studiot

Did you have a question or point for discussion ?

But you are addressing my OP with this statement. That's discussion for you.

In feedback techniques the sampling is done at the output, and returned to the input so the correction always lags the output. In feedforwrd techniques the sampling is done at input and fedforward through a separate path to coincide with the output in a corrective polarity. Feed Forward Techniques Electronics Today International April 1976 page 68

Hello and welcome. I suggest you read the posting rules first Here is a good start

No need to apologise, relativistic causality is included. But for instance I have't seen any biologist responsed about any form of biogenesis or the chicken and egg question. So please carry on the discussion, I didn't mean to put you off.

Yes and No. Every single one of those states has exactly the same chance of occurring. This means that the state you called order is not unique. In other words you can take any state you like and call it 'order' and make the same statistical argument. Can we please return to discussing the wider aspect than just relativity. That is why I posted in Pholosophy, not the relativity section. Thanks for your reply, keep them coming. In particular you didn't mention feed forward, which includes various arror correcting techniques that are simultaneous.

Not quite what I was thinking but yes another example to be explained. No I don't think so. Turn your Fender or Marshal up and place the mike in front of the speaker.

Given that you (hopefully) have some respect for the intellect of the other person the rational consequence of "It seems nonsensical to me" is to ask what they mean. This is exactly what I am trying to do for you, and why I say your second paragraph is so much better +1. Asking about Length is an excellent question. In the context of your proposal and our discussion, Length is a specific case of distance, Distance being the more general. Length is the distance between two points on the same object, usually 'start' and 'end' points. More generally distance includes the separation of two different objects, or the same object after movement. The thing about both Length and distance is that they can be considered very generally, without numbers, and some relations concerning them can be studied. For instance in elementary plane geometry we learn about similar triangles. Without numbers we can deduce that they are the same shape and that the (Lengths) of the sides are all in the same proportion. (Which is what I think you are trying to do with your diagram). The instant we introduce numbers, some very interesting things happen. We can give the concept (length)2 a meaning and see that it is different from the concept of (Length) in a very special way. If we put successive numbers into (Length) we obtain an arithmetic series. If we put successive numbers into (Length)2 we obtain a geometric series. In your case you have β = r*sinθ and κ = r*cosθ or the other way round I can't remember which so please correct me if I got it wrong. so (r*sinθ)2 + ( r*cosθ)2 = r2(sin2θ + cos2θ) By introducing the object (radius) r you have introduced Length and and thereby introduced a metric. Note that a metric may be formed by many different distance functions, which may produce different results. The metric must contain only one distance function. In your case the Manhatten metric coincides with the euclidian metric for Length, but not for distance. This is because Length is always measured along a line. I will be going out soon for the rest of Saturday.

Philosophy deals with the notion of cause and effect, both identifiable with the latter following the former. What I have never seen so would like to ask is How does Philosophy address feedback and feedforward processes in relation to cause and effect ?

What's a factor of 10 between friends ? I only said 64 and 97 because 6.4 and 9.7 don't have any integer factors. Anyway 0.1Thz =100Ghz is just about right for beefing up my wifi. I re read the OP and in fact harmonics were mentioned. My brain now tells me that this generation technique has been used in the past at much lower frequencies. In fact I had a vanle af sig gen that worked that way to about 10 Mhz. It may still be in my garage under a load of other junk.

What about Rosevelt's four freedoms ? I do like Norman Rockwell, by the way.

Noted. Hopefully these interviews are in English.

To meet the OP spec as 64th and 97th harmonics (6.4Thz and 9.7Thz) the fundamental would surely have to be 100Ghz ?

I have to agree with Xerxes. It is arrogant to say that because you do not understand it a statement or question is nonsense. (Note I do not agree with his comment about geometry. There are areas of geometry that do not require a metric and the 'metry' refers to the process of measurement, not to a metric. In fact the full translation is the measurement of the Earth (Geo). Of course the anything in (anything)2 is a number. There is nothing I said that suggests otherwise. I was rather expecting you to tell me (correctly) that if one wants to take the square 'anything' must be a number. That is exactly my point. Of course, also, the anything may or may not have units. If it does have units then squaring will also square the units. It is also true that beta and kappa are length variables which in turn means that you must have a metric to assign numerical values to them. In ordinary old fashioned geometry a metric allows the congruence relation, a lack of a metric is restricted to a similarity relation (which I have already mentioned without response). In my last but one post I offered you a similar (comparable) situation in terms of the 'constitutive equations or relations' of fluid mechanics where a constraint is defined by an invariant constant. Unfortunately the silence of your response to this was deafening.

This season of Guy Fawkes is is good time for all to examine the underpinning of their conclusions. Sadly you have refused to do this. In particular you have refused to explain how you can square anything that is not a number (with or without units), despite being asked several times. Instead your alleged response to any question has been repetition of the original unfounded presentation and all the self contradictions it contains. Unfortunately the broken record technique is neither valid in Science nor Philosophy. So I am faced with two options. I could formally report this thread for total lack of support for the claims made. Or I could simply walk away, shaking my head in sorrow, like others who also hoped for a useful and perhaps enlightening discussion.

Interesting thought, thanks. However I'm not quite sure what both 64 and 97 could be harmonics of since 97 is a prime number.

Thank you for replying, Ken. +1 not only for that but also for the manner in which you have replied. This really is a good example of how discussion should work. I have not heard of any of your references, but rest assured I will investigate them as potentially very interesting. A most informative reply.

Pity you didn't write it here as nobody will look at your g-drive. Do you know what linear algebra and group theory mean ?

In exactly what way is 9,700,000,000,000 Hz an odd frequency ?

'Secret' underground energy could heat every home in capital cityImage source, Getty Images Image caption, There could be an untapped resource under everyone's feet in Wales' capital that could lead to cheaper heating bills ByDani Thomas BBC Wales Published 5 November 2025 270 Comments Updated 5 hours ago On an unassuming street in Cardiff, engineering geologist Ashley Patton is lifting the lid on what looks like an ordinary drain cover. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy5q9e1e4zpo I expect @Ken Fabian will be interested in this.

Tiny things please tiny minds. But unfortunately they may also have huge effect on ordinary folks.

Don't reply. PMs avoid the 5 post limit.

From zero assumptions to minimal assumptions eh ?? Please make up your mind. Yet you make an assumption when you write Because that is not what I asked. I would be very happy to discuss metrics if you were prepared to answer any of my questions concerning metrics. The rest of your response leads me to think that you do not know what a metric is. A metric is a noun and as such it is the rule part of a function or mapping from it's domain set to the co- domain ( which is the union of the positive real numbers and zero.) It is unfortunate that different (scientific ) disciplines use different definitions and that we actually have a recent current thread discussing that very subject. Because most sets will admit many different metrics we also do what English does well and use the word metric as an adjective to distinguish these. In particular in GR we define the metric tensor, which means we must also have predefined certain other structure on our domain set. This is why, I keep saying, you need to start at the beginning not in the middle. Perhaps you would like to go back and read those offers properly - Then you would be able to see how we build up from simple set theory to a domain set such as you and KJW are discussing that has enough structure to actually describe our observations of the world around us. To be quite clear I contend that you are displaying a metric by using graph paper and placing numbers on it, as well as some greek letters you are squaring (and Q if you must). A final point. Invariants are not the same as metrics, both in the sense of Physics and of Mathematics. A really useful proceedure is to divide the extra structure you are imposing on the domain in the following way. The equations of constitution and the equations of compatibility. 'The equations' is a term from applied maths. We could equally generalise to the realtions of since some are not in the form of an equation. For instance the second law of thermodynamics and the uncertainty principle are both in the form of an inequality. A simple example to make this clear would be the physics and maths of the flow of an incompressible fluid. The equations of constitution are the Physics and describe relations between variables such as velocity, pressure, and so on. The equation of compatibility is geometric in nature and relies on an invariant - the volumetric flow rate - usually denote Q. At all points in the flow system Q must be the same that is constant , as the flow is incompressible. Compatibility gives us an equation relating the cross section at any place with the velocity at that section - a geometric constraint.

Assuming that you actually answer my last question here is my next one. Is is possible to do without assumptions ? Even the statement 'There are no prior assumptions' is an assumption itself.

Well we really want to brainstorm anything we can think of to lighten your load. We are all very grateful for the work you put in without having extra. I'd cheerfully lend you my 4 barrelled Mossberg and a box of Ghostbusters anti slime cartidges (if I had one) 😄