A PhD idiot on harmonics

[@timmyfriday2718]

It's impressive how many red flags for tragic kookery you can fit into seven minutes. It's equally bizarre how kooks seem to work so closely from the same template. "I've been held hostage there once or twice" is ... brilliant.

[@DanBullard]

I have, both in Taiwan and Korea, and she's half Korean on her dad's side. Read my book, The Reluctant Road Warrior. Siliconware LIED to me for weeks and held me hostage when the problem I was fighting was TSMC's fault. I had to threaten to quit to be allowed to come home to the US!

[@timmyfriday2718]

@@DanBullard I'm not going to read your book mate. Seriously when you come across one of many videos or articles describing the phenomenon of crackpottery like this ... how much of it do you recognise? kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z2LPgZuDiNqfibc I am genuinely interested ... also in how you view other crackpots. Like, are there other what you might think of as 'non-orthodox researchers' you admire? Or are they ... just crackpots? Like, do you recognise the phenomenon of kookery and separate yourself from it? Or do you recognise them as fellow heterodox scientists whose genius will one day be recognised?

[@DanBullard]

@@timmyfriday2718 I watched that bitch, she might be talking about someone else, but she's not talking about me. Not one mention of me specifically. I have a patent (do you) I wrote test programs for everything from Intel microprocessors, Motorola microprocessors, RAMDACs, audio amplifiers, nuclear missiles, F-16 fighter avionics, you name it, I wrote it, in Pascal, C, C++ or whatever they were using at the time. I wrote a test program for an ATSC TV Tuner-On-A-Chip, tested every channel, calibrated every channel and stored the calibration factors in the chip and did it all in 10 seconds. How many TV channels can you get through your TV in 10 seconds? 100? 200? I didn't think so.

[@timmyfriday2718]

@@DanBullard so ... when 'that bitch' (you know ... the professional physicist) describes the "type A crackpot" who is "often a retired engineer" ... does that maybe resonate? Look, this anger is coming from somewhere. It is not normal or rational to lash out at a uni professor by picking apart inconsequential features of her lecture material--like--the materials we write in a massively oversimplified way to help basically schoolkids attain their first intuition of complicated subjects, to the level suited to the course. Something is making you mad at academics and it feels like you fit exactly the pattern described by Angela (and experienced by many of us in academia--thankfully less so in my field which is genomics/bioinformatics). Basically ... chill out. If you have something to contribute and it's good, all you have to be is reasonably polite and some journal will get it out there. I say this as a massive critic about much of the state of academia. Yes, things are pretty shit right now, but one thing that still works is that there is no lack of talent or ideological conspiracy to keep new ideas suppressed. If your ideas keep hitting brick walls that is either because they are crap or nonsensical ideas, or because you are being such an extreme dickbag that even academics--the meekest, politest demographic in history--are over it.

[@DanBullard]

@timmyfriday2718 I looked you up, 3 videos, 8 subscribers. How humiliating!

[@Melnox]

Aren't harmonics caused by resonance? If so, is that the reason they're not random? Because resonance is based on physical phenomenon, and not randomness?

[@DanBullard]

Absolutely not! Resonance has nothing at all to do with it! The only way a non-sinusoidal wave can exist is to add harmonics to a sine wave. If you remove everything other than the fundamental, you end up with a sine wave. In fact, as this video points out, if you are an idiot testing a chip for the F-16 fighter jet, you can have a ton of noise, harmonics, all kinds of stuff, and if you remove all that stuff you end up with a pure sine wave, kzbin.info/www/bejne/bXe8hIWeis5jjNEsi=NWHiA3UOI7Ph6QW7

[@Don.Challenger]

Is this question one of optics (probably not addressing acoustics)? If a clear view is the fundamental, how many harmonics gives your pea soup fog or is that low hanging fruit a noisy cloud?

[@DanBullard]

This applies to all harmonics, light waves passing though a nebula on the way to Earth will obey my laws. It applied to vibration created by a bad bearing in a motor, the defect produced harmonics at 45 degrees and I could see it in the spectrum of the vibration, but I can't tell you where I saw it, I'll get sued, as they PROMISED to sue me for insulting their customers in a video I made. Just search for "Humps in a spectrum."

[@artemirrlazaris7406]

here's another refined thought, in dsicussing this topic with a bot. Harmonic Wave Function In the context of harmonics, consider that the wave function could be expressed as a sum of harmonic components (Fourier series). A harmonic wave function might take the form: ψ(x,t)=∑n=1∞Ansin⁡(nωt+ϕn)ei(kx−ωt)\psi(x, t) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} A_n \sin(n\omega t + \phi_n) e^{i(kx - \omega t)} Where: ψ(x,t)\psi(x, t) is the wave function. AnA_n are the amplitudes of the harmonics. nn is the harmonic number. ω\omega is the angular frequency. ϕn\phi_n are the phase angles of the harmonics. kk is the wave number. ei(kx−ωt)e^{i(kx - \omega t)} is the complex exponential representing the wave's oscillatory nature. Collapse of the Wave Function When the wave function collapses due to measurement, it transitions to a specific eigenstate. In a harmonic context, this might involve the stabilization of specific harmonics: ψcollapsed(x,t)=Amsin⁡(mωt+ϕm)ei(kx−ωt)\psi_{\text{collapsed}}(x, t) = A_m \sin(m\omega t + \phi_m) e^{i(kx - \omega t)} Where mm represents the dominant harmonic after collapse. Stabilization via Harmonics To stabilize the collapsing wave function using harmonics, you could consider a damping factor or a resonance condition to maintain specific harmonic frequencies: ψstable(x,t)=Asin⁡(ωt+ϕ)e−γtei(kx−ωt)\psi_{\text{stable}}(x, t) = A \sin(\omega t + \phi) e^{-\gamma t} e^{i(kx - \omega t)} Where: γ\gamma is a damping factor that stabilizes the amplitude over time. This formula incorporates the harmonic nature of the wave function and the idea of stabilization through a damping mechanism. While this approach is speculative and would require rigorous mathematical validation, it provides a framework for thinking about how harmonics might interact with the concept of a collapsed wave function in quantum mechanics. I have no idea how this would work out but your terms fo measure would be related... as matter operates under many names but is still part of a reducitonism to its state, jsut that state is a very big sandwich...

[@DanBullard]

You are making it WAY too complex. The Bullard Harmonic Solution only has 4 terms, and it's not even calculus! You could read my book and you might get it, but flailing around in 4 dimensions isn't going to get you to my epiphany. Try this one to get you closer. kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZqS1XmZrl9GHfbM

[@ashnur]

I think I misheard something. I thought class-d amplifiers are not that recent?

[@DanBullard]

@@ashnur Recent for me, I cut my teeth on Class A tube amplifiers.

[@PeterPotnoodle]

dude, are you in heaven?

[@DanBullard]

Not yet, but soon enough!

[@ValBoschi-ix9cd]

Looks like close to nature in the fog? Lovely. The world seems full of ego passing over open intelligence.

[@None-ss1zi]

No wonder she blunders, even her bio says that she received the bs degree

[@markhorton8578]

Strange looking harmonics from a professor. I'm surprised she didn't get embarrased by the sloppyness and correct it. I am not degree qualified. Academia is patchy. I once went to a University to see what was involved in writing a thesis. I drew out 5 from the library. To my mind two were really good, one was ok, and the other two were outright lies and fantasy from start to finish. There was no way the circuits shown produced the outputs claimed. They were results backwards endevours. They had good marks.

[@DanBullard]

Welcome to the club! Thanks!

[@stevesmith7839]

You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Try not calling people idiots so much. Except for Feynman. I appreciate your criticism of that jerk, and he's already dead, so he can't be offended and forced to be defensive.

[@DanBullard]

@@stevesmith7839 I tried that and after 10 years of fighting “engineers “ all over the world and putting up with them calling me an idiot, I’ve given up being nice. Here just one example kzbin.info/www/bejne/fYqwanumaMuSibMsi=wbdGETKeHGuvKNwm

[@tinytim71301]

Brilliant and Funny. ..and telling on the sad state of universities. Pun intended.

[@markhorton8578]

This was in the Very early days of PSpice, and circuit modelling. Modelling software had a big learning curves and the models were pretty crap at higher frequencies; so I doubt they were modelled. I like to think they would have to provide models which would be tested now.

[@DanBullard]

@@markhorton8578There was no Pspice involved, that was a hand drawn wave. It’s pure laziness and ignorance. Pretty pathetic for a PhD, don’t you think?

[@markhorton8578]

@@DanBullard I was referring to the thesis at the University. As for the hand drawing that could be forgiven if it even looked like harmonics. If you can't draw it, create it or copy from existing training documents which she should have a large number in regular use as a teacher.

[@DanBullard]

@@markhorton8578 But it doesn't look like harmonics, that is the point. Nobody on the planet knows what harmonics look like, well, nobody but me. Anyone who even attempts to describe harmonics is 100% wrong, even Dr. Richard Feynman, as I proved several videos ago.

[@markhorton8578]

@@DanBullard Hmm, but we do know what the first few harmonics typically look like on a waveform. I am no harmonics expert but if explaining I would have shown them, so students might be able to recognise the effects of harmonics on a waveform. Having identified the presence of harmonics they would then have to decide if they were desirable or not and what if anything to do about them. Whilst I have no doubt you have great expertise on harmonics a claim of "nobody but me", seems plain delusional, and very off putting. I have not seen your video on Feynman and if you are correct I am sure the great man would congratulate you if he were alive. Feynman's work was very broad. I shall look at that soon.

[@artemirrlazaris7406]

First off don't hate on einstein, most people that win awards don't want them, its that your then part of this thing that is not really the thing you expected, and theres lots of stuff about possible einstein stole patent ideals for later writings, or atleast contributed, but then there is a problem, since america had gained a lot of talent and music but not of those people so when i look at musican and scores for movies some are nearly 100% accurate but there is no fee to the perished, gift I suppsoe of those with noone lef,t I mean you could talk about how Einstein rejected becoming the leader of israel around 1952... and he had limited words for it... its when you know and you know, and the rest of the room doesn't and your just.. you know.. stuck in a place in time, horrific in all detail and cruel in all means, yet your stuck, trapped a human prison out of flesh and mind, piercing angels cry. ~ satire on the last bit but yeah... Since i have seen lots of people progress society, from a intrigue or passion, your probably right ,but your a little arrogant to expect accolades... most are liars and tell good stories that motivate the nonsense of others... I don't know anything about your field thought, but there is 3 axis' of measure and theory applciaiton of hyper or 4rth dimension and then the interlation dimension of measure relation which is time operating in space.... Now goign over this subject i know nothing about, I foudn it interesting that: Wave Prediction Formula A fundamental wave prediction formula might include: Amplitude (A): The wave's height. Frequency (f): The number of cycles per unit time. Wavelength (λ): The distance between consecutive wave peaks. Phase Angle (φ): This determines the wave's initial angle at t=0 and can shift the wave in time. A simple sine wave equation can be written as: y(t)=Asin⁡(2πft+ϕ)y(t) = A \sin(2\pi ft + \phi) Where: y(t)y(t) is the wave's displacement at time tt. AA is the amplitude. ff is the frequency. ϕ\phi is the phase angle. Phase Angle in Harmonics The phase angle (φ) is crucial in harmonic analysis because it affects the wave's position relative to time. Adjusting the phase angle can change the wave's timing and shape. Harmonic analysis often involves combining multiple waves with different frequencies and phase angles to understand complex waveforms. The phase angle is precisely the same problem of matter and time relation. The problem is if light is mass as we can see it has mass, and its aprtilce and wave, then the phase angle of matter and its relation as all things vibrate and move have a interelation that affects time betwen other relative bodies ina quatified means of space(volumezxy).. but meh.. I don't know. Phase Angle and Light: Light exhibits both particle and wave properties, as described by wave-particle duality. The phase angle in waves can influence how light waves interfere and interact. Matter and Vibrations: All matter consists of particles that vibrate and move, and these vibrations can be described using wave mechanics. The phase angles of these waves can determine how matter interacts on a fundamental level. Space-Time Interrelation: In the theory of relativity, space and time are interconnected in a four-dimensional continuum. The motion and interaction of matter within this continuum can affect the passage of time relative to other bodies, as described by effects like time dilation. Time is in its origin a cyclic measure between typical earth and our sun, and we can link back to our predecessors who named night and day and wrote these in books, and we have devloped traits of these measures instinctively to of whose was part of the long ago awakening... So I don't knwo anyhting but... we make words and we write and this carries our song, fiction spirit forward, conscience, writing is hte most powerful thing we have to lift the species into the stars and relate and udenrstand... 90% of the otehr things are desprate plees for money and status and nonsense, currently we have but a strange world today.. bad ideals making problems.. lol.. Let me know what you think.. since I was thinking about what you said and a question intrigues me...

