• We would like to remind our members that this is a privately owned, run and supported forum. You are here at the invitation and discretion of the owners. As such, rules and standards of conduct will be applied that help keep this forum functioning as the owners desire. These include, but are not limited to, removing content and even access to the forum.

    Please give yourself a refresher on the forum rules you agreed to follow when you signed up.

Axe-Fx III Firmware Release Version 12.08 Public Beta 3

Status
Not open for further replies.

Syrinx

Inspired
Regarding that Newton-Raphson routine clobbering non-converging variables... You could as well have described clean energy production from opening hyperspace portals with self-replicating nanobots using quantum gravity lenses, lol.
That was 3 weeks ago.
 

reclavea

Power User
Of course as everyone knows, Newton's method (or the Newton-Raphson) root-finding method has nothing to do with Newton's laws of motion which are really boring and were replaced by general relativity over a hundred years ago anyway. Newton's method can be used to generate cool Newton fractals in the complex plane, the coloring based on which root the starting point converges to. (From http://www.josleys.com/)

[But this is OT from 12.08 beta 3.]

View attachment 67703

View attachment 67705
Yes...however Relativity did not completely supplant Newton’s physics.

Einstein’s Relativity Theories are not without major physics issues.

For instance his 1905 Special Relativity does not factor in forces such as gravity, centrifugal, Euler ...etc. He gets rid of the Aether in this theory.

It’s completely useless. Name a place in the universe that is absent of gravity and all other forces.

This is why he had to invent His General Theory of Relativity in 1915. He then factored in gravity and all the other forces. But in doing so ...he was forced to bring back the Aether.

Both theories contradict each other. In his STR light speed is limited to C. Yet in his GTR light speed can travel at ANY speed above C.

He also violates the scientific principles of cause and effect by not giving a physical explanation of why objects shrink when in motion. His only recourse was to reason that it’s a “principle of nature.”

How does an object know when it’s in relative motion and then shrinks? And by how much?

Another totally significant note is that Einstein never won the Nobel Prize or any significant prize for that matter for his Relativity Theories.

I think any further discourse on these should be maybe at Cliff’s “Any physicists here” thread. 😊

https://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/any-physicists-here.156787/post-1870186
 

rmg471

Member
When I saw feedback compressor, I wasn’t sure what that was, so for half a second I was looking at the word “feedback” and thought this was going to be a freqout block.

Looking forward to the pitch block!
I’m not “that guy” but this would be very fun.
 

IronSean

Experienced
He also violates the scientific principles of cause and effect by not giving a physical explanation of why objects shrink when in motion. His only recourse was to reason that it’s a “principle of nature.”

How does an object know when it’s in relative motion and then shrinks? And by how much?
I think that was one of the points of Relativity, they shrink relative to the observer which is referencing the object. If both object and the observer are travelling at the same speed relative to each other, both will still appear the same size. Therefore the object doesn't need to know how much to shrink because it doesn't, it's in the relationship to an observer or outside reference that it appears to shrink relative to that outside reference.

They are systems for modelling the behavior of our universe. We don't have a perfect model yet that explains everything at all scales, so we have different theories that are practical for explaining things at different scales. His relativity theories may not have won him a Nobel prize, but if we weren't correcting for Time Dilation on the clocks of satellites orbiting the earth due to their speed relative to ourselves then our GPS systems wouldn't work.

EDIT: Thinking more about what you were probably trying to say, I think you're right that it's probably an oversimplification to say he just Supplanted Newton's work. (Newton also invented Calculus, so he left some significant legacies in multiple areas). But it is true that Relativity helped reveal how and why Newton's laws of motion break down as objects begin travelling at speeds approaching light. And helped lead to the Lorentz Transformation. These show that Newton's laws of motion are actually special cases when Velocity is small relative to the speed of light, but as that speed is approached relativity must be accounted for to get the right answer. This isn't a unified theory, and we may discover a better overall model and way to think about things in the future, but our best working models for motion currently are the versions spawned from Relativity, not from Newton.
 
Last edited:

unix-guy

Legend!
You guys are lucky - you get to build cool stuff. 70% of my day seems dedicated to cleaning up others' ID10T errors and coding around PEBKAC issues....
Meh... I spend my time these days (for the last 2+ years) writing automation to provision cloud-based SAP deployments in Azure using Ansible.

