8 replies to this topic

[RichardKCollins]

I wrote this long note, and then got too tired to finish.  There is no apparent way to save a draft.  I started out just talking about global networks of cameras for astronomy and other purposes. Then hinted at the social value of every person in the world being able to access the sky above them with a decent quality all sky camera. I live in Houston, and Houstonians seldom see the stars. But a city this large ought to be able to afford some sky cameras so that any person and all the classes at every level could look at the sky.  Taking that to the limit a geosynchronous sky cam could show Houstonians what the real sky looks like any time.

But then I was trying to explain why I am looking at noise in camera sensors. And the story is too long.  I studied astrophysics at the University of Maryland and met Joe Weber there.  He got me hooked on gravitational detection, imaging and communication.  His student, Robert Forward went on to help start the pathway to LIGO.  So I spent much of my life trying to fulfill their vision.  I helped the GravityResearchFoundation get online. I track all the low cost gravimeter technologies that can sample at "time of flight" or "that can take samples" on nanosecond time frames.  I am learning to use all the online data stream from sensor on the earth because I cannot get anyone to simply try correlating the noise in their sensors on specific directions in the sky.  And on specific locations inside the earth, its atmosphere and oceans and near space.

 

I don't expect anyone is interested in such things.  So I will just leave this here, and go back to profiling the noise in these cameras across the full range of settings,  temperature, vibration, seismic noise, magnetic field, electromagnetic field, and the varying gravitational field.  Whatever I can find online.  With the gravimeter and seismometer arrays, it is not uncommon to use a month of data for a tiny test. Or a decade for something harder. What's another ten or twenty years?

I put some things online at GravityNotes.Org and at https://hackaday.io/...avimeter-arrays

 

My assumption is the the gravitational potential field at the surface of the earth is in close relationship with the global magnetic potential, and that with the atmospheric thermal radiation field. They are tied together by the energy density. Robert Forward gave that as g^2/(9 pi G) and it is equivalent to a magnetic field of about 380 Tesla.  I think it is number related, and there are just that many more gravitons than magnetic fluctuations, and then our photons are rather larger still and so fewer.

 

Richard Collins, Director, The Internet Foundation

Houston Texas

 

--------

 

I just joined Cloudy Nights.  I am retired and never lived anywhere I could see the stars, or had time for it.  Now I live in Houston Texas and it is raining again.  Most days it is cloudy, and I live a couple of miles from downtown, the glare hurts my eyes.

 

With Covid I have my food delivered and buy everything from Amazon and online.  So I thought, why not?  I started to looked to see if I could rent time on an Internet telescope, somewhere the sky is clear.  I did talk to some people wanting to host telescopes and put them online, but they charge more than my monthly, rent, food, utilities and bills combined.  The local group I joined has a remote site, but not enough bandwidth.  I am hoping to hear from them if anyone would record their sessions.  I am kind of like a man dying of thirst.  Any sky is better than no sky at all.

 

So I started finding all the live webcams in the world that show a bit of sky.  It is very interesting.  It is fascinating how many cameras are online, running 24 hours a day.  No standards, often little purpose except a tiny bit of advertising. But, oddly, most sponsored and hopeful live webcams so not list the latitude, longitude and height of the camera, not its usual right ascension and declination, or altitude and azimuth.  That aside, there are many hundreds, and I expect my list to grow to thousands.  I don't sleep much, so lots of hours. 

 

Many of these actually show the sky. AND I found many (less than a 100) "sky cams", "cloud cams", "meteorlogical cameras", "all sky cameras"

You know, I never learned the names of any constellations, and never really got a clear sense of where things are in the sky.  I guess always busy, and no one had time to teach me. But in a few hours looking at some all sky camera images and time lapse videos of a clear sky, using Sky and Telescope and other models of where the stars, sun, moon, planets, and other things are out there.  I began to get a sense that EVERY live or recorded camera on earth, with even a pixel of sky - day or night, there is a precise universe out there.  I just cannot see it.  

I asked my local group if they had considered putting a all sky camera on the internet somewhere so school kids, and older people like me, and lots of people who are working at home from Covid, might look at the sky, see the stars, artificial satellites, planes, and other things clearly marked and identifiable. I have dreams that I can just hover over anythings, and the computer can calculate the coordinates, look up what is there, and show to me.

I guess I better ask something?  I am watching the histogram on a ZWO ASI120M camera as I have SharpCap step through all the exposures.   I am using five second reads at 1 frame per seconds and stepping through all the exposures from 5 to 1000 milliseconds.   On a camera sitting on my desk with the lens cap on.  Just to see the noise.  I have been a mathematical statistician all my life.  I love noise.  To me a sky full of stars is just a noisy signal with structure.  I hope that is not too sacreligous?  Anyway. I am running this poor camera through its paces.  All the exposures, all the frame rates, all the gains, (I cannot do brightness, that seems to be broken in this IronPython/SharpCap/Windows Driver of some sort that I downloaded /some camera internal software that I cannot access or find anything about, to a sensor that has unique characteristics for each pixel in every operational setting, but no statistics anywhere.

I rather dislike Python. But I admire the IronPython group that got it to work in Windows, and the SharpCap people who at least can mostly talk to a whole bunch of camera. even if there is no statistical summary.

Oh I had bought a camera a year ago, but then spent months tracking the global status of Covid for my work.  It is a SVbony something.  When I looked at it (capped, why bother buy a telescope if you never see the sky?)  it looked like I was seeing the sky.  Hot bright pixels, sort of gray regions, splotches, some really dark areas. But in constant turmoil, some bright spots twinkling through the electron atmosphere at and in the electron wells of each pixel.

I bought two more ZWO cameras yesterday (my budget is not great, and I figure every single camera is going to be unique.  Every pixel different, every pixel with noise that changes with every change in setting.)  I know the rules and equations very well.  But since it doesn't matter, I pretend I don't know and just watch the patterns and map the trends as I walk through the settings of each camera. 

It just occurred to me that I can observer 24/7 with my "noise cameras", my "noise telescopes".  I know where most of that noise comes from.

