E 015: Fill & Download for Free

7500 * (e^(.015*12)) = 10750

G tuning like for Bluegrass Dobro.C6 swing and Hawaiian tuning.B11C#m7 (E6) Sol Ho’o’op’i tuningSteiner Gregertson saysThe first 'classic' Cm7/E6 was simply an open-E tuning with the second string raised from a B to a C#. Then it developed to the one most used now - C# E G# B C# E, low to high (you will need a special set for this tuning).In Western Swing some players prefer to have a 3rd on top, which will be a G#, and Don Helms who played with Hank Sr tuned to A C# E G# B C# E G# - a sort of hybrid between E6 and Amaj9.So for a 6-string you're definitely on the right track, and my choice for string - on a lap steel - would be:G# - .011E - .015C# - .017B - .018G# - .024 (wound)E - .030On a regular electric I would go for a lighter gauge to save the neck. Try starting with a .009 or even a .008 (it will sound awfully thin though, personally I don't like the sound of anything tuned higher than E on my lap steels.....).SteinarThough it’s reciprocal tuning is E6 it is not the classical E tuningX6 tunings are cool because the give you major and minor and tensions in the same tuning.

There was two branches as the famous Copenhagen Conference.the statistical nature was the winner (Schrodinger and others)Einstein was in the other camp thinking that a bridge to far. That the underlying nature of the world cannot be statistical. Even if he thought the world ‘warped’ in spacetime, he refused to the end to believe the world was statistical.There are two branches of math / physics:Statistical / quantum - which is useful when there are thousands or millions of events, and one wants to test a few, and get predictions about the set. It works great for millions of gas molecules (Closed Container Ideal Gas Law)Continuous math / classical mechanics - all one-to-one direct calculations1I explain the challenge as the subatomic world operates by forces at subatomic distances. At that distance, the speed of light with create a force on a particle in <E-23 seconds. That is less than a nanosecond of a nanosecond. (3E+08 m/second to get across a particle diameter of E-15, so E-015/E+08 = ~E-23).So, scientists have resorted to the statistical/quantum methods because in the time of their measurement, millions of events happen (light passing the particle) that might change the results. A light photon might fade it, it might break a bond, it might change its physics-spin, its physics-color, and the list goes on. A nanosecond has millions of events for every subatomic particle.As a result, what scientists measure if accurate to just a nanosecond is like 31.7 particle-years (10E+09 in a nanosecond-as-if-a-second /60 /60 /24 /365 years) for that subatomic particle.Think dog-years. Do you know where you dog will be randomly over 6 days let alone 6 years? No the observations will be random (although I know that 50/50 of the time will be in that cozy dog-bed we gave each of them.). All our observations of the subatomic world will get statistical results, but that does not mean the dog is statistical. No, the dog is real, just did 100,000 random events between observations - running over to the window to bark at the passing truck, etc.This is the opposite of Schrodinger’s Cat!3So, scientists are using the best method available, but I am in the Einstein camp, that a final model will have real particles.So, now, you know that math challenge, the mountain the Einstein followers are tying to climb. I am not in the camp that particles really are probabilities.When we get the factors correctly understood, I believe the particles and forces will be real. Quantum theory is a interesting step, but not the final answer.