Questions about FM synthesis and amplitude
DVD-Software.info Forum Index DVD-Software.info
Your one stop source for DVD Software
 
 FAQFAQ   MemberlistMemberlist     RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Questions about FM synthesis and amplitude
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 22, 23, 24  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    DVD-Software.info Forum Index -> Audio Technology
Author Message
Ben Bradley
Guest





Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 4:42 am    Post subject: Re: It's like driving by a car crash. Reply with quote

This thread was about to die out of its last frequency-modulated
post (oh, I see the subject in this subthread is no longer Questions
about FM synthesis and amplitude), then someone mentioned
religion...I've only read about half the posts since then, but I see
where someone brought up The Trinity...

In
comp.dsp,rec.audio.tech,rec.music.makers.synth,comp.music.midi,alt.audio.equipment,
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 06:13:41 GMT, "Ricky Hunt" <rhunt22@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Quote:
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:dj74vt02ai1@enews2.newsguy.com...

A few years ago I searched for Lucifer references in the O.T. and could
only come up with a passing reference to some old king. I came away
thinking that the whole story was Milton's fantasy. Anybody know where in
the O.T. the Lucifer of legend (or the legend of Lucifer) is spelled out?


It is amazing what is not in the bible that most people think is, and
vice-versa. I highly recommend everyone read it just once whether you're a
believer or not.

I must admit I've not read enough of it. Many Bible quotations
(almost always from King James' version) appear in modern culture and
literature, and I've been guilty of hearing/reading quite a few and
not recognizing them as from the KJV until years later. Isaac Asimov
wrote several books on the Bible. Robert Heinlein used many Bible
quotes in his fiction writings, and at least one Heinlein book title
is from the Bible.

But one should perhaps be careful about discussing what really is
and what really isn't in the Bible - a while back this guy questioned
the validity of the Trinity concept, since he had read through the
Bible and didn't see it there, and it got him in a heap o' trouble,
with both Catholics and Protestants:

http://www.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/michaelservetus.html

Back to top
Randy Yates
Guest





Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 4:42 am    Post subject: Re: It's like driving by a car crash. Reply with quote

"Clay S. Turner" <Physics@Bellsouth.net> writes:

Quote:
"Richard Dobson" <richarddobson@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:awo6f.134609$G8.30542@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
The closest "scientific" analogy I can come up with to explain the Trinity
as "three aspects of the One Being" is the good old duality of the wave
and the particle. No scientist I assume would clain that there are two
distinct kinds of light, one which is a Wave and one which is a Particle.
That would be "poly-lightism".


Hello Richard and others,

To throw some light on the issue, photons are spin 1 particles, so by the
standard rules of quantum mechanics, there would then exist three
polarization states. Namely ones with spins of -1,0, and +1. But special
relativity combined with fact that photons travel at the speed of light,
they can only exhibit two polarization states, namely -1 and +1. Light can't
have longitudinal vibrations.

Now if we follow the doctrine that the Holy Trinity represents three aspects
of one being, does this follow the quantum mechanical rule that an
observation[1] forces a collapse of the wavefunction into one of its allowed
states? Or in this case, the Holy Trinity gets reduced to just one of the
three aforementioned aspects?

Interesting analogies!

The particle/wave duality is better, but another analogy is the E-field,
M-field. Each are distinct and yet part of the same physical phenomenom.
--
% Randy Yates % "Bird, on the wing,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % goes floating by
%%% 919-577-9882 % but there's a teardrop in his eye..."
%%%% <yates@ieee.org> % 'One Summer Dream', *Face The Music*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr
Back to top
Clay S. Turner
Guest





Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 4:42 am    Post subject: Re: It's like driving by a car crash. Reply with quote

"glen herrmannsfeldt" <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:bradnVBxQuOINsHeRVn-oA@comcast.com...
Quote:
Jerry Avins wrote:

As far as I know, an octopus's eye is very similar to ours, but with the
sensors facing the light directly.

As well as it was understood in 1962 or so, it evolved separately.