The reason I chose the ZWO cameras is because they can do "region of interest" at high frame rates. At frame rates above 299,000 frames per second, I only need to separate my sensors by a kilometer or more to see if I can track any signals that are not local.  The spatial resolution for direction of arrival and time of flight is a kilometer.  I have a LOT of pixels and lots of patience. If a cosmic ray electromagnetic pulse 

 

I just need to increase the gain to spread the signal across more level of this (4096 level) sensor. And push the brightness as high as possible to put the "signal" into the middle.  That doesn't work with ZWO and SharpCap, since since the thermal noise in the sensor is chopped off.  I have been dreaming again that I could build my own camera from scratch.  I would make several.  Some with the tiniest electron (or hole) wells possible, then a stable amplifier, a stable reference voltage, and a fast and quiet and stable ADC - for each pixel.

 

No photon needed.  The local photons inside - if you have patience, like I do, then after  a month or a year of observing, the normal patterns are predictable.  Yes, the Bayesian statistics are deep and complex, but they just represent the fairly limited existence of electrons in a fairly stable environment.

 

The data from the webcams is NOT real data. Without exception (I haven't found one yet) all the streams are lossy. Even the "observatories" pump out lossy jpeg and lossy video formats.  You would think they would honor the pixels by preserving the original data, and not mushing it around for human viewers.

So I am still looking for someone with an all sky camera who shares their data stream of raw pixels. And someone who want to try chopping up the incoming stream of photons and energy with very high frame rates, so the direction of the signal can be determined by a global array of "noise cameras".

I thought that the big telescopes sites and the littler ones would have nice imaging arrays they do not use during the day. They could cover them nicely, and then monitor. But they are old big CCD pixels. But they might be able to take precise, globally coordinated, exposures of the noise to precisely scan the sky. Since there are  lot of cameras out there, and radio and other sensors that track electron noise, they could take samples at precise moments to that signals coming from any point in the sky or inside the earth or sun or moon, could be correlated.  Those radio telescope correlators might work. And there must be a lot of spare supercomputers lying around with nothing serious to do.

You know how hard it is to block a magnetic field.  And the low frequency electric fields. Have you ever tried to stop gravity? It is extremely fine grained (spatial extent and low cross section).  But if you watch the signals of a superconducting gravimeter, they precisely and faithfully track the sun and moon.  The broadband seismometers are not as sensitive, but they gather a lot more data and are three axes.  If only they could gather fast enough to resolve the direction of the tiny signals they see. They by simple correlation, it might be possible to scan the heavens in a different way.

I think I will be able to try to scan the heavens by correlating signals precisely at many thousands of location on the earth.  A microsecond exposure and nanosecond time coordination seems possible.  I do not know what is out there, but I feel it is a different sky than we imagined.

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[Haze]

[mrlovt]

I just joined Cloudy Nights...

 

I am kind of like a man dying of thirst.  Any sky is better than no sky at all...

 

I do not know what is out there, but I feel it is a different sky than we imagined...

Richard, we're glad you are here!  Welcome, and feel free to leave a note or a tome. 

 

Agreed - any sky is better than no sky at all.  I hope you find what you're looking for.  I'll be setting up a skycam in my backyard. I doubt it would supply the data you're looking for, but I'm always happy to send a file or a feed once it's online.

 

Don't be a stranger.

[Noah4x4]

There are some more sophisicated existing Internet services where one can hire a (proper) telescope in a clear sky location and remote control it. For example https://www.itelescope.net/

[alphatripleplus]

Moderator Note:

 

Given the OP's expressed interest is in analyzing shared data for a scientific project, this topic is being moved from EAA to Scientific Amateur Astronomy for a better fit:

 

".....So I am still looking for someone with an all sky camera who shares their data stream of raw pixels. And someone who want to try chopping up the incoming stream of photons and energy with very high frame rates, so the direction of the signal can be determined by a global array of "noise cameras".

[ccs_hello]

I do not think the commercially available image sensors, based on the way it works internally, can contribute anything on detection of gavity variations.

[ccs_hello]

Also, would like to add:

if the method to gather various feeds from various data sources all over the world, you'll have to deal with

- how to calibrate the data acquisition equiment (whatever that gear is) to a traceable baseline

- if the baseline reference (used for calibration) is not absolute, how to accomodate user data feed variations, how to normalize (if the gears used for data collection are different brand/model/build/designs/...)

[RichardKCollins]

I am not sure how to reply to individuals. 

css-Hello:

You are probably right.  The commercial sensors are right at the limit of detection range for things like this.  More than that, there are so many unknowns in commercial data streams.  One is never really very clear what went into the sensors, the analog amplifications, the Analog to Digital Conversion (ADC), any averages or subtractions or transformation or corrections someone might innocently add in, then many transformation  in the driver, or program reading the data from the camera.  

A direct approach - reading the noise myself and finding data from all the sensor network for correlation - magnetic, electromagnetic, seismic, and so fort - wears me out just thinking about it.  I spent a couple of years measuring the variations in the power system noise. We think of power lines as 60 cycles, pure and simple. But that alone is a complex and every changing signal.  More time scanning the electromagnetic signals from 1 Hertz up to about 6 GigaHertz.  All that human and some natural sources.  More years following the fine details of seismic noise and activity.  And the superconducting gravimeters that got me started on this. Every one of those has people (many people) who have a piece of a larger puzzle.  Ham radio networks that send signals criss-crossing the globe.  Groups monitoring the oceans.  More groups monitoring the weather.  More groups tracking neutrinos, cosmic rays, neutrons, pions, and other particles.  Lightning detection groups.  Ionospheric groups. Solar weather groups.  --- All those networks I have tried to find and understand.

One possible short term test - It is not easy to look at your posts and profiles and figure out where you, are located.  Your equipment, methods, (personalities?), pasts, goals, skills and data streams are all unique and complex. 

