Time/Frequency Control Response:Linear & Nonlinear

RainmanTime

RainmanTime

Super Moderator
Understanding how to manipulate Time (or frequency) will require some basic understandings of control and instrumentation theory with respect to how inputs are transformed into outputs over given periods of Time (frequency). Before one can even understand non-linear control theory, one should become familiar with the ten linear control responses that are part of classical control systems instruction. They are:

1) A Summing Function
The system output equals the algebraic sum of its inputs.
2) An Averaging Function
The system output equals the algebraic sum of its inputs divided by the number of inputs.
3) A Difference Function
The system output equals the algebraic difference between its inputs.
4) A Proportional Function
The system output is directly proportional to its input.
5) An Integral Function
The system output varys with both magnitude and duration of its input. The output is proportional to the time integral of the input.
6) A Derivative Function
The system output is proportional to the time rate of change (derivative) of the input.
7) A Multiplying Function
The system output equals the product of the inputs.
8) A Dividing Function
The system output equals the quotient of the inputs.
9) A Root Extraction Function
The system output equals some root (square root, cube root, 3/2 root) of the inputs.
10) An Exponential Function
The system output equals the input raised to some power.

These ten linear elements form a foundation upon which the study and understanding of much more complex system responses can be approached. If you wanted to add a category 11, it would consist of any and all responses that are some form of non-linear representation of the inputs.

It is in these, the non-linear responses, where we have already seen amazing improvements in system energy efficiency. And it is in these that we will come to learn how to engineer the Massive SpaceTime metric (matrix).

RMT
 
Re: Time/Frequency Control Response:Linear & Nonli

ok I got all 10 you have listed, but what about some type of a quantum fluctuation random prediction function. How can you have time travel if you cannot predict quantum fluctuations. Obviously it would be tough to get to 100%, heisenberg, but without some type of quantum prediction calculation, all other calculations regarding time travel would fall apart at some point.
 
Re: Time/Frequency Control Response:Linear & Nonli

but what about some type of a quantum fluctuation random prediction function. How can you have time travel if you cannot predict quantum fluctuations.
Click to expand...
Offhand, I would classify those in the non-linear realm. But I expect that your response to this would wish to focus on the "random" aspect. To that I would say that I am not one of those people who believes that there is such a thing as random anything.

We "say" that something is random just because we cannot positively identify a correlation between the supposedly random event and some trigger for that event. But what if you could correlate the occurrence of a seemingly random event to the weighting factor on, ohhhh, let's say the third differential of a state variable that you thought was not related? In that case, it would no longer be a random function, but rather "higher order".

I do agree that quantum functions are required (and these can be modeled with combinations of summations and divisions), but not the "random" part.

RMT
 
Re: Time/Frequency Control Response:Linear & Nonli

I don't believe in anything Truly random either. There is an underlying order to it, thats what chaos theory states. Which is why you need some type of compensation for the apparently random fluctuations you will experience. Ala a heisenberg compensator like in Star Trek. However I think the compensator is more mathematical in nature than hardware based, although there will be a hardware component.
 
Re: Time/Frequency Control Response:Linear & Nonli

Actually, I think Henri Bergson was right and that time is like a movie, composed of discrete stills.A sequence of discrete 3-d spaces, actually, so the time we measure with a clock is discontinuous.It does have a frequency.
Let me throw this into the pot: the universe is undergoing a four-dimensional variable gauge expansion (think of a lens being zoomed). Mass is a slight lag in this expansion, so that it effectively has a negative time acceleration. Two objects gravitate because they are accelerated into the past instant when they were closer together. Hence there need not be a radiated "force" between them. This is from the "Subspace" view that I am developing. Packerbacker.
 
Re: Time/Frequency Control Response:Linear & Nonli

Welcome PB:

It is nice to see another person who has a grasp of existing scientific fundamentals and, apparantly, knowledge of higher-dimensional manifold theories and (perhaps) their mathematics. What is your background, if I may be so bold as to ask? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Actually, I think Henri Bergson was right and that time is like a movie, composed of discrete stills.A sequence of discrete 3-d spaces, actually, so the time we measure with a clock is discontinuous.It does have a frequency.
Click to expand...
I can understand why you see things this way. Personally, I have a hard time seeing either discrete (quantum) or continuous (classical) as "the real answer" because it always seems perception gets in the way. I tend to favor an extended view of relativity where one's mode of perception determines whether you observe an event as quantized or continuous, and I think data from double-slit experiments (not to mention wave/particle duality) would tend to support such a view. Such an approach would relegate "extant reality" to an eternal, balanced "dance" between the discrete and continuous perceptions... a necessary element for varying perceptions and the individual Point Of View.
Let me throw this into the pot: the universe is undergoing a four-dimensional variable gauge expansion (think of a lens being zoomed). Mass is a slight lag in this expansion, so that it effectively has a negative time acceleration. Two objects gravitate because they are accelerated into the past instant when they were closer together. Hence there need not be a radiated "force" between them. This is from the "Subspace" view that I am developing.
Click to expand...
VERY intriguing! Thanks for sharing! It seems to me just from this blurb that I am conversing with someone who has at least a working knowledge of control theory, or at least a good grasp on LaPlace transforms and Fourier series mathematics. I would certainly agree that Mass represents a "system lag" function (where the system is the entire universe), and I would add that Space would represent an ancilliary "system lead" function, with Time being the arbiter between these two "transfer functions". However, where you posit a 4-D gauge expansion (with respect to 3-D Space and 1-D Time, I assume) I have adopted a 9-D gauge theory... as you may (or may not) have read in some of my other posts. I'm the type of guy who always sees symmetry (and understands "reality" as being exhibited from symmetry breaks), and as such I have always been troubled by why classical physics readily treats space as a 3-D vector, but yet "demotes" both Time and Mass to scalar quantities. If symmetry is to be served, then my put is that Time and Mass are also 3-D vector quantities... which leads to what I think is a very interesting 9-D balanced tensor Unified Field Theory (UFT) solution, within which consciousness is "embedded".

The interesting inferrence I arrive at from reading the basis of your theory is that you seem to agree that an inertial reference "outside" the "boundaries" of our universe is required in order to get a "real" grasp on the dynamics of our universe. IOW, there are relative effects which we experience that distort our perceptions merely due to the fact that we are embedded within our universe while performing our sensing. Once we "step outside" the system of our universe, our perceptions about what is going on in our universe may very well change, and I think some of your statements about gravitation could very well be observed from such an inertial vantage point!

Again, welcome aboard, and I look forward to more discussions with you!

RMT
 
Re: Time/Frequency Control Response:Linear & Nonli

RainmanTime: Thanks for the response. I have a blog at timetravelerportal where I attempt to expose my viewpoint. This is a completely (new) concept of the nature of physical reality. I have worked it out over many years and it yields some interesting results if one gets beyond the basics. While I cite persons such as Bergson because he saw the nature of 'phenomenal' time clearly and also so I'm not accused of stealing ideas (which I do in a way). The approach is synthetic and conceptual rather than mathematical, which means it is philosophy (metaphysics). But I can derive Newton's's First Law of Motion, and I can tell you why the quantity of mass exists as a direct outgrowth of this approach. Two gravitating masses do not necessarily exert a force on one another.
Bergson's movie still idea works because a "gauge pulse" propagating through subspace has a
dimensional spin which takes it through four phase states in succession. It is only in 'our' phase state a quarter of a cycle and this make the sequence discontinuous.(see below)Packerbacker
 
Back
Top