usenet weirdness

Einstein devoted a lot of his life to that and didn't get anywhere. You are probably rather less talented than he was.

It might be wise to put off the effort until we have rather more experimental evidence available to constrain our thinking.

So you have invented an unnecessary simple explanation for the Pioneer anomaly. You seem to have a false target.

I'm not holding my breath.

That's beautiful. I'll add it to my word salad collection.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

The matters of "complex analyticity" and "real analyticity", where analyticity is about the "analytical character" or content that makes it so that numbers add up, has that often there is definition in Hilbert spaces or complex spaces, i.e. in C, and in Banach spaces about Polish spaces and for R^2, then the abstract algebra's usual account of "the uniquness up to isomorphism of complete-ordered-fields" saying their same, has that they're not, where for example I've written field equations before to equip [-1, 1] with field operations and make another one, so that Stone-Cech compactification about the real analytic makes for that the complex analytic falls apart, especially since numerical methods (approximations) thusly fail to hold up the triangle-inequality / triangle rule, thusly that the trapezoid rule fails and about the real analytical character of these derivations.

So, the measure problem, for example, is sort of inevitable since the setting is often after deMoivre-Euler-Gauss, about the rather ridiculousness of the Euler identity, them thusly not knowing any different or why that the perceived "complex analyticity" in C isn't the "real analyticity" in R^2.

For examples, analysts like Zariski, Lescop, and especially Kodaira, then work up ways to attempt to repair complex analyticity, helping show that differential analysis and the usual account of differential analysis ignorant the singular integral analysis, is doomed to fail.

I.e., before even getting into matters of convergence and emergence, there's that, for example, division (as it's usually defined) in complex numbers is not the only inverse to complex multiplication, the Euler identity and its usual ubiquity is a wider development with its implicits than the form itself, and Hilbert and Banach spaces are not the same thing, even if R^2 and C share a diagram on the Argand or Wessel plane.

Then, the "original analysis" here for an "identity dimension" gets into singular integral analysis and "roots of zero". Also, for examples, if for the original analaysis living only in the first quadrant instead of the line or plane or infinite-dimensional hyper-space about the "hypercube distance" and the "Zeno's swath", then complex-complex left-right division diagram charts out that division in usual accounts of the complex numbers is an axiom.

It's usually good to know where the food comes from, and, to thoroughly chew the food.

Here though it's considered "word soup" (after alphabet soup, back when food was interesting), nutritious, since "word salad" has negative connotations.

The triangle inequality or what makes for metric and separately norm, length and distance, that's about the most common placeholder for what gives the trapezoid rule so numbers add up, or, cancel.

Thanks for writing.

You mentioned electrical currents' waves propagating about 70% c, O.W. Richardson gives accounts of three constants 'c' with regards to light's and electrostatics' and electrodynamics', so one might find one of the other definitions of 'c' more apropos.

It struck me as nonsense.

That assumes that what you are passing out is a message, rather than half-baked confusion.

The charge mass ratio was measured by the curvature of electron paths in a magnetic field. The electron microscopes I worked on used this to bend the electron beam to get it to scan across the object being imaged,and in the electron beam microfabricator we used two 15-bit D/A converter to direct the beam onto masks make the patterns that to made the successive layers of integrated circuits. There was laser interferometer in the machine that lets us move the masks around under the beam so that we could write masks for 5-inch diameter wafers - this was in the 1980's when that was big enough.

If it had been, our mask making machine wouldn't have worked.

You were trying to teach your grandmother to suck eggs.

If you had updated my mind, you'd have made me unemployable, At 83 I'm pretty closer to unemployable, but I still know how an electron beam microfabricator works, and I knew enough to make at least one work better around 1985.

The moving "plates" were in fact two 18mm long bits of 1mm OD copper wire, spaced about half a millimeter apart. They moved because we could rotate the cylindrical blanking assembly on elastomer "O" rings to put the wires anywhere from parallel to electron beam to being at right-angles to it. The cylindrical assembly plugged into the side of the electron microscope column and the user rotated it by it by hand.

I've worked with piezo-electric transducers for phased array medical ultrasound, as well as in a braille display and keyboard for the blind, and seen them used in inkjet printers. They wouldn't have been much use to us (though an inch-worm piezo-electric drive might have worked in the application).

Oh, a collimator or collimating element of sorts.

I tend to respect my elders, it goes without saying.

Oftentimes there are two ways to look at people or given individuals. One is that they have nothing to offer and another is they have something to offer. I like to think that everybody has something to offer, that as long as we're in each others' world might as well make a win-win sort of scenario of it.

Anyways there are lots of examples of egg-sucking, or, you know, the wind blows, or once I noted an old codger mention "I'm so old the wind blows", or as with regards to the old "fight it or bite it", anyways my grandmothers to my knowledge were never egg-suckers and I wouldn't be trying to make them.

(The usual idea of egg-sucking is chipping it with the tooth on both ends then sucking the contents, for example about something like Rocky Balboa's raw egg smoothies. I've never tried it, though something like steak tartare is edible.)

Anyways it's considered absent.

Alright then, anyways these days we're doing it the old way you forgot or chose to ignore, since the new way was found to be a convenient fiction, yet not sufficiently general-purpose.

And, what we found is the old way has a lot more ways of making ingenuity that the new way in its "convenience of conventions", is ignorant.

Then, matters of convention, and, matters of convenience, this isn't "new new math", it's, "old new math".

Now in new, ....

The notions of the electron its measurement as charge/mass ratio has that they're never not measured together.