But, suppose - that you five and I were to go to any camera,

1. cover the lens and take a continuous sequence of dark frames once per second for a 1 microsecond exposure for each frame. 
2. At the speed of light and gravity (C=299,792,458 meters/second), the 10 microsecond (t) samples any signals coming to the sensor from a slice of space that is at most C*T = 2997.92458 meters thick.
3. And we agree to synchronize the precise times (using GPS time for coordination) when we each take the sample frames.
4. To make it easy to visualize.  Suppose one each on the north and south poles, one on the side of the earth opposite to the sun for clock time, one directly on the sunside as the sun is exactly overhead, and two on the extreme points of the equator.
5. The earth is 6,371,000 meters in radius ® or 12,742,000 meters from sunside to darkside. There are roughly 2R/(C*T) frames difference between the sunside observer and the darkside observer.  That is 12,742,000 meters/2997.92458 meters = 4250.273 frames between them.
6. If the darkside observer wants to point to the sun, along with the sunside observer, he/she has to take their sample exposure from the sequence close to 4250 frames after the sunside one. That is pretty unambiguous. If they were to compare their readings for a few minutes, they would by using that frame difference to correlate observations.
7. You are all experienced observers. You can understand that we can (a) get a time series of earth centered XYZ positions for the sun, earth, and moon. (2) Account for the shape of the earth and calculate the XYZ positions of each observer as a function of time (3) calculate the distances from a particular spot on the sun to each observer as a function of time (4) and for any UTC time calculate the frame needed from each observer that focuses on that one spot on the sun. The sun is rotating and changing so the light and gravity signals from spots on the sun take about 500 seconds for their whole trip. But it is just fairly standard corrections and knowing the guys at Jet Propulsion Laboratories (JPL) they would probably check the work, if not do the calculations for the fun of it.
8. So now we take the data from separate observers. One frame per second is 86,400 frames per day. That is too much to share over the Internet in real time. And the frames are a bunch of pixels from different formats.  So we could use a histogram from monochrome intensities from all the pixels in each camera.  Or use random histograms from randomly chosen 64x64 regions on the camera.  I chose that deliberately because most of the cameras can get regions of interest for some multiples of 8 or 16.  So the average become a proxy for all the pixels.
9. Now the comparisons.  Choosing a sunspot makes sense. There are still more groups who track them closely ( and maybe give them favorite names ) and can tell you stories about their entire life.  The sun is observed continuously and recorded at many optical frequencies, not so many radio frequencies except when the radio astronomers have nothing else todo, and NEVER as far as I can determine at the very lowest frequencies around 1Hz where I think most of the slower gravitational effects are coming from. Since no one has looked (there is almost always someone or several but they are hard to find) checking for slow variations at any point is hard.
10. I just thought of many problems. The ionosphere traps Schumann resonances in the electromagnetic field around the earth. Think of it as a standing wave covering the whole surface of the earth. There are groups for that.  The ELF and VLF and "low frequency" and magnetic and magnetotelluric and ionospheric observers and ham radio and earth to satellite and many other groups track the state of variations in the electromagnetic field at the earth surface. They all have something to say.  I cannot really distinguish gravitational signals from magnetic variations. I have only been trying for 15 years of so. That is why I started on the magnetometer groups in the first place. The problem is that low frequency electromagnetic field and low frequency magnetic fields are just like gravitational fields -- they slip through most everything. [I worked for Phillips Petroleum in Bartlesville for a few years and spent time in the research labs. I checked all their electromagnetic survey methods and got to know those people a bit. There was one man who studied magnetism in rocks.  He built a magnetically shielded room.  I think he used metal from old battleships?  Anyway that memory reminds me how hard it is to stop a magnetic field completely.  And make me wonder, just now, if there are many of those rooms or boxes that could be used to put cameras in.  It just damps, but does not eliminate the magnetic variations, but it would be another check.  If "gravity" is just the high spatial frequency parts of one field, and magnetism of certain energy densities bigger in size but fewer in number... you get what I am hinting?  Stopping magnetic fields might stop some of the tiniest variations in the gravity portion of the spectrum.  I am mixing models now.  Let me finish the procedures and go back to interpretation and visual models and quantitative rules later.
11. Say we took our 6 time series - whole frame histograms each second for 86,400 frames. And throw in a 2D Fourier Transform of the noise across the sensor (that would be in absolute spatial units for comparisons), Then if the signal has a grain size (the solitons or packets or pulses or spin packets or blobs or spheroids - whatever you might visualize) comes through the sensors, it might be like a color from that part of the sun. So maybe there are micron sized blobs, or nanometer sized blobs.  If they are not exactly in line they won't appear to be "light" when our sensors assume rigid frequencies and energies.  If you stand in front of an abrasive water jet, or in the exhaust of a rocket ship, it is a random streams of different sized fluctuations, not absolutely uniform plane waves (though they might be much more effective it they were), [I have wanted to tune the rocket exhaust from rockets since I was in the 9th grade when my dad worked at Cape Canaveral and we would see and hear them as we walked to school.]
12. So it is fairly simple. Take the 6 time series and calculate the correlation (perhaps by spatial frequency from the fourier transforms (I like that more and more because it compares apples to apples, 10 micron fluctuations to 10 micron fluctuations) and see what kinds of patterns occur. If it is like seismic or lightning detection data streams where that region of observation only has strong events of very short duration. They could be smeared out for 10 microsecond samples.
13. I think I am getting there. First this can be a simple electromagnetic experiment. All the groups that I can imagine (there are NO groups regularly monitoring gravitational variations at 1/period = 1/10^-5 seconds = 100,000 Hertz or 100,000 samples per second.  However much I have begged and pleaded over the years.  So suppose all this coordination just is to measure ANY variations in sensors that correlates and produces repeatable signatures in the correlations for ANY signal coming from that spot to the sensors at the speed of light and gravity. [The GW170817 neutron star merger sent electromagnetic and gravitational wave signals to earth that arrived at exactly the same time. This was a race of most of the width of the universe and they arrived at a photo finish. The report I read said "identical to 1 part in 10^17 or something like that).
14. I really never trust anything until I "go through the number", "do the calculations", "check and recheck a hundred or a thousand times". But that is me.  I have had to work with scrips and scraps of data and tiny footnotes and long tedious chains of massage to data all my life.  I am a bit tired of doing it myself.  I work with things I am not expert at, so I have to cram decades of experience into 18 hour days and massive repetition of tiny experiments and checks. [You guys probably observe the moon at the same time. Do you ever check to see if your coordinates are right by checking the location of features over the whole faces as a function of time?  Can you tell what time and date it is from such images?  I have tried problems like that. But never get to actually do it. The one time series of moon images I found there was not enough to be sure. Sorry I remember most everything I have ever read or seen for the last 55 years, And I read a LOT. ]  My diversion was because I was thinking about the problems of coordinating all earth optical observers for things like the moon, comets, asteroids, artificial satellites, planes (yes there are groups for all those thing and they all are getting to the point they can compare their recorded images, do the transforms on desktop computers and cell phone, and see what they can learn by fusing data from many sensors all looking at the same event.
15. Do you see how complicated I have made it? By trying to find and understand ALL global sensor networks in detail - enough to take the data and compare it from years or decades of records - I found a lot about the connections. But it is too much for one person.  I just turned 72. I have a headache now and I am tired. But there are so many questions that can get answered. A global array of time of flight magnetometers can locate and characterize lightning and ionospheric and magnetospheric events. A global array of (speed of light and gravity) time of flight seismometers and purpose built gravimeters can locate and characterize the seismic waves from as they move through the earth and distort the surface as they move away from an earthquake source.
16. So is there a place for "noise cameras"??  I don't know.  Working on it hard for the last couple of years, I think it likely. I am going to stop this sequence, which I really have not finished, and talk about the size of gravitational fluctuations in the vacuum and how gravity looks to me on the surface of the earth. 

How big is "gravity"?

 

1. I probably started thinking hard about gravity in the 9th grade. Those rockets with their noise and rumble seemed horribly wasteful and inefficient. And I wondered what goes on inside solid matter when you lift something a tiny bit.  By then I knew about accelerators and I was taking a pre-college course in chemistry where we studied the structure of chemical bonding in quantitative terms. Cape Canaveral had some really good teachers. Anyway, I thought that it had to be fine grained enough to cause electrons to fall (smoothly or bumpy) or particle beams in an accelerator. And all the people said that it was material independent - that a kilogram of soap was exactly equivalent to a kilogram of silicon nitride or boron 11.  So my first gut feeling was that it had to be small enough and uniform enough to get in between the atoms and nucleons of things.
2. Sometime in the last year or two, I thought to ask. What is the mass of a particle traveling at the speed of light, so that it it is in equilibrium with air at the surface of the earth. You know that particles are particles (Brownian motion) and the number determines the pressure.  Anyway, (1/2) m*C^2 = (3/2) kT or just m*C^2 = kT gives a particle of mass about one ten millionth of an electron mass. And, (after a year of thinking about it) I concluded that it was most reasonable to give mass to the volumes. So that much mass is in tiny volumes of space. Tiny spatial fluctuations and tiny mass and tiny energy -- lots of them.  If I go through my notebooks and spreadsheets I can tell you how many?
3. Why wouldn't we see the pressure of those many tiny particles? There are a LOT more moles of them and PV=NRT where N is large means the pressure should be large.  Unless those tiny particles just tunnel through material with no drag. If the large number of gravitons is a superfluid that only can be cut or touched or modified when you focus sufficient energy density to boil the vacuum. [To create a quark gluon plasma, to heat the vacuum enough to cavitate and form bubbles. To cause magnetic type vortices to form.  I really have checked most every possible visualization and model.]
4. So tiny particles, some about the size of a 10 millonth of the mass of an electron [1.38E-7 of the mass of the electron, 1.26E-37 kg, )1/7.3E6) of the mass of the electron.] and lots of them.  How many?
5. Joe Weber, when I was talking with him about gravity told me to read Robert Forward's dissertation and papers. In Roberts papers or among the papers I read to follow that up, I found an expression for the gravitational energy density. It was simple and something that seemed reasonable.  g^2/(8 pi G). 
6. In the early 1980's I was working for Georgetown University Center for Population Research and dropping in on seminars and classes in their Chemistry department.  I wrote at least two essays for the Gravity Research Foundation essay contest.  [One got an Honorable mention which is good for an outsider.  I think Steven Hawking won one year. Anyway I wrote about the relation between the gravitational energy density and other energy densities - magnetic energy density, the energy density of an electric field.  And asked if there was a fundamental relation between them. The gravitational acceleration at the earth surfaces gives a gravitational energy density of about 5.75E10 Joules/m3. 
7. To put that in perspective, to get that energy density with a magnetic field, you would need a field of about 380 Tesla. The exact relationship is that an acceleration field converts to magnetic field (in energy density terms) by multiplying the acceleration by sqrt(8*pi*G/2 muo) = sqrt(G/10^7) = sqrt(10^7 G) = 38.7114 Tesla/(meter/second^2). So 9.8 (m/s2) * 38.7114 is 379.37172 Tesla.  [ also an electric field of about 114 billion Volts/meter, a laser intensity of 1.72E19 Watts/meter2, and a blackbody cavity at about 3 million Kelvin. Since starting in about 1978 I have made the same kinds of calculations for every possible model I could find probably every year several times.]
8. Before I went to University of Maryland, I was working for the Texas State Health Department as a statistician and epidemiologist. Then with the Texas Education Agency as a Chief Accountant walking through all the human and computer procedures to prepare an RFP to replace their central information systems.  For those four years I was sitting in on seminars and auditing classes at UT-Austin. I went to as many seminars in as many areas as I could. Then I took off a year and went full time.  I spent most of my time with Ilya Prigogine's group in statistical mechanics working on things like chemical clocks and reaction networks. [He got his Nobel Prize just after I left.  He did write a paper on gravity at my urging], But UT-Austin had a fusion program. And me, I read everything and check everything. So with fusion stability difficulties in mind, as I was writing the essay on the gravitation energy density -- seeing those 380 Tesla numbers and the temperatures and pressures (567400 atmospheres) for the gravitational energy density, I felt that any fusion experiment on the surface of the earth MUST account for the variations in gravitational potential, and in the gravitational energy density and its gradients -- and there probably would be critical points and phenomena when the energy density is comparable to the energy density in the fusion plasma.
9.  So the energy density is higher than any magnetic field we can produce easily.  I also keep track of progress in explosive driven, pulsed, laser produced, nuclear explosions, emp and ANY way to produce magnetic fields of that range. The laser experiments can reach 10^19 and 10^20 Watts/m2 now. And the laser vacuum experiments are going to boil the vacuum.  I do not remember.  It is 6 am and I got up at 3 am to work until midnight.
10. If you take the energy density of the gravitational field at the earth surface and divide by C^2, you get a mass density in kg/m3. The 5.75E10 Joules/meter3 divided by C^2 gives about 6.4E-7 kg/m3.  If that is distributed as gravitons of mass 1.26E-37 kg you get 5.1E30 particles per meter3. Divide by Avogadros number to get 8.43 million moles of gravitons per meter3.  You cannot compress them with ordinary matter at slow speeds, they slip right through.  To put it on ideal gas terms and a standard atmosphere, there are about (1000000 cm3 per meter^3)/(22,400 cm3 per mole of gas at STP)  or 44.64 moles of gas per cubic meter.  So the 8.43 million moles per cubic meters corresponds to about 18,800 moles of "gravitons" per mole of air or mole of ideal gas at STP. 
11. Now is this reasonable?  If you lift a mass of 1 kg one meter in an acceleration field of 9.8 meters/second^2 that is the same as saying 9.8 (Joules/kg) per meter of height.  Now a Joule/kg is the units of the gravitational potential. But it can be converted to electron volts per atomic mass unit. An atomic mass unit is just 1 kg/(1000*Avogadros number). And the electron charge is actually also the the energy in Joules of an electron volt. So 1000 N_A * e = 1000 * Faradays Constant = 96,485,332.12 (Joules/kg) per (electronvolts/amu).  So divide 9.8 Joules/kg by 9.648533212E7 to get 1.0157E-7 electron volts per atomic mass unit. Which is interesting. Because that is about the energy of a graviton found by looking for a particle moving at the speed of light in equilibrium with a gas at the surface of the earth.
12. More importantly for people interested in using fields to levitate and move things. It also says that only a 100 nanovolts per atomic mass unit is needed to replace the gravitational field. And the transitions for gravity at a nucleon level are in the 100 nanovolt range. If these are collisions and you are counting them and following the mean free path models, then that amount of energy per collisions.  If you are using a Schrodinger model of nucleons and atoms and molecules and solve for the exact wavefunction or an empirical value - then the square of the wavefunction can be expressed in energy density terms and I expect that only where the transitions are small will you have gravitons - on average.
13. Now the emission and absorption spectrum of atoms and molecules is a mix of many states.  The ionizations are taken as electrons being completely removed. There are energy changes when electrons change their place in the set of positive and negative particles of an atom or molecule. There are energy changes when a positive particle changes. There are magnetic energy changes when any permanent magnetic dipole changes orientation with respect to the whole field.  And there are transitions when any particle moves with respect to the gravitational potential gradient (the gravitational acceleration we call g). And those transitions are in the 100 nanolectron volt range.
14. So if there are waves or diffusion of these kinds of particles, and their number and type depends a lot on the local environment, how do you keep it all sorted out? WELL that is part of why I started the Internet Foundation and tackled the problem of simplifying and standardizing all the equations an models on the Internet -- across all technologies, all sciences, all sensors, all instruments, all datasets, all users and potential users of any of these.
15. But let me see if I can tie this back to detecting events on the surface of the sun with detectors on the earth of many different types by coordination, phased array measurements, correlation and massive numbers of pair-wise arguments over units and phenomena and instruments and processing steps. It is not really a physics problem but a human global problem.  So there is an event on the sun.  We measure it in mass terms because we call it a gravity event.  Move mass get gravity signals, move charge get electric field and electromagnetic signals, move or change the orientation of magnetic dipoles and get a magnetic field signals.
16. Did you know that the hyperfine energy is primarily a magnetic dipole interaction energy between the electron magnetic dipole moment and the proton magnetic dipole moment? To a first approximation you can simply use a classical magnetic dipole force between the electron and proton. If they are aligned (held apart by rotation, pulled together by Coulomb force) and then forced to flip by external fields) the energy can be calculated that way.  I learned that after years studying magnetic resonance imaging. When I was at Georgetown I took magnetic resonance spectroscopy class, and one of the seminars was the originators of the first full body 3D scanner.  Now this is interesting. But what happens when you bring the two very close together artificially?  The (1/r^2) Coulomb force is pulling them together. The (M V^2)/r centrifugal or rotational force is pulling them apart, and the magnetic force depends on very precise alignment and timing.  If you can somehow get the magnetic dipole force to be attractive, then that is a (1/r^4) attraction -- which, at short distances, dominates. I solved that to find what the equilibrium distance where those forces balance, and it is nuclear distances comparable to the size of the neutron. If you take the binding energy of the neutron and plug in, that give a precise model for the neutron where a magnetic dipole force and a Coulomb force are in balance with rotation or circulation.
17. I spent many years working out the magnetic binding between electron pairs (cooper pairs), proton pairs, proton and antiproton, electron and positron -- not at hydrogen molecular and atomic distances but nuclear distances and nuclear energies. It is an easy to visualize and to calculate approximation that allows for sorting through beta and positron and electron capture decays. And it works for fusion reactions in the near field where oriented particles are beginning to react and you want to sort through to see which ones will bind. So you can go through the chart of nuclear magnetic dipole and quadrupole moments and calculate the magnetic binding distance for many "nuclear" reactions or "weak" reactions in simple magnetic terms.  Keeping in mind all the particles and simple structures can be represented as soliton solutions of the nonlinear Schrodinger equation. They can be represented as multipole-multipole binding states.
18. So what am I saying.  I am making a bet.  I think I am right that the sun is emitting massive numbers of these particles, but the flow is so uniform we can only pick out disturbances.  And if the sensors are called "magnetic sensors" they are sensitive to large swirls of gravitons. If you call it "gravity" then the swirls and particles are smaller.   I am saying that the gravitational potential field is like a dense superfluid where the particles of the fluid flow relative to each other, where the fluid can rotate, form eddies of many sizes and the size is directly connected to the properties of the vacuum we invoke when we solve the Schrodinger equation or say frequency = SpeedOfLight/Wavelength.  I think I have worked out all the possible combinations and checked them. But i was only looking for visualizations that humans could be taught, and that would help to remember how it might work.  If the guys (male and female neutral term) who do quark gluon models are able to cooperate with the ones working on quark stars, then all these models can be checked and refined.
19. I am getting rather tired. But I need to write this down somewhere. My own personal idea is that the big bang is not a unique event and I think I know what happened. If you go into a neutron star core, there are proton superconductors (I was there because those pairs will bind by magnetic dipole forces and I wanted to see if the external pressures made a difference). But while I was looking, the modelers were talking about  quark gluon matter, and mentioned a quark star. Now I keep everything in mind. So I immediately thought the only places where there are higher densities than neutron stars is black holes, and a black hole is just a threshold for photons.  So I jumped ahead a bit and considered what happens to a quark star?  It has to also be black probably.  The important thing is that the quark stars seems ordinary - you plug in the equations and data, run the simulations and see what happens. A simple day's work. But it it is also black because there is concentrated enough mass inside, then it is not a singularity, but just the curtain drawn.
20. But I have all the models in mind. So what are those supermassive black holes doing? They can be of many different densities. The universe itself is a black hole.  It contains enough mass that the escape velocity is about the speed of light. So if all the black holes are quark stars in various states of accretion, and the big bang was a kind of quark star hyper-nova, what is the condensation reaction that drives a quark star nova, as opposed to the regular novas we see? My first guess was a condensation of the quark gluon gas to liquid in the centers of the quark stars, and then to a crystalline form where the particles that make up the gluon gas itself -- bind into solid forma and release energy in the process. Having a sort of "all matters is a mix" bias, I think that the big bang was a common type of local quark star nova where only a tiny portion reached criticality, and the rest of mostly quark density matter was thrown out in a vast spray of fragments and blobs of all sizes and shapes.  Particularly I think many of the early black holes and galaxies could just as well be left over that reformed after being thrown out.
21. And it might be possible to see what happened.  And what is happening inside the sun and inside of stars and planets.  If we can coordinate arrays of low frequency detectors looking closely at things in the solar system, and at the whole sky are frequencies from 1 MHz down to 1 nanoHertz to start.
22. I took a short break for breakfast and to get a cup of coffee.  That is enough time to go through another dozen paragraphs like these. But I will try to bring it back to an all sky survey of the universe using these very low electric, magnetic, electromagnetic and "gravitational" signals.  Again, I think a practical representation is many layers of turbulence at different scales down to the particles I think make up gluon gas, and that can form string (thin vortices), membranes and sheet and bubbles and boules (vortex sheets), and many pairs and structure.  Some very unique and stable and reproducible.