Most of my creative coding involves working around limitations in the tools ;)
 

reclavea

Power User
I think that was one of the points of Relativity, they shrink relative to the observer which is referencing the object. If both object and the observer are travelling at the same speed relative to each other, both will still appear the same size. Therefore the object doesn't need to know how much to shrink because it doesn't, it's in the relationship to an observer or outside reference that it appears to shrink relative to that outside reference.

They are systems for modelling the behavior of our universe. We don't have a perfect model yet that explains everything at all scales, so we have different theories that are practical for explaining things at different scales. His relativity theories may not have won him a Nobel prize, but if we weren't correcting for Time Dilation on the clocks of satellites orbiting the earth due to their speed relative to ourselves then our GPS systems wouldn't work.

EDIT: Thinking more about what you were probably trying to say, I think you're right that it's probably an oversimplification to say he just Supplanted Newton's work. (Newton also invented Calculus, so he left some significant legacies in multiple areas). But it is true that Relativity helped reveal how and why Newton's laws of motion break down as objects begin travelling at speeds approaching light. And helped lead to the Lorentz Transformation. These show that Newton's laws of motion are actually special cases when Velocity is small relative to the speed of light, but as that speed is approached relativity must be accounted for to get the right answer. This isn't a unified theory, and we may discover a better overall model and way to think about things in the future, but our best working models for motion currently are the versions spawned from Relativity, not from Newton.
We should move to another thread.
And actually no ...the object shrinks AND GAINS mass...and time dilates. ...and relativity cannot be used at all for GPS ...GPS engineers simply just account for the delayed electromagnetic waves going against the Aether from west to east. And the Lorentz Transform was before Einstein’s Relativity Lorentz has the Aether causing the shrinkage ...though Einstein did use the equation by changing out a variable for T ....Time...he got rid of the Aether and has no physical credible explanation for the shrinkage.

We can discourse on another thread. Out here on this one.
 
Last edited:

JamesBWood

Inspired
Patience grasshopper.

I've been working the past couple days on a new compressor type which I just finished. I figured out how to make a feedback compressor with all the features of a feedforward compressor. Even has the graph. So you adjust it just like the Studio Compressor but it's a feedback topology which gives you that feedback compressor sound and smooth dynamics. Took me half a day to figure out why the stupid graph wasn't displaying right. Turns out my Newton-Raphson routine was getting a variable clobbered which was causing it to not converge.

The pitch block stuff is finished and it's even better than Beta 3.
The old Newton-Raphson excuse? Really? :)
 

Ingo

Inspired
Yes...however Relativity did not completely supplant Newton’s physics.

Einstein’s Relativity Theories are not without major physics issues.

For instance his 1905 Special Relativity does not factor in forces such as gravity, centrifugal, Euler ...etc. He gets rid of the Aether in this theory.

It’s completely useless. Name a place in the universe that is absent of gravity and all other forces.

This is why he had to invent His General Theory of Relativity in 1915. He then factored in gravity and all the other forces. But in doing so ...he was forced to bring back the Aether.

Both theories contradict each other. In his STR light speed is limited to C. Yet in his GTR light speed can travel at ANY speed above C.

He also violates the scientific principles of cause and effect by not giving a physical explanation of why objects shrink when in motion. His only recourse was to reason that it’s a “principle of nature.”

How does an object know when it’s in relative motion and then shrinks? And by how much?

Another totally significant note is that Einstein never won the Nobel Prize or any significant prize for that matter for his Relativity Theories.

I think any further discourse on these should be maybe at Cliff’s “Any physicists here” thread. 😊

https://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/any-physicists-here.156787/post-1870186
Just for the record, this post is mostly falsehoods, mixed with some plain non-sensical stuff. To quote Wolfgang Pauli.. "this is not even wrong". You really should not lecture people about stuff you do not understand.
 

reclavea

Power User
Just for the record, this post is mostly falsehoods, mixed with some plain non-sensical stuff. To quote Wolfgang Pauli.. "this is not even wrong". You really should not lecture people about stuff you do not understand.
If you desire let’s move to another thread and explain why YOU understand that I don’t understand...and also explain why should my statement that Einstein did not completely supplant Newton’s physics be inaccurate.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom