose my original post:
I found it odd that Thaora said three times too loud as, to me, 100 db is already quite uncomfortable. So, ~105db, being three times as loud (this value taken with info posted here), is inappropriate?
My saying 100 000 000 times louder in my original post was an exaggeration (and estimation). The point is that it is silly to think 105db would be damaging in this way when 100 db is not, particularly in the context of the passage in TP I refer to.
As Bomohwkl has mentioned Thaora could have meant "psychophysically loudness" - whatever that is. Could you clarify that?
Maybe the Thaora simplified the concept to Michel
or maybe Michel overlooked this when he invented this work
or maybe there are ways of thinking of "loudness" that I am unaware of, which seems to be the most likely, as it would be a shame if a very intricate work (the more you look at it, which it should be read a number of times) fell apart here.
edit: I knew I should have read your link Bomo, but I guess my laziness went ahead of my reasoning
My understanding of psychophysical is that it is a dB measurement based on the subjective impression of what twice as loud sounds like. This is along the lines of what I meant by "maybe the Thaora simplified the concept to Michel".
Still, 10 db = twice as loud? That isn't much "better" than 3db.
Perhaps you could further clarify?
And maybe there are more ways to look at it? I have virtually no knowledge of these things, so..
I found it odd that Thaora said three times too loud as, to me, 100 db is already quite uncomfortable. So, ~105db, being three times as loud (this value taken with info posted here), is inappropriate?
My saying 100 000 000 times louder in my original post was an exaggeration (and estimation). The point is that it is silly to think 105db would be damaging in this way when 100 db is not, particularly in the context of the passage in TP I refer to.
As Bomohwkl has mentioned Thaora could have meant "psychophysically loudness" - whatever that is. Could you clarify that?
Maybe the Thaora simplified the concept to Michel
or maybe Michel overlooked this when he invented this work
or maybe there are ways of thinking of "loudness" that I am unaware of, which seems to be the most likely, as it would be a shame if a very intricate work (the more you look at it, which it should be read a number of times) fell apart here.
edit: I knew I should have read your link Bomo, but I guess my laziness went ahead of my reasoning
My understanding of psychophysical is that it is a dB measurement based on the subjective impression of what twice as loud sounds like. This is along the lines of what I meant by "maybe the Thaora simplified the concept to Michel".
Still, 10 db = twice as loud? That isn't much "better" than 3db.
Perhaps you could further clarify?
And maybe there are more ways to look at it? I have virtually no knowledge of these things, so..
Regarding this sound, you may wish to check Wikipedia's acoustic db definition which is a lot easier to understand (for a layman as myself) than the other site Bomohwkl mentioned (Department of Physics - University of New South Wales - Australia).
According to this source (wikipedia), there's a table mentioning 100 dB corresponds to a "Jackhammer" or "inside a disco" so I don't believe this 100 Db is tolerable at all. Actually probably it's this 100dB which according to Thao is 3 times too loud.
In this site it's also said that: "In air, sound pressure levels above 85 dB are considered harmful, while 95 dB is considered unsafe for prolonged periods and 120 dB causes an immediate perforation of the ear drum (tympanic membrane)".
90 dB is the sound level that provokes permanent hearing damage during long-term effect.
Based only in the information given in Wikipedia, regarding decibel acoustics, I'd say that 60 dB (corresponding to the inside of a moderately busy restaurant or office) is quite tolerable. 70 dB (corresponding to busy traffic) is already a bit aggressive to me. But in the end something between 60-70 dB should be tolerable.
We have to remember that (as it was said before) the dB is a logarithmic scale:
To help comprehend the relation between both, here's a table with the correspondence between the Source of Sound, the sound pressure (in Pascal linear units) and the Sound pressure level (logarithmic dB relative to 20 µPa).
Let's analyse both 70dB and 100dB: 70 dB <=> ~ 0,063 Pa (Pa = Pascal - linear sound pressure level) and 100 dB <=> ~ 2 Pa. (units converted with the help of: http://www.sengpielaudio.com/TableOfSou ... Levels.htm) The difference between both is way beyond 3 times.
As I said before the only way to reach a satisfactory (practical) conclusion is to take a measuring device and measure both our comfortable level and the level at a disco or rock concert...
According to this source (wikipedia), there's a table mentioning 100 dB corresponds to a "Jackhammer" or "inside a disco" so I don't believe this 100 Db is tolerable at all. Actually probably it's this 100dB which according to Thao is 3 times too loud.
In this site it's also said that: "In air, sound pressure levels above 85 dB are considered harmful, while 95 dB is considered unsafe for prolonged periods and 120 dB causes an immediate perforation of the ear drum (tympanic membrane)".