23. Microwaves can penetrate fog and clouds. Ground penetrating radar can see inside of things and into there earth. These are basic things you hear and memorize hoping to understand later. And when you dig for the explanation, you first hear - longer wavelengths penetrate deeper and "it depends" on things like conductivity and permittivity.  But when I see the cosmic microwave background "fog" of a complex high temperature plasma, I don't know if it all can be penetrated, but my first guess would be "longer wavelengths will penetrate deeper, and deeper means closer to the time of the big bang, or the "quark star nova".  Now I dearly love that people built a kilometers long optical interferometer to measure the stains of passing gravitational potential field compression waves. But I wish they would hurry up and let the atom interferometer groups build desktop or room sized versions. I also wish they would get out of their ivory towers.  Yes the only models that came out of Misner Thorne and Wheeler were black hole mergers and simple models. All the complex models and sources that Jan Harms found for earth-based signals have been ignored. "We only look at distant things.  Stuff on the earth is beneath us.  Our lofty thoughts are too great for meager minds to comprehend". I am joking guys. But there is a large element of truth.  If every university and small research group in the world could afford a desktop gravitational detector that can pick up earth quake seismic wave generated gravitational waves, we can push that out gradually to map the suns interior, and the earths interior, and to track the planets, then asteroids.  We have all the technology for the data handling and modelling.  We just need some better analog front ends that work at time-of-flight sampling frequencies.
24. So look for anything that comes from the sun to the earth at the speed of light. Get all the radio telescopes to monitor the variations in the power of their signals at low frequencies. Take the optical and radio signals in space detectors and look at the power variations down to microHertz frequencies.
25. What am I talking about? If I transmit an audio radio program on a GigaHertz carrier wave, what is that signal?  It has an acoustically modulated GHz wave.  But you can also think of if as a GHz modulated acoustic wave. Check me. I am tired. But if you monitor a radio wave it has components down to near zero frequency (the radio is measuring the electromagnetic field variations). And at the lowest frequencies the power goes up dramatically.  Is that familiar 1/f just many low frequency eddy waves in the field?  Is the stuff that makes up the electromagnetic wave at low frequencies more like a dense ocean of graviton sized swirls and eddies, than a mathematical sine wave? So when I say to take the whole of the radio waves coming into the radio telescope and extend the fourier transforms and measurements down to nanoHertz range or smaller. The software defined radio guys (**** neutral term) do this every day. And those rocket scientist radio telescope guys cannot, do not, don't want to, or have no clue, or do it every day and did not bother to tell anyone???? I really love them, but they try my patience. Same with the "optical detectors" measuring electromagnetic signals.  Those signals are modulated by frequencies that vary down to arbitrarily small frequencies. Just run the data through an SDR with a photodetector down converter and then run the FFT down to microHertz. If you have to run the thing for days or weeks or years, do it and see what comes out.
26. So point any optical sensor at a point in the sky and watch the audio (an inheritance from human limitations) and from microHertz to kiloHertz and all the way up to the highest frequencies. The amplifier and electron wells and ADCs and digital processing doesn't care. It just set of samples.  You plug them into the FFT and look.  You send them down the networks, share them with your friends and you try to find new patterns and unique and verifiable events in the correlation results.
27. I wish I could talk to you individually.  I do not speak every technical and scientific language fluently, but I can usually speak pidgin anything quickly and I learn fast.  My problem writing here is that much of this you probably have heard, but might not have gone to look for yourself. And we all never have data from real instruments to try things ourself.  I was lucky that the superconducting gravimeter network shared the SG data, and the IRIS.edu people shared the seismometer data. LIGO not their earth based "noise" data.  Large Hadron Collider "not down to nanoelectron volt levels" even though they are affected by earth tides and the the next generation massive projects are designing that and maybe gravitational potential variations as part of everything.
28. I can tell. When I get tired, i get impatient and want to jump ahead to the thousands of things I have on my "this is probably right but it really needs some real data - to be more sure." list.
29. I think that if you take the large an sensitive telescope around the world and run them dark, check the correlations between the sites using the sun, moon, earthquakes, ocean waves, jet stream driven "atmospheric rivers".  You can start to pick up this gravity stuff. 
30. I think I said that when I got to Case Western Reserve University (I was there when it changed from Case Institute of Technology by merging with Western Reserve [I never saw any girls up close])  That is the home of Michelson-Morely. So I studied their experiment and their methods closely.  Now when I saw how closely the sun moon tidal gravity signal at the SGs (superconducting gravimeters) followed the Newtonian calculations. I struggled for years to make sense of it.  My best model today is that the solar gravitational potential field fills the entire solar system out to the heliopause and beyond. And the earth and moon are immersed in it. The earth is NOT going through empty space, it is floating in the particles of the sun potential field. So the space itself is rotating.
31. Now I calculated the weight of the energy density for the sun as a function of the radius. But I made a mistake. From this fresh view today, the particles and fluctuations on the field at the earth surface are not identical in size to those on the sun. I think they have a different spatial spectrum. So I am looking at the vacuum in the earth's orbit and in the whole space inside the sphere that includes the earth orbit.  If you go out of plane (perpendicular to the ecliptic) would it not be rotating the same, of different gravitational density? Yet another one of those "see if I can figure it out from first principles and if not how to get data from out there, and maybe we have to justify sending a "voyager" out that direction, but vastly improved, with live webcams for everyone on earth (at least an allsky camera).
32. Starting to sound ditzy. I do have a sense of humor. I just see so many wasted lives and wasted human time. OK earth interior.
33. If you take the same array of gravitational sensors. These can be gravimeters (measuring the gradient of the gravitational potential field). Or they can be what I call "direct gravitational potential instruments (LiGO, atomic clocks, Mossbauer, any time dilation experiment) or "gravimeters" which track the positions, velocity, force, acceleration of things and works out the acceleration field. (An electron flow that varies has an associated electron acceleration, and the field is linear so that you just add the sources. [The gravitational sources that change the electrons path and cause accelerations, that is transmiitted the same way the zwitterbewugung is acting for individual electrons, and it is related to the tiny fluctuations in Cherenkov and synchrotron radiation. So those should vary with the changes in the gravitational potential because of the sun and moon, planets and atmosphere and things on the earth. And with the gradients but I can't do that in my head right now I have a headache).
34. If you take an array of three axis, high sampling rate gravimeters.  Three axis - you lock them to the sun moon signal and continuously solve for position and orientation and set correlations for the machine corrections. I would use the seismometer approach and use an impulse response model but simply go for FFT through out to keep the processing simple.  It cheaper to use hardware and software than force people into the loop. High sampling rate - you need the spatial resolution for identifying the location oft things. And you need it to improve the sensitivitity (resolution) for low tempo calibrations (minute, hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, annual - except metric powers of ten seconds.)  Gravimeters - tracking movements of things, or current changes, or threshold hops, or tunneling probabities.  Lots of ways.
