Mornington Dream

User avatar
Wolfman
Posts: 85
https://mapa.targeo.pl/kuchnie-na-wymiar-warszawa-ladna-41-97-500-radomsko~20490206/meble-wyposazenie-domu-sklep/adres
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 12:33 pm
Location: West Sussex, UK

Post by Wolfman »

redziller wrote:That's a might strong hand, I'll raise two thumbs and a toe


also raises right leg, peruses timetable for departure of Red Train

Snap!
Snap! Ye gods, his braces and underpant elastic have both failed at the same time. Ah, Peter mon mate. Good try but I'm afraid I must raise two fingers and invoke the wrong type of snow on the tracks to mitigate the effectiveness of your Red Train move.

Checkmate, mate, and Spon, mate.

Leaves for the swamp near Okefenokee to buy sennapods which give you a good run for your money
bigmoog wrote:The fact the decay can be slowed or even prevented by frequently repeated measurements, noticed first by Beskow and Nilsson, and called quantum Zeno effect by Misra and Sudarshan, attracted recently a lot of attention since it seems to be nowadays experimentally accessible. Mathematically the issue was addressed, in particular, long time ago by Friedman and Chernoff, however, the question about existence of the "Zeno limit" remained open.

Let H and P be a non-negative self-adjoint operator acting in a separable Hilbert space H and an orthogonal projection on H, respectively. Suppose that the operator HP := (H1/2P)*(H1/2P) is densely defined, then we claim that the said limit exists and we find its value,

limn→∞ [P exp(-iεtH/n)P]n = exp(-iεtHP) P

for ε=±1. In fact, the proof given in [1] yields a stronger result with P on the left-hand side replaced by values of a projection-valued family such that P(t)→P as t→0 and P(t)P = P(t), as well as non-symmetric versions of such formulae. The method we use employs a modification of a Kato's result on Trotter product formula in combination with analyic continuation.

As an example consider H=-Δ in L2(Rd) and P projecting onto an open Ω⊂Rd with a smooth boundary. Then the limits exists and HP is equal to the Dirichlet Laplacian in L2(Ω); this provided a rigorous proof of the formal claim made recently in [2] using the method of stationary phase.

Thus Zeit RULES



KING BM, PhD, etc CONCURS :D
Although your conclusion is faultless, I must point out that the self-adjoint of H and P is random according to the weather. It is well known that in colder climes the HP gets stuck in the bottle unless shaken violently, which then causes unfortunate stains on the tablecloth and a random and non linear distribution (of what was once densely defined contents that then returned to an almost liquid state) on the chips.
In support of this may I quote the famous Eccles who when asked if he'd heard of a water shute said, "No, but I've heard of a piece of knotted string."
User avatar
bigmoog
Posts: 14867
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: 1975

Post by bigmoog »

Less Is More

In the early days of synthesis, a synthesizer's sound was characterized by filters more than anything else. With the much-expanded sound palette of today's models, the filter may be slightly less important, but it is still a key element in sound design.

Synthesizer filters are characterized by how they affect different parts of the frequency spectrum. Lowpass filters (like the treble control on your stereo) reduce the level of higher frequencies while leaving lower frequencies unchanged. Highpass filters do the opposite, and bandpass and band-reject filters reduce the level of frequencies inside or outside of a frequency band. Lowpass filters are the most common, and if your synth has only one type of filter, that is what it will be. However, it's not unusual for a synth to have a filter that is switchable among the four modes just mentioned, or even to have several filters of different types that can be arranged in series (operating successively) or parallel (operating simultaneously).

The filter setting over which you will always have control is the cutoff frequency. For lowpass and highpass filters, that is the frequency at which the signal level is reduced by half. For bandpass and band-reject filters, it is the center of the band. For lowpass and highpass filters, there is usually a resonance setting as well. That determines how much the signal is boosted (if at all) just before the cutoff frequency. Bandpass and band-reject filters sometimes have a Q setting that controls the width of the affected band. (If you're working with a preset-only synth, MIDI Controller numbers 71 and 74 can often be used to control the resonance and cutoff.) Fig. 2 illustrates the four common filter shapes and the effect of resonance.





absolutely :arrow:
...The wise.....are silent.....
User avatar
redziller
Posts: 2028
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 1:59 am
Location: staying home getting stiff
Contact:

Post by redziller »

Wolfman wrote:
redziller wrote:That's a might strong hand, I'll raise two thumbs and a toe


also raises right leg, peruses timetable for departure of Red Train

Snap!
Snap! Ye gods, his braces and underpant elastic have both failed at the same time. Ah, Peter mon mate. Good try but I'm afraid I must raise two fingers and invoke the wrong type of snow on the tracks to mitigate the effectiveness of your Red Train move.