[@jaydenwilson9522]

Thanks for sharing! Let's trade some information, for free! Here ya go bud! A Critique of Solely Mass-Based Physics The dominant framework of mass-based physics, as solidified by Galileo, Descartes, and Newton, has undergone centuries of refinement but is fundamentally flawed when viewed through the lens of contemporary thinking, particularly in the context of gravity and inertia. The idea that gravity and inertia are solely dependent on mass (a quantity defined as Mass = Density × Volume) leads to a series of logical inconsistencies and contradictions when applied to real-world phenomena, especially when comparing objects with vastly different densities and volumes. The Mass Paradox: Cloud vs. Ball Consider two objects with the same mass value: A cloud: low density, very large volume. A solid ball: high density, small volume. From a mass-based perspective, the cloud and the ball would be considered identical in terms of their mass (say, both have a mass of 1,000 kg). According to Galileo, Descartes, and Newton's framework: The gravitational force acting on both objects would be the same because gravity is based on the mass of an object. The inertia (resistance to acceleration) of both objects would also be identical, since both have the same mass. However, this is clearly not true in reality. The cloud, due to its low density and large volume, will exert an incredibly weak gravitational field. It has very little localized gravitational pull, despite its large size. The ball, despite its small size, will exert a much stronger localized gravitational force because it has a high density, meaning its mass is concentrated in a smaller volume, creating a much stronger gravitational field in close proximity. When it comes to inertia, the cloud and the ball behave very differently: The cloud can be easily displaced by wind or slight forces due to its low density and high volume. It is not as resistant to changes in motion as the solid ball. The ball, with its high density and small volume, resists acceleration much more than the cloud, as its mass is concentrated, making it more difficult to move. Thus, while they have the same mass value, their gravitational and inertial properties are dramatically different. The Fallacy of the Vacuum Drop Experiment as Proof of Mass-Based Gravity Nature abhors a vacuum-the ideal, perfect vacuum as represented in classical physics simply doesn't exist in practice. Even the best-controlled vacuum chambers have trace amounts of gases, particulate matter, or subtle electromagnetic effects that cannot be completely eliminated. This crucial fact undermines the vacuum drop experiment (where objects are dropped in a vacuum and fall at the same rate) as definitive proof of mass-based gravity. The Key Point When objects fall at the same rate in a vacuum, the assumption made by Newtonians and Relativists is that this is purely a result of gravitational attraction being dependent solely on mass. However, this interpretation overlooks a critical factor: the medium in which the objects fall. And, if we apply a density-based interpretation, a far more plausible explanation emerges, one that maintains the fundamental principles of buoyancy and density that were correctly outlined by Archimedes. Intuitive Density-Based Interpretation of Gravity In reality, the vacuum is not perfect-it's a low-density medium with residual gases. These gases interact with the objects in subtle ways, influencing their fall. A density-based interpretation-one that considers the relative density between the objects and the surrounding medium-provides a far more intuitive and accurate explanation. In this view, the objects fall at the same rate not because gravity has no care for weight, but because the density contrast between them is so small while the contrast to the medium is so high that their buoyant forces are negligible. Thus, objects of varying mass behave similarly in a vacuum due to their relative density to the medium, not because gravity is mass-based. This highlights a profound gap in our understanding: while mass-based gravity is the conventional explanation, a density-based perspective has never been seriously considered-despite its simplicity and alignment with observed phenomena. Conclusion Me, a humble bubble and Archimedes > Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Euler and Onestone

[@jaydenwilson9522]

5:10 Physics deals in Force. Engineering deals in Energy. Mathematics deals in Power. But what does Nature deal in?

[@jaydenwilson9522]

6:35 OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! CALL THEM OUT!!!! SCAMMERS!!! FRAUDSTERSSSS!!!!! I'm 31 and I am personally looking into fundamental and foundational works of physics, mathematics, etc. and I AM SICK OF THEM! BLUFFERS! LARPERS! CONMAN! Get Mr. Charles Ponzi out of Physics and Academia!!!!

[@DanBullard]

I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but there’s no air in space and everything falls at the same rate. Everything. Think about it.

[@jaydenwilson9522]

@DanBullard "Nature abhors a vacuum." And it's SPARSE gas!!! Go make a vacuum that is the Perfect "Ideal" Vacuum of Classical Physics! You will still have trace gas in it because Nature abhors a vacuum! Newtons Absolute Space doesn't exist you senile old fool! (Sorry for being rude but you deserve it for what you just said Mr!)

[@jaydenwilson9522]

@@DanBullard What is air? Gas! What is "Space" ? SPARSE GAS! THINK ABOUT IT! In all seriousness... Newton's Absolute Space DOES NOT EXIST. The Perfect "Ideal" Vacuum is a MYTHOMAGICAL IDEATION! And everything falls at the same rate? Yes... VIRTUALLY, when the relative density to the medium is at such a LARGER magnitude than the average density difference of both bodies.... Did you really just read what I wrote and then double down on Newtonian Metaphysics dude?