35. If you take an array of three axis, high sampling rate, gravimeters - you can focus them on the interior of the earth. The array moves a bit from earth tides (or ocean tides if you put them on ships). but their relation to each other is relatively fixed, and their ability to correlate at specific times in their recorded measurement - means that they can scan (not real time at first) the whole interion of the earth at low resolution. What will they see?  They can see the individual data stream line up according to phase.  just like a stack of seismic records.  The signals themselves a human can read for events since our brains automatically correlate similar things.  It is a survival thing.  The correlations will add up the signals.  If there is a signal like looking at a star through fog, you will need to stare at it, throw out noise and interfering signals, and stack and stack to get a picture.  I have been through that blind part all my life.  You have no idea what you are seeing, but you keep going because you know the source is not changing. In this case you can monitor the interior for as long as needed. [You might want to look at photon diffusion and tunneling and then generalize that to long wavelengths. And time reversed waves and multipath signaling strategies.  I find them helpful.
36. I would do a ten cubic kilometer voxel scan just to set a base line.  It won't be pretty because the sensors won't be optimized. And I would pick an active area that needs to be clarified like under volcanos or on all the active plate boundaries. And see of 10 meter scans are possible. One thing that is possible is that "gravity" is just low frequency electromagnetic stuff and some sort of emergent solution.  If that were true, then a wave from the sun would NOT go straight through to the darkside observer OR there would be well defined delay.
37. So much to share. If you take the time dilation equation, it is the ratio on the the actual time to the vacuum time.  A vacuum with the gravitational field, and a vacuum with no field. This is also proporational to the ratio of the respective speed and speed of light. So it is also an index of refractions, or a gravitational Mach number. (if you look at the square root expressions in the time dilation, special relativity, Lorentz transformation, you will see they are identical to the expressions used for transonic and hypersonic flight through a compressible media.  (I will boldly say that the vacuum material is compressible,that compression is directly related to the type and concentration and flow of these "gravitons" and the whole is needed for those of you who have started working on the warp drives in earnest.) 
38. But, back to time dilation. If you put the gravitational potential into index of refraction terms you find that the effect a more dense gravitational potential field is the same as changing the vacuum index of refraction.  It has other effects, but if you are tracking radio and low frequency electromagnetic wave, or megahertz and higher gravitational waves, they are all going to follow simple optical index of refraction rule in a first approximation.  I haven't looks at Mercury. Yes, I know it is obligatory, but give me a break.  I did follow someone's paper where they considered the gravitational energy density and matched the precession of Mercury orbit thing.  I think i am doing pretty well to write this all from memory. (Maybe there will be a relief to not have to keep it all in my head and notebooks and programs and spreadsheet.) 
39. So a plane compression wave in the universal gravitational potential at 1 MHz will be diffracted by the earth gravitational field?  I put the question mark because I haven't checked.  I can only see the field itself and the same field in index of fraction terms.  I never modeled a spherical particle of varying index of refraction (for gravitational waves, does that have to be handled differently? In the electromagnetic case it is depositing energy in precise resonances, energy levels, timings and orientations. I don't know the rules for signals  where you have mixed materials, acoustic media capable of wave at different speeds, and complex geometries - at the kinds of precisions needed for a warp calculation or something serious.
40. I am just going to keep writing things that come to mind.  For time dilation, I hate that Z thing for the early universe.  If any of that light is coming from a region of high gravitational potential (high concentration of this stuff that makes up the field, then I want to see if it could be a gravitational potential change and not a simple velocity.  It is actually NOT a velocity that is in the equation for time dilation.  It is a velocity potential with units of Joules per Kilogram (I capitalize this because the big units are all capitalzed and the small letter are when you get smaller yzafpnum1KMGTPEZY)
41. And, while you need really strong fields, you need to add the magnetic and electric potentials as well. Take 1/sqrt(1-Phig/c² - v²/c²) and multiply top and bottom by C.  The left hand side become V/C when you move the C across to the ratio of time rates. and denominator has an expression C² - phi_g - phi_v - phi_B - phi_E and other potentials The maximum (until you pass the gravity speed barrier) is C² the average potential in our part of the universe.  And the phi's are gravitational potential, velocity potential, magnetic potential and electric potential.  If I can find an equation editor one day i can show you a btt better, but I would rather just build a model and let people play with it. Wikipedia needs to make ALL the equations into real calculators for both symbolic mergers and comparisons re-arranging. And simulations and calculations.  [ I mean, common on guys (gender neutral) it is not that hard and what a massive waste of human time to make every user of wikipedia have to convert the words on paper back to the real tools they are.  If people are really going to solve the warp drive equation and build real engines and materials and sensors and control system, then no one can waste the time to play with what is the same as ink on papyrus.]
42. So the early universe after the local gluon condensation hypernova we call the big bang (you find a better name!! and work out the details) threw out huge chunks of high density gravitational potential stuff.  It expanded greatly after being compressed to quark gluon condensate densities ( I think the liquid form) and a lot of the solid that sublimates.  Certainly it is an easier picture than some vague "inflation". hand waving and obscure equations with no units or clear audit path.
43. Now I am getting cranky.  If you read as many thousands of papers as I do each year, you can appreciate my not being very happy that editors allow authors to get away with bloody murder.  It is common courtesy to provide ALL the dependencies for a work. If someone sent you a program and did not include the settings files, or critical libraries, nor test cases and explanations of all the variables, you would not be happy with them.  But all the PDF things going out, virtually all of them cannot stand alone, nor be "compiled and verified".  They force humans back into the loop. This is the problem of Covid.  I need to get back to that, as much as I am enjoying having a chance to see all this again. When I write, i am just looking at my 3D video simulations or copies of things I have seen over the years. Some are quite beautiful.  Not because of my creativity, but because that is the way the human brain handles visual memories where you massively overload it with nearly similar or identical copies at high rates. Go through the derivation of something once, you get  a glimmer.  A hundred times a sense. A thousand times and the visualizations anticipate what you want to see next. And somewhere in there the models of a lifetime you simple watch.  I want all the models in programs to do that. To get all the models connected, calibrated, comprehensive, with all the respective communities, and in the hand of the future generation - from the earliest ages.
44. So if you are looking at a region of early universe filled with dense gravitational potential "stuff", then it will be time shifted because if the gravitational potential first and then because of velocity potential.  If some things you are looking at have lots of nuclear density material then there should also be corrections for magnetic and electric potential changes to rates. Now I am seeing the Zeeman and Kerr effects peek in. And the non linear effects. Usually they are sorted, but at the moment I am tired and all I see is a few floating reminders to go deeper and a sort of urgent pull or push to work out the details, get it into a models with best values for the quantitative relations, find the data that goes into it, and then cast it so anyone can say see how "this" data goes with "those" models and report what combination is best for the task at hand, and for humanity as a whole.

