[HN Gopher] Sound
___________________________________________________________________
Sound
Author : todsacerdoti
Score : 1456 points
Date : 2022-10-18 15:48 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (ciechanow.ski)
(TXT) w3m dump (ciechanow.ski)
| bnert wrote:
| Bartosz, you're a legend! Thank you for these amazing articles!!
| [deleted]
| bullen wrote:
| Imagine if the later demos had stereo!
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I love the web audio API. I've been making a game where the theme
| is "I don't do art" so my assets are CSS, emojis, and manually
| made sounds using frequency and sinewaves and such.
|
| The one lesson I learned the hard way is that if you run a full-
| volume sine wave long enough you can permanently destroy your
| laptop speakers.
| Minor49er wrote:
| Reminds me of DOS terminal games like Rogue and ZZT which used
| ASCII characters to draw everything. I hope you post it once
| it's ready
| Waterluvian wrote:
| Indeed it's a dungeon crawler.
|
| Don't hold your breath. It'll be rudimentary. I'm making it
| for my own joy and learning, but will probably publish it by
| EOY.
| nyanpasu64 wrote:
| Reminds me of Marcan trying to make Asahi _not_ do that on
| MacBooks, and so far failing
| (https://github.com/AsahiLinux/linux/issues/53). I didn't know
| that Windows laptops also had speakers that would burn out with
| high-volume playback.
| n4bz0r wrote:
| > if you run a full-volume sine wave long enough you can
| permanently destroy your laptop speakers
|
| Minutes? Hours?
| Waterluvian wrote:
| Minutes.
|
| I never repeated the experiment. Maybe my laptop was a dud or
| something.
| [deleted]
| drcongo wrote:
| I'm starting to think Bartosz Ciechanowski is from another
| planet. Everything he does is the very best explainer on that
| subject.
| brnaftr361 wrote:
| I'd really like to learn to do what he does. It's always so
| impressive, clear, concise and comprehensive. I feel like
| everything he does is a perfect pedagogical modality. I just
| wish everyone could get on board, especially university
| professors and publishers.
| fuy wrote:
| What a neat switch from metric to imperial units! I wish more web
| pages had this.
| pruthvishetty wrote:
| This is a PhD thesis in itself!
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| Great information, well organized with intuitive flow.
| lozzo wrote:
| Interesting. Just earlier I went to Bartosz website to see if
| there was anything and there was not... and then he publishes
| sound and I see it here on hackernews. I am going to enjoy this.
| thanks
| ianklug wrote:
| A fantastically written and extremely technically performant page
| as always from Bartosz.
|
| Several of the piano key demos ask you to observe what happens
| when you play multiple keys at once. Is there a way to do this on
| a desktop PC that I am missing? I had to switch to my phone to
| try those sections.
| dmd wrote:
| Use the (computer) keyboard.
| ianklug wrote:
| _facepalm_
|
| Thanks. Next time I'll try actually reading all the text on
| the page.
|
| Amazing that on a page with such exemplary UX my tired brain
| still managed to gloss over the massive letters on each key.
| croddin wrote:
| For me, on desktop, there is a paragraph that says keys can be
| played with the W E and R keys, and each key has a W E or R on
| it, but this isn't present on mobile. Maybe the site thinks you
| desktop browser is mobile for some reason?
| imadr wrote:
| The three keys piano at the beginning is so responsive and nice
| that I was stuck playing with it for 5 minutes, that's how you
| hook someone to read an article
| PostOnce wrote:
| This man needs a genius grant, and this is about the 6th time
| I've thought this.
|
| Any one of these pages would be a feat, an achievement to be
| proud of, but as a collection, it forms one of the greatest
| educational resources of its type that I have known.
|
| These things can give you more intuition about a subject in 45
| minutes than a textbook might be able to in 3 months, because
| it's interesting and not dry.
|
| I wish I had more time to rant about this right now, but I
| haven't, so: Kudos. Another amazing job.
| princevegeta89 wrote:
| This webpage can be converted directly into a science class.
| behnamoh wrote:
| > This man needs a genius grant, and this is about the 6th time
| I've thought this.
|
| He says this is his weekend hobby. I really wish he could work
| on these things full-time. The world needs more people like
| him.
| ccakes wrote:
| The little touches like being able to switch the entire article
| to metric (or imperial) are incredibly nice and make it more
| approachable as a result
| Liron wrote:
| Is there a way to donate?
| gmd63 wrote:
| There's a Patreon link in the top right on his blog
| mathfailure wrote:
| This man is a legend now. The awesomest quality of articles.
| mabbo wrote:
| > As a side note, I'm using metric units here, but you can
| *switch* to the imperial system if you prefer.
|
| Clicking on the word 'switch' does exactly that. That's a
| delightful and clever touch that of course comes from Bartosz
| Ciechanowski.
| duderific wrote:
| Incredible work as always, thanks Bartosz.
|
| Interesting side note - using the "basic" frequency/amplitude
| slider section, you can tell if you have any hearing loss in a
| certain ear at a certain frequency, as well as high frequencies
| in general.
|
| As an ex-musician, I have some hearing loss caused by playing and
| being around extremely loud music. Between 6KHz and 7KHz, I felt
| the sound shift towards my right hear, indicating some hearing
| loss at that frequency in my left ear. Between 10KHz and 11.5KHz,
| I felt a strong shift toward my left ear, indicating hearing loss
| at those frequencies in my right ear. Above about 12.3KHz, I lost
| the sound entirely.