The actual chemicals involved, retinal, most likely evolved once
and was adapted by the various light sensing organs. I believe it,
or a very similar compound came from bacteria, as did many important
parts of our cells. Mitocondria, the parts of the cell that help
supply energy to the cell, and chloroplasts, the part of plant cells
that do photosynthesis were also borrowed from bacteria some years ago.

With the chemicals around, the evolution of the eye around them isn't
so hard to do more than once.


Hello Glen and others,

If you recall the blood of an octopus uses a copper based compound instead
of iron based for oxygen transport. This copper based blood (blue and not
green like Vulcans of Star Trek lore have) is less efficient than iron based
blood for oxygen transport. Maybe this difference is related to the
difference in the eyes' design.

Clay
Back to top
Jerry Avins
Guest





Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 4:42 am    Post subject: Re: It's like driving by a car crash. Reply with quote

Randy Yates wrote:
Quote:
"Clay S. Turner" <Physics@Bellsouth.net> writes:


"Richard Dobson" <richarddobson@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:awo6f.134609$G8.30542@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

The closest "scientific" analogy I can come up with to explain the Trinity
as "three aspects of the One Being" is the good old duality of the wave
and the particle. No scientist I assume would clain that there are two
distinct kinds of light, one which is a Wave and one which is a Particle.
That would be "poly-lightism".


Hello Richard and others,

To throw some light on the issue, photons are spin 1 particles, so by the
standard rules of quantum mechanics, there would then exist three
polarization states. Namely ones with spins of -1,0, and +1. But special
relativity combined with fact that photons travel at the speed of light,
they can only exhibit two polarization states, namely -1 and +1. Light can't
have longitudinal vibrations.

Now if we follow the doctrine that the Holy Trinity represents three aspects
of one being, does this follow the quantum mechanical rule that an
observation[1] forces a collapse of the wavefunction into one of its allowed
states? Or in this case, the Holy Trinity gets reduced to just one of the
three aforementioned aspects?


Interesting analogies!

The particle/wave duality is better, but another analogy is the E-field,
M-field. Each are distinct and yet part of the same physical phenomenom.

For myself. I like the E-field, M-field analogy better. It makes me
wonder though: are they really distinct, or do we lack the ability to
perceive their union?

jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Back to top
E-synth
Guest





Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 1:25 pm    Post subject: Re: It's like driving by a car crash. Reply with quote

Get the f**k out of "rec.music.makers.synth" with this utter crap that has
nothing with the subject of this group! Or prepare to be reported to abuse
service. It that doesnt work, a mail bomb with 1000 mails per day to your
account will.

Go to some other group or use email for private conversations. We really do
not have interest in reading all your rubbish that has nothing with music or
synthesizers. And for once REMOVE the "rec.music.makers.synth" from
crossposting!!!
Back to top
glen herrmannsfeldt
Guest





Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 2:10 pm    Post subject: Re: It's like driving by a car crash. Reply with quote

Richard Dobson wrote:

(snip)

Quote:
But engineering trade-off decisions happen every day. Maximum efficinecy
often means maximum specialisation, or dependence on particular
circumstances. Other criteria such as adaptability to a multitude of
different environments, temperatures etc might lead to alternative
trade-offs, such as efficiency v robustness. Even in modern engineering,
efficiency can often be enhanced so long as little issues such as safety
or ease of maintenance can be downgraded in importance.

This is true, but not always the way evolution works.

Efficiency can be a factor in resource limited situations.

Often, though, evolution allows an organism to go where no other has
gone before, and then it will quickly fill that new niche.

One story relates to the first fish that could survive in freezing
water. It then quickly fills up the freezing waters that previously
didn't have fish but did have plenty of food with little regard
for efficiency.

-- glen
Back to top
Richard Dobson
Guest





Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 3:05 pm    Post subject: Re: It's like driving by a car crash. Reply with quote

E-synth wrote:
....And for once REMOVE the "rec.music.makers.synth" from
Quote:
crossposting!!!


Gladly! I did wonder. I think the only folk following all this are comp.dsp? I

will stick to that hereafter unless I hear requests otherwise.