 

I have been typing for a few hours, and can barely see. I will simply walk away if attacked and belittled.  But I think there are a lot of good people here, even if everyone thinks this is a masked ball and hides all the time behind cute or obscure names.  You see me flipping through the most common aliases used for common phenomena. If I have to use fifty or a hundred different models because a field is horribly fragmented, I will do it because some things are really or ultimately important. But I do not like having to guess.  And I don't have much energy left to go still more jargon and nonspecific things.

 

These camera drivers and software put me on edge. i have confidence that if I am willing to spend the time and effort I can get through anything. But why in the world would thousands or tens of thousands of people leave their collective workplace, tools, equations, models, names, organizational and personal details in such disarray?  I am not belittling you.  When I scratch the surface of anyone I meet they are as deep as they need to be. But collectively, groups are not very smart.  I put most of that on the poor state of Internet technology and policies and paradigms. And to the greed of certain companies that start with G.  But if you understand a bit where I came from and where I want to go, I am hopeful.  I did not expect to see a practical warp drive or "clean nuclear energy density safe fuels" in my lifetime.  

 

I cannot force anyone to help. I keep trying to get the Amazons, Googles, Facebooks, NASA and other on the Internet to clean up their act. The Internet as a whole has the character of a vacant lot where everyone dumps their trash.  You probably get by by only looking at the parts that are not too messy.  Or bury yourself in few pleasant spots. But as Director of the Internet Foundation, I feel obligated to at least try to look at the whole.  

When I was in high school I heard and saw the rockets, when I was finishing high school I had already working on artificial intelligence, random neural nets, chaotic sequences and encryption, robotics, neuro-physiology and had interviewed local companies to find what they were using their computers for, and what they hoped for the future. I was deep into all technologies,their mathematics and computing, social and economic impacts when we landed on the moon. Then everything stopped.

This is my way of remembering what i plan to do next.  I look deep into myself and try to find what I an here for. At 72 I might go on for another 20 years,  If I can convince people to solve and domesticate the viruses rather  than using Edward Jenner methods still maybe we can have the Star Trek capabilities. Which can be just a matter of sharing everything in a lossless, traceable, and open way.

So tired I am not going to keep forcing myself to find image data and cameras.  Looking at the whole.any competent group of astronomers can do that without much effort. I need to show why websites are so horrible, and what to do about it.  I have 50 years of notes on every physical phenomena. And I have 22 years of detailed study and experiments on how groups form, evolve, survive or die on the Internet and in real life.

 

Sorry I cannot be more specific. Sorry I cannot just show you and also give you tools to try it yourself. There are so many things that can be tried and checked and riffed and applied.

 

At the very end of that essay for the Gravitational Research Foundation essay (one of them) I give an operational definition for a gravitational field generator.  I said that acceleration is acceleration.  If you use moonbeams I don't care.  But if you give the computer instructions, the object moves around in a prescribed 3D path and does its job, that is good enough for me. From today's writing, I think there is a possible hope that the fine details are not so hidden and impossible.  Only having to go down to nanovolts is not that bad.  Go search "gravitational engineering"

 

Sincere regards.
Richard Collins, Director, The internet Foundation

Edited by RichardKCollins, 13 January 2021 - 03:48 AM.

[RichardKCollins]

I am reaching out to amateur astronomy groups, probably all astronomical groups, to standardize the interfaces, controls and pipe lining of the data from their sensors.  I wrote a note yesterday about why I was looking into gravitational sensors or all sorts.  It is a pretty good compilation of the major issues and concepts.

 

Essentially, the gravitational and electromagnetic field, and matter itself are part of one potential field.  Another way to say that is that the gravity and electromagnetism share the same underlying potential.  So matter is a signal, particles are a signal, fluctuations are a signal. They all exist in the real world at specific locations and times.  Usually as a vast number of smaller patterns and motions and structures where only statistical summaries are possible to describe them.

 

Many of the signals from natural gravitational sources, and from things like accelerators, fission and fusion reactors are primarily "electromagnetic" and a few are gravitational. The ones that I consider gravitational are those that can penetrate, undiminished and undistorted through the earth or through the sun, through a black hole, or through the fog of the early cosmic microwave background plasma.

 

The many patterns in the noise of a darkened optical sensor running at high sampling rates is a good training ground for dealing with complex signals of any type where the spatial properties of each "packet" or "photon" or "particle" or "event" as as, or more important, then single dominant frequencies of a complex and varying spectrum.

Richard Collins, Director, The Internet Foundation

Edited by RichardKCollins, 13 January 2021 - 01:44 PM.