Imaginary noise

I am continuing investigation of FT, FFT and DFT and the meaning of the transform. The deeper I get, the more I am certain that I have characterized the situation correctly. I have a transform that I use in hardware and software that does something similar, but has different rough edges than the Fourier transform.

The image is something that dropped out while analyzing some data from NASA and ESA and others.

There is a big rat creeping about in the clockwork, some very bizarre and unexpected interference, or something that is creepy to the 100 Billionth Light Year power. Just considering the probability and going with the most possible, I say unintended interference that is not understood. The real problem is that it has been integrated into the overall analysis seamlessly and it is an instrument artifact. I have seen this before in a project that I should not talk about in much detail. When confronted with a situation that had been assumed to be impossible by every scientist, and faced with absolute contradiction, it was just ignored. Why? Because it was not the scientists and designers observing this. It was the people who implement the science and they just putty up the cracks and fill in the infinities with expanding foam so that it can be used. I observe and analyze. It would be odd that a scientist would go first hand into dangerous situations of implementation, but there is where the science meets the universe and strange things happen. I recall an episode of somebody doing a butt weld of high carbon steel.

I now have a secret that many astro-physicists would like to know and, as usual, it comes just by accident. I wander about in Monte Carlo space most of the time and generally it is dull or incomprehensible in its complexity. This one would never have been recognized, except I was playing FFT with gimp and analyzing the source code of FFT3 to make some changes I wanted to test.

Here is a very good reference to FFT3 library functions and how to use them in a program.

There is so much going on that is yet to be explored. It isn't possible to know what is yet unknown, but I can compute the rate of change of unknown to known. That curve just keeps turning up like a factorial curve. The more you know, the more that is obviously unknown.

All of this analysis of Fourier, phase, frequency, , intensity, cos, cosh, i, E, and e and their relationship reminds me of how I deal with a software package that is unfamiliar. First I develop an opinion of how I would implement, test to see that it works and then merge the ideas from the code that I am investigating. As a result I sometimes develop better techniques to do the same thing and also discover flaws or limitations in the original code. I also find methods that I would never have thought of myself.

⁴√i is as far as I intend to wander in the quadrant space.