Richard Dobson
Back to top
Radium
Guest





Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 4:41 am    Post subject: E-Synth is Correct Reply with quote

E-synth wrote:
Quote:
Get the f**k out of "rec.music.makers.synth" with this utter crap that has
nothing with the subject of this group! Or prepare to be reported to abuse
service. It that doesnt work, a mail bomb with 1000 mails per day to your
account will.

Go to some other group or use email for private conversations. We really do
not have interest in reading all your rubbish that has nothing with music or
synthesizers. And for once REMOVE the "rec.music.makers.synth" from
crossposting!!!


E-Synth:

Thanks for expressing my feelings for me. I was also upset about how
the topic about synthesizers [obviously a sensible and decent topic]
was slowly yet noticeably changed to some crappy talk about religion,
creationism, vision, zoology, theories, diffraction and other
totally-unrelated drivel.

I agree, it also does annoy me to find that people strayed from the
original topic [which was about FM synthesizers].
Back to top
Jim Adamthwaite
Guest





Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:21 pm    Post subject: Re: getting OT: Re: It's like driving by a car crash. Reply with quote

To avoid evolution, all parents need to have the same number of offspring at
the same parental ages.

Any variation is selection at work. Its the only game everything plays.

Jim A.
Back to top
S.O.D.D.I.
Guest





Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:11 pm    Post subject: Re: getting OT: Re: It's like driving by a car crash. Reply with quote

glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
Quote:
robert bristow-johnson wrote:
(snip)

it's Creationism (or Intelligent Design or ID) that is neither repeatable
nor falsifiable nor verifiable. not until some "scientist" invents a
machine that can detect the presence or existence of God.

there is plenty of evidence of the present ongoing evolution of living
species, plenty of evidence of past evolution of living species, absolute
evidence of a *very* old universe and a somewhat less old planet earth.

One I was thinking about, in answer to the "only a theory" complaint,
was to consider gravity. Newton had a theory of gravity, but Einstein
showed it was wrong. Einstein's theory is not consistent with quantum
mechanics, so we know it is wrong. Even though gravity is only a
theory, and not a scientific fact, it is not a good idea to jump off
tall buildings.

No such thing as gravity... INTELLIGENT FALLING.
Back to top
Erik de Castro Lopo
Guest





Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:16 pm    Post subject: Re: getting OT: Re: It's like driving by a car crash. Reply with quote

Jon Harris wrote:
Quote:

I would also like to dispel the myth that only zealous anti-science
fundamentalists believe in design. There are many examples of intelligent
scientists who after examining all the evidence, came down on the side of
design, even though they were not pre-disposed to the idea by religion. In
fact, some were previously strongly atheistic.

Care to name names? And back it up?

Erik
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Erik de Castro Lopo
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the
government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future."
-- Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for Council of American Islamic Relations.
Back to top
Bo
Guest





Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 7:11 pm    Post subject: Re: getting OT: Re: It's like driving by a car crash. Reply with quote

I came in late on this thread..so this may not be what you are after. Just
in case it is:

(from http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html)

Regards,

Bo
***************************************
1.. Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first
mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended
various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in
1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in
1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and Copernicus was urged to
publish around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious
persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise,
Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus
referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in
conflict with the Bible.
2.. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on
light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also
came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well
before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy
changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere
and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how
space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no
persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was
allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600)
when other Protestants had been expelled!
3.. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic
Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It
had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did
not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was
invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published
twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the
Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the
Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and
being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most
useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that
the Bible cannot err, he saw his system as concerning the issue of how the
Bible should be interpreted.
4.. Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has
been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him
dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a
Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute,
passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream,
and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one
system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all
else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am".
Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to
establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both
exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences can we trust
our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his
whole philosophy. What he really wanted was to see his philosophy adopted as
standard Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are
generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific
methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more
devout than the average for their era.
5.. Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed
genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw
mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was
devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding from the
Bible God's plan for history. He did a lot of work on biblical numerology,
and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology
very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and
absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of
the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and
dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."
6.. Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave
his name to "Boyle's Law" for gasses, and also wrote an important work on
chemistry. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed
a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, "for proving
the Christian religion against notorious infidels."... As a devout
Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian
religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament
into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The
Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a
central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion
that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more
devoutly Christian than the average in his era.
7.. Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
The son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the
19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized
physics, but has led to so much in our lifestyles today which depend on them
(including computers and telephone lines and so Web sites). Faraday was a
devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly
influenced upon him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and
interpreted nature. The Sandemanians originated from Presbyterians who had
rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament
type of Christianity.
8.. Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in
what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three
years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the
Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery
in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the
century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results
and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An
interesting point is that the 1860's was the formation of the X-Club,
dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of
"conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin
Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of
eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was
writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science whilst, at
around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in
genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect
Galton's contribution.
9.. Kelvin (William Thomson) (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped
to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered may areas of
physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone
else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from
European Universities who recognized the value of his work. He was a very
committed Christian, certainly more religious than the average for his era.
Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and
James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment,
in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The
Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists
as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th
century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for
the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth
creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20
million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years
based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about
radiogenic heating).
10.. Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum
theory, which has revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and
sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft,"
Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the
holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of
symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are
merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and
believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily
a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against
skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal
"toward God!"
"Erik de Castro Lopo" <nospam@mega-nerd.com> wrote in message
news:43671664.638B138@mega-nerd.com...
Quote:
Jon Harris wrote:

I would also like to dispel the myth that only zealous anti-science
fundamentalists believe in design. There are many examples of
intelligent
scientists who after examining all the evidence, came down on the side of
design, even though they were not pre-disposed to the idea by religion.
In
fact, some were previously strongly atheistic.

Care to name names? And back it up?

Erik
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Erik de Castro Lopo
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the
government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future."
-- Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for Council of American Islamic Relations.
Back to top
Erik de Castro Lopo
Guest





Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 1:05 pm    Post subject: Re: getting OT: Re: It's like driving by a car crash. Reply with quote

Bo wrote:
Quote:

I came in late on this thread..so this may not be what you are after. Just
in case it is:

(from http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html)

Right, sot you have a bunch of guys from a couple of
handred years ago, two from last century and noone
that is even contemporary.

Erik
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Erik de Castro Lopo
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
"When exported to Muslim lands, various aspects of Western pop
culture must be modified in order to accommodate Muslim sensibilities.
When Muslims come West, various aspects of Western pop culture must
be modified in order to accommodate Muslim sensibilities."
-- http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/008623.php
Back to top
Laurence Payne
Guest





Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 4:51 pm    Post subject: Re: getting OT: Re: It's like driving by a car crash. Reply with quote

On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 18:05:11 +1100, Erik de Castro Lopo
<nospam@mega-nerd.com> wrote:

Quote:
I came in late on this thread..so this may not be what you are after. Just
in case it is:

(from http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html)

Right, sot you have a bunch of guys from a couple of
handred years ago, two from last century and noone
that is even contemporary.

Which could prove that a correct idea doesn't need constant
re-invention. Or that we're going to Hell in a handbasket and have
very nearly arrived. :-)

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
Back to top
Stig Bull
Guest





Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:27 pm    Post subject: Re: getting OT: Re: It's like driving by a car crash. Reply with quote

In article <627d0$4367699f$18d6ec55$1815@KNOLOGY.NET>, bo@cephus.com
says...
Quote:
I came in late on this thread..so this may not be what you are after. Just
in case it is:

(from http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html)

This one's actually very good:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html

Worthy of notice: "As teachers, both of us have found that asking our
students to analyse controversies is of enormous value to their
education. What is wrong, then, with teaching both sides of the alleged
controversy between evolution and creationism or "intelligent design"
(ID)? And, by the way, don't be fooled by the disingenuous euphemism.
There is nothing new about ID. It is simply creationism camouflaged with
a new name to slip (with some success, thanks to loads of tax-free money
and slick public-relations professionals) under the radar of the US
Constitution's mandate for separation between church and state."

--
Stig Bull
| remove .no.spam from my email address to reply by mail |
No animals were hurt or killed in the process of creating this
electronic message. To reduce download time, this message is made of
100% recycled bytes.
Back to top
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    DVD-Software.info Forum Index -> Audio Technology All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 22, 23, 24  Next
Page 23 of 24

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Office Forum Access Forum Windows Server Exchange Server

Powered by phpBB