|
| One very gentle bit of feedback (haha) to the author would be to
| provide anchors to each section so they could be more easily
| linked.
| vladstudio wrote:
| If you have not yet seen this site, please free a couple of hours
| and browse through archives, it's the best educational material I
| have ever seen!
|
| https://ciechanow.ski/archives/
| maest wrote:
| Any idea what framework (if any) this is written in?
| nwsm wrote:
| View the source of the articles and you will find thousands
| of lines of readable HTML, handwritten JavaScript using
| canvas and WebGL, and handwritten audio manipulation using
| window.AudioContext. Similar stories for the author's other
| incredible articles.
| phailhaus wrote:
| It's hand-crafted WebGL with no frameworks, which is insane.
| If you View Source on the page, you'll see that the JS is
| readable because he doesn't minify at all.
| aubanel wrote:
| I love how every Ciechanowski post starts explaining from the
| very basics, but makes things so beautifully explained that my
| 10s attention span magically extends up to the way where I can
| learn a lot.
| [deleted]
| CKMo wrote:
| Incredible! Approachable and fun to learn.
|
| All education should aim for this bar
| Nition wrote:
| I think my favourite part of this is being able to draw your own
| waveform and then play it. Super cool. You can learn about
| something so much faster when it's right there and instantly
| tweakable.
| marcodiego wrote:
| WARNING: sounds you can't hear can still damages your ear. DO NOT
| INCREASE THE VOLUME ON INFRA OR ULTRA SOUNDS BECAUSE YOU CAN'T
| HEAR THEM
| owenfi wrote:
| Would love some additional info on this if you are aware of
| any. My intuition says (and could very well be very wrong)
| sound at one frequency would only damage that or very nearby
| frequencies hearing range? If wrong I'm curious what the range
| of damage is (I'm interested in exploring ultrasound data
| protocols, so curious what frequency I have to go to to avoid
| damaging anyone's - and potentially animals as well - hearing).
|
| I also assume if you are starting at a reasonable (laptop,
| small desktop speakers) at a low-to-medium level (say 50-60dB),
| increasing a bit won't cause immediate damage even if you can't
| hear the sound?
| system2 wrote:
| Phenomenal post. Hard to find these type of posts unless I look
| at HN.
| extantproject wrote:
| https://archive.ph/woqkb
| qazpot wrote:
| This is awesome, reminds me of some of Bret Victor's work.
| tambourine_man wrote:
| Audio is not working for the three keys on iOS.
|
| Amazing content as always otherwise.
| 0x5345414e wrote:
| Works fine for me on iOS 16
| incanus77 wrote:
| Make sure your alerts aren't muted. I'm on an iPad and I had to
| check the widget in Control Center to get sound, but then it
| worked fine.
| tambourine_man wrote:
| Right you are, thanks
|
| :facepalm
| incanus77 wrote:
| I still don't understand why this mutes functionality like
| this page's, but not web video or audio players or the like
| in web pages.
| tambourine_man wrote:
| Yeah, iOS sound is an enigma. If you lower the sound,
| does it change the ringtone? How about the alarm?
|
| No one knows for sure, one of the true mysteries of the
| universe.
| Erwin wrote:
| I was surprised by how much I was surprised by the very first
| fact -- that air molecules move around at extremely high speed of
| 450m/s, but just bump into each other cancelling this speed out,
| and this speed is based on pressure & temperature.
|
| And it's due to this speed, despite air's low density, the force
| air exerts is enormous -- equivalent to 10 tons per square meter.
| Somehow, the human sandwich does not explode nor implode due to
| equivalent pressure coming from the other side and inside.
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| Note that diving to a depth of only 10m will double the
| external pressure on your body yet humans can easily survive
| this.
|
| Indeed the all time record is >300m which is something like 32x
| pressure.
|
| So it's not merely that there is equivalent pressure from
| inside.
| gtirloni wrote:
| How can one learn to create these visualizations?
| exikyut wrote:
| Depends what point on the spectrum you refer to by "how".
| Implementation, creativity, or the focus and discipline
| required to combine the two? :P
|
| I had a quick look; as always with the presentations on this
| website, all the un-minified JavaScript is right there for you
| to pour over: https://ciechanow.ski/js/sound.js
|
| So that covers the implementation: a giant pile of WebGL to
| power the rotatable boxes and animate effectively using the
| GPU, alongside in this case a bunch of Web Audio code.
|
| Unfortunately that _doesn 't_ cover the focus/discipline part,
| which I would definitely appreciate some pointers on... one of
| these days I'll find some that fit within my ADHD address space
| xD
| phailhaus wrote:
| I don't want to dissuade you, but you probably should not try
| to do it the same way he does: completely from scratch using
| pure JS + WebGL and without any frameworks. He's able to pull
| it off because he clearly has an incredible depth of knowledge
| of how it works, but mere mortals like you and me will likely
| get stuck in the bog of minutiae.
|
| I recommend starting off by playing around with Three.js, which
| will get you up and running really quickly while still staying
| pretty grounded in WebGL. [1] You can make blog posts very
| similar to Ciechanowski using ObservableHQ. [2]
|
| [1]
| https://threejs.org/docs/index.html#manual/en/introduction/