Here's a cool book, Kittel's "Solid State Physics", I have a copy here sitting next to Greenwood's "Manual of Electromechanical Devices", and Rafiquzzaman's "Fundamentals of Digital Logic and Microcomputer Design".

Also I'm looking for a copy of Jones' "Ingenious Mechanisms for Designers and Inventers".

I had friend who was a serious pure mathematician - he worked in the geometry of algebraic fields (or possibly the algebra of geometric fields). This was back around 1967, but I was never sure which, even back then.

Sometimes he would talk about his work, and I learned that it was futile for me to try to follow what he was saying, but one aspect of the conversations was pretty reliable. At some point he would say "and it generalises!" and we could get back to talking about stuff that I could follow.

I was doing quasi-mathemtical stuff at the time, but it was more data analysis than mathematics. I ended up writing my own Fortran program to do least squares curve fitting to fit my data to a three parameter non-linear model, and pulled out confidence limits on each of the parameters at the end of the fitting process.

The confidence limits were a bit optimistic. I'd assumed random noise, but there was clearly a 1/f component in the noise. There were ways to take that into account, but I'd have needed to accumulate a lot more experimental data to do that and my grant was running out.

Don't be silly. The speed of light in a vacuum is a fundamental constant. Richardson was working back before this had been sorted out, and before people had got the tools to let them think about fringing fields.

Even I know enough to be aware that an electromagnetic wave propagating along microstrip on the top of a printed circuit is propagating through the air above the printed circuit board as well as the printed circuit board material under the microstrip. It males it a dispersive transmission line. I rather prefer buried stripline sandwiched between two ground planes, which isn't dispersive, but hard to probe.

Hm. "ECF: Error correction factor"?

The linear regression and least squares is a great thing and naturally regresses to the mean, when the relation is linearly correlated, then for example about the usual ideas of the log-linear, and then usual ideas of the feedback or hysteresis, about things like diminishing returns.

Then, two great concepts from mathematics about the finding numbers or intercepts, are as after the "generalized linear model" and gradient descent, and, "principal component analysis", when figuring out what are independent and dependent variables in functional relations and their accuracy.

The least squares naturally adds up for the most usual accounts of regression to the mean, vis-a-vis autoregression and autocorrelation, so it fits very well with the Central Limit Theorem and what's usually enough called college statistics, in fact, _too well_, since it can't tell the difference between correlated and anti-correlated.

So, ..., most of probability theory its standard linear curriculum's standard development: funnels right into the Central Limit Theorem then for the great accounts of Fisher (Sir Ronald Aylmer) and Student about Chi-squared and t and so on, analysis of variance and then for analysis of covariance, and about that being univariate then about the multivariate.

The "standardization" and "normalization" in probability theory making everything look like a bell curve has that there are other limit theorems besides the Central limit theorem, about Uniform and Polar limit theorems.

Analysis:

One of the most usual things showing up in any setting of Fourier-style analysis and signal reconstruction is "Gibbs phenonmenon", "the hysteresis".

The "interpolation" and "extrapolation" has many ways to write curves parametrically.

Oi, matters of propagation or "signal" where it's "signal" often enough in digital circuits and "load" in power circuits, get quite involved about RLC circuits thoroughly, then in the "VLSI" matters of cross-talk and about usual ideas like differential pairs keeping the signal above the noise.

Heaviside's telegrapher's equation is a good example of where the formalism and experiment of the day for short distances, had arrived at a perfectly good local model of the operation of telegraphy wires over long distances, so assuredly they sank a marine cable according to its design, then it didn't work, then they had to use Heaviside's which he made on his own account.

It's like for example of plucking strings, for example on a guitar or other plucked instrument vis-a-vis the piano or something like a hammered instrument. So, Euler had a great idea about it, whether it was only vertically displaced, or both horizontally and vertically displaced. Anyways Euler was wrong with regards to how it sounds. Yet, in some considerations of according to "energy and configuration of experiment", it would be apropos.

Richardson's arrival at the velocities of the things, like "wave velocity" or propagation of signals, is having three definitions based on those being _derived_ from the two electromagnetic settings making a "constant" for the velocity, one of those slightly less than light's, the other slightly greater. Those constants 'c' has that according to Richardson they're each derived their own way.

Then that they are each on the order of light's, makes it often simple to forget the difference.

AI-generated banter is killing this newsgroup. I have a hard time understanding why Sloman keeps arguing with it.

Jeroen Belleman

Is the Ross guy an AI bot? That makes sense.

Verbose mode.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

"If I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't know now what I knew then."

Knowledge is a learning experience.

Wel, yes, if you average over the orbit.

This is a mistake. There is no tidal dissipation in the sun. As with the tides of the moon, the dissipation is in the Earth's oceans. (mostly at the edges)

Jan

True.

Nonsense. Your naive positivism is playing up again. Best counterexample: general relativity. It wasn't based on any observation. Au contraire, once formulated it predicted what to observe.

You can hardly blame him for not inventing quarks and weak interactions from first principles.

And it is easy asy to say 'premature', with nine decades of hindsight, and nobody having done better in the meantime,

Jan

-m

Being a 'studious and able technician' doesn't get you a Nobel prize.

Of course not, he was Millikan.

Jan

Our thinking does not need constraining. Au contraire, there is more than enough unexplained evidence. (like all the 'free parameters' of the standard model for example)

What's needed is not more evidence, it is a good idea for making sense of the evidence there is,

Jan

th-the-m

Wrong. It is nothing but a conversion constant between units, as fundamental as 12 inches to the foot. It can without any loss be put equal to one, in a better system of units,

Jan