90 dB is the sound level that provokes permanent hearing damage during long-term effect.
Based only in the information given in Wikipedia, regarding decibel acoustics, I'd say that 60 dB (corresponding to the inside of a moderately busy restaurant or office) is quite tolerable. 70 dB (corresponding to busy traffic) is already a bit aggressive to me. But in the end something between 60-70 dB should be tolerable.
We have to remember that (as it was said before) the dB is a logarithmic scale:
Meaning that the higher the dB number, the greater the magnitude of the absolute value (non-logarithmic)."Decibels are useful because they allow even very large or small ratios to be represented with a conveniently small number (similar to scientific notation). This is achieved by using a logarithm."
To help comprehend the relation between both, here's a table with the correspondence between the Source of Sound, the sound pressure (in Pascal linear units) and the Sound pressure level (logarithmic dB relative to 20 µPa).
Let's analyse both 70dB and 100dB: 70 dB <=> ~ 0,063 Pa (Pa = Pascal - linear sound pressure level) and 100 dB <=> ~ 2 Pa. (units converted with the help of: http://www.sengpielaudio.com/TableOfSou ... Levels.htm) The difference between both is way beyond 3 times.
As I said before the only way to reach a satisfactory (practical) conclusion is to take a measuring device and measure both our comfortable level and the level at a disco or rock concert...
I had some issues in the past on what harmful noise meant, as in, wearing earplugs wont help as per Tom's opinion of it. Thaora mentioned sounds that reach the ears, so naturally I at first had figured okay earplugs make it ok, right? Obviously I greatly reduced my exposure or participation in noisemaking to a large extent, but not completely...
Gauging what is comfortable vs what is not, may not be so easy as certain forms of loudness we have become accustomed to. It becomes easier when isolating your hearing for a while for said activity, then removing earplugs, to see what happens.
The other day I played the drumset here, with noise cancelling headphones, then took them off and continued just to play the hi hat, then noticed how irritating it was...I don't play a lot of drums but I'm pretty good. One thing I don't get is, Tom says it takes many many lifetimes to correct, or you will extinguish your consicousness, yet in TP it says, it may take several lifetimes to correct. Both conclusions seem quite different and Ive not yet been able to decide what was meant exactly. I'm assuming though, as stated earlier here, that certain noises are and always will be harmful, and that these noises should be minimized to the smallest reasonable extent possible. What defines reasonable is the issue, since it isn't always possible to avoid it.
Jackhammers are very loud and so are car alarms. The other night I tried to get to sleep and my neighbors pool engine or motor was 'humming' or something there was making this awful hum sound that went on for almost 30 minutes and it kept me up another hour or so. Not loud, but very irritating.
I would like to know more on experiments regarding at least some of the unique behavior of the astral body, even though it seems far off. this information is probably pretty important.
Gauging what is comfortable vs what is not, may not be so easy as certain forms of loudness we have become accustomed to. It becomes easier when isolating your hearing for a while for said activity, then removing earplugs, to see what happens.
The other day I played the drumset here, with noise cancelling headphones, then took them off and continued just to play the hi hat, then noticed how irritating it was...I don't play a lot of drums but I'm pretty good. One thing I don't get is, Tom says it takes many many lifetimes to correct, or you will extinguish your consicousness, yet in TP it says, it may take several lifetimes to correct. Both conclusions seem quite different and Ive not yet been able to decide what was meant exactly. I'm assuming though, as stated earlier here, that certain noises are and always will be harmful, and that these noises should be minimized to the smallest reasonable extent possible. What defines reasonable is the issue, since it isn't always possible to avoid it.
Jackhammers are very loud and so are car alarms. The other night I tried to get to sleep and my neighbors pool engine or motor was 'humming' or something there was making this awful hum sound that went on for almost 30 minutes and it kept me up another hour or so. Not loud, but very irritating.
I would like to know more on experiments regarding at least some of the unique behavior of the astral body, even though it seems far off. this information is probably pretty important.
ehh i'm in a technology class right now and the noise is about 75db with the fans and the machinery on...i'd like to switch but i'm not sure if i should because the class is fun.
But then again, i heard somebody else was trying to switch but they werent able to, iYo should i switch?
But then again, i heard somebody else was trying to switch but they werent able to, iYo should i switch?
If a blind man leads another, they will both fall into a pit. -Jesus Christ
The no-mind not-thinks no-thoughts about no thing.
Gautama Buddha
The no-mind not-thinks no-thoughts about no thing.
Gautama Buddha