Checkmate, mate, and Spon, mate.

Leaves for the swamp near Okefenokee to buy sennapods which give you a good run for your money
Sorry John - a checkmate with Spon assist fails here as I have an uncle in Australia (so you just watch what you say)

Abandons red train for transseiberian express, 1st class carriage, hiding under the seat

Here's the flop... pugh :oops:

double-blank, Z10, J8, and the Candlestick

"All in"
imho

TD

/ did \
- does - ROCK!
\ will /

https://shiningpyramid.bandcamp.com/releases

http://www.redziller.co.uk/ffp/ TD video game
User avatar
bigmoog
Posts: 14867
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: 1975

Post by bigmoog »

Your
Hand 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A

8
H H H H H H H H H H
9 H D D D D H H H H H
10 D D D D D D D D H H
11 D D D D D D D D D H
12 H H S S S H H H H H
13 S S S S S H H H H H
14 S S S S S H H H H H
15 S S S S S H H H H H
16 S S S S S H H H H H
17 S S S S S S S S S S
A,2 H H H D D H H H H H
A,3 H H H D D H H H H H
A,4 H H D D D H H H H H
A,5 H H D D D H H H H H
A,6 H D D D D H H H H H
A,7 S D D D D S S H H H
A,8 S S S S S S S S S S
A,9 S S S S S S S S S S
A,A P P P P P P P P P P
2,2 H H P P P P H H H H
3,3 H H P P P P H H H H
4,4 H H H H H H H H H H
6,6 H P P P P H H H H H
7,7 P P P P P P H H H H
8,8 P P P P P P P P P P
9,9 P P P P P S P P S S
10,10 S S S S S S S S S S



next :arrow:
...The wise.....are silent.....
User avatar
redziller
Posts: 2028
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 1:59 am
Location: staying home getting stiff
Contact:

Post by redziller »

bigmoog wrote:The fact the decay can be slowed or even prevented by frequently repeated measurements, noticed first by Beskow and Nilsson, and called quantum Zeno effect by Misra and Sudarshan, attracted recently a lot of attention since it seems to be nowadays experimentally accessible. Mathematically the issue was addressed, in particular, long time ago by Friedman and Chernoff, however, the question about existence of the "Zeno limit" remained open.

Let H and P be a non-negative self-adjoint operator acting in a separable Hilbert space H and an orthogonal projection on H, respectively. Suppose that the operator HP := (H1/2P)*(H1/2P) is densely defined, then we claim that the said limit exists and we find its value,

limn→∞ [P exp(-iεtH/n)P]n = exp(-iεtHP) P

for ε=±1. In fact, the proof given in [1] yields a stronger result with P on the left-hand side replaced by values of a projection-valued family such that P(t)→P as t→0 and P(t)P = P(t), as well as non-symmetric versions of such formulae. The method we use employs a modification of a Kato's result on Trotter product formula in combination with analyic continuation.

As an example consider H=-Δ in L2(Rd) and P projecting onto an open Ω⊂Rd with a smooth boundary. Then the limits exists and HP is equal to the Dirichlet Laplacian in L2(Ω); this provided a rigorous proof of the formal claim made recently in [2] using the method of stationary phase.

Thus Zeit RULES



KING BM, PhD, etc CONCURS :D

So the micro-equivalent of the proverb "a watched pot never boils".

Is it a coincidence that time is the imginary component of space-time?
imho

TD

/ did \
- does - ROCK!
\ will /

https://shiningpyramid.bandcamp.com/releases

http://www.redziller.co.uk/ffp/ TD video game
User avatar
bigmoog
Posts: 14867
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: 1975

Post by bigmoog »

Spacetime entails a new concept of distance. Whereas distances are always positive in Euclidean spaces, the distance between any two events in spacetime (called an "interval") may be real, zero, or even imaginary. The spacetime interval quantifies this new distance (in Cartesian coordinates x,y,z,t):

s^2 = \, c^2t^2 - r^2

where c is the speed of light, differences of the space and time coordinates of the two events are denoted by r and t, respectively and r2 = x2 + y2 + z2. (Note that the choice of signs above follows the Landau-Lifshitz spacelike convention. Other treatments, including some within Wikipedia, reverse the order of the arguments on the right-hand side. If this alternate convention is chosen, the relationships in the next two paragraphs are reversed.)

Pairs of events in spacetime may be classified into 3 distinct types based on 'how far' apart they are:

* time-like (more than enough time passes for there to be a cause-effect relationship between the two events; there exists a reference frame such that the two events occur at the same place; s2 > 0).
* light-like (the space between the two events is exactly balanced by the time between the two events; s2 = 0).
* space-like (not enough time passes for there to be a cause-effect relationship between the two events; there exists a reference frame such that the two events occur at the same time; s2 < 0).

Events with a positive space-time interval are in each other's future or past, and the value of the interval defines the proper time measured by an observer traveling between them. Events with a spacetime interval of zero are separated by the propagation of a light signal.

For special relativity, the space-time interval is considered invariant across inertial reference frames.

Certain types of worldlines (called geodesics of the space-time) are the shortest paths between any two events, with distance being defined in terms of space-time intervals. The concept of geodesics becomes critical in general relativity, since geodesic motion may be thought of as "pure motion" (inertial motion) in space-time, that is, free from any external influences.


this may well be cobblers, as TIME, actually has MASS and exists ALONGSIDE space
...The wise.....are silent.....
User avatar
redziller
Posts: 2028
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 1:59 am
Location: staying home getting stiff
Contact:

Post by redziller »

Thing is though, as our perception of time is linear we have no way knowing how many time dimensions there are - consider a rollercoaster, there's only one degree of freedom (along the track) but clearly the track itself moves through three dimensions.

I suggest an amendment to the equation for the interval thus

s^2=c^2t^2-r^2

where as before r2 = x2 + y2 + z2 but additionally
t^2=x'^2+y'^2+z'^2 where the prime indicates temporal coordinate
imho

TD

/ did \
- does - ROCK!
\ will /

https://shiningpyramid.bandcamp.com/releases

http://www.redziller.co.uk/ffp/ TD video game
User avatar
bigmoog
Posts: 14867
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: 1975

Post by bigmoog »

redziller wrote:Thing is though, as our perception of time is linear we have no way knowing how many time dimensions there are - consider a rollercoaster, there's only one degree of freedom (along the track) but clearly the track itself moves through three dimensions.

I suggest an amendment to the equation for the interval thus

s^2=c^2t^2-r^2

where as before r2 = x2 + y2 + z2 but additionally
t^2=x'^2+y'^2+z'^2 where the prime indicates temporal coordinate

possibly


but :

Ok, tell me why you think Einstein's equations about TD and LC are wrong?

Firstly, without talking about the book, let me start by saying that I agree with Einstein about TD (and LC). I believe TD does exist and we can prove it in future. The twin paradox would happen one day, in the sense one brother flies out and comes back 10 years younger than his brother. Yes, it would happen, definitely. Not today, not tomorrow, but some day.

The question is not whether TD would happen or not, but how it would happen? What causes TD? And that is the point, it's about the TD equation that I want to challenge Einstein.

Now more than Einstein, I believe there're many different ways to cause TD. Who knows what would happen in the future? Our astronauts might one day land on a weird planet, go through extreme environment, touch the boundary of impossibles and discover hundred new ways to make time run slower or faster. We might have then hundred kinds of different TD equations:

T/To = f(a)
T/To = f(b)
T/To = f(c,d), etc,...
or combination of all these variables T/To = S f(an)



THUS TD, EVER TD


T=0


time is only LINEAR for those accepting one direction of travel

TD
...The wise.....are silent.....
User avatar
redziller
Posts: 2028
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 1:59 am
Location: staying home getting stiff
Contact:

Post by redziller »

bigmoog wrote:
redziller wrote:Thing is though, as our perception of time is linear we have no way knowing how many time dimensions there are - consider a rollercoaster, there's only one degree of freedom (along the track) but clearly the track itself moves through three dimensions.

I suggest an amendment to the equation for the interval thus

s^2=c^2t^2-r^2

where as before r2 = x2 + y2 + z2 but additionally
t^2=x'^2+y'^2+z'^2 where the prime indicates temporal coordinate

possibly


but :

Ok, tell me why you think Einstein's equations about TD and LC are wrong?

Firstly, without talking about the book, let me start by saying that I agree with Einstein about TD (and LC). I believe TD does exist and we can prove it in future. The twin paradox would happen one day, in the sense one brother flies out and comes back 10 years younger than his brother. Yes, it would happen, definitely. Not today, not tomorrow, but some day.

The question is not whether TD would happen or not, but how it would happen? What causes TD? And that is the point, it's about the TD equation that I want to challenge Einstein.

Now more than Einstein, I believe there're many different ways to cause TD. Who knows what would happen in the future? Our astronauts might one day land on a weird planet, go through extreme environment, touch the boundary of impossibles and discover hundred new ways to make time run slower or faster. We might have then hundred kinds of different TD equations:

T/To = f(a)
T/To = f(b)
T/To = f(c,d), etc,...
or combination of all these variables T/To = S f(an)



THUS TD, EVER TD


T=0


time is only LINEAR for those accepting one direction of travel

TD
oh not wrong - one time dimension is just a special case of there being three.

Never been happy with the twin paradox - takes two SR experiments and sticks them together with some GR glue. If you have more than one time dimension then you get perspective effects so TD could just be a matter of geometry - and after all, what else is there?

We're always saying there are many TDs so yes, TD is better written {TDn} where n is a function of fanbase & experience.
imho

TD

/ did \
- does - ROCK!
\ will /

https://shiningpyramid.bandcamp.com/releases

http://www.redziller.co.uk/ffp/ TD video game
sparrow
Posts: 7393
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 12:54 am
Location: Scotland

Post by sparrow »

:?
User avatar
Wolfman
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 12:33 pm
Location: West Sussex, UK

Post by Wolfman »

redziller wrote:
Sorry John - a checkmate with Spon assist fails here as I have an uncle in Australia (so you just watch what you say)

Abandons red train for transseiberian express, 1st class carriage, hiding under the seat

Here's the flop... pugh :oops:

double-blank, Z10, J8, and the Candlestick

"All in"
bigmoog wrote: T/To = f(a)
T/To = f(b)
T/To = f(c,d), etc,...
or combination of all these variables T/To = S f(an)

THUS TD, EVER TD
T=0

time is only LINEAR for those accepting one direction of travel

TD
Sapristi knockoes and great widgets of fudge, foiled by the demon forces of the antipodes and the power of T (two lumps in mine please but according to the doctor [D] they should go down soon).

I shall now go and sulk and write the word FERTANG in Greek for the benefit of other forum members who lack the power of the Greek write and are therefore at risk of being deaded by the forces of evil anti-T brigade and antipodean uncles.

Goodbye cruel world and Mrs Trellis of North Wales who is planning to write to both Messrs. BigMoog and Redziller with the definitive answer to Spon and all who sail in her.

Exits right to NAAFI but really goes to bedroom to secretly watch forbidden episodes of the Baywatch.
timer
Posts: 11363
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 12:05 pm
Location: Glasgow

Post by timer »

You lot have deafinately lost the plot ! Or is it me !
User avatar
Hobo
Posts: 3977
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 4:14 pm
Location: At The Border Of The Marsh

Post by Hobo »

timer wrote:You lot have deafinately lost the plot ! Or is it me !
It all makes (non)sense to me!
"In the absurd often lies what is artistically possible." - Edgar Froese
User avatar
bigmoog
Posts: 14867
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: 1975

Post by bigmoog »

The space/time continuum is a collection of parametric specifications that attempt to define is. The specifications can be as single values and thus define a specific point in space/time, or they can be continuous and define an entire entity.

thus the TDn, is such a specification, where random voltage controlled oscillators controlled by human agency, produce improvised** td, when 'n' is a value to be noted by 0 where T is 0, therefore 1967 can be infinite and random


**by improvised, I mean collectively a roll of a dice, loaded of course, but still non linear,as the outcome is only hindsight


BM: existing microsecond to microsecond


comments?
...The wise.....are silent.....
cantosis

Post by cantosis »

Hobo wrote:
timer wrote:You lot have deafinately lost the plot ! Or is it me !
It all makes (non)sense to me!

same here, I`ll stick to top trumps!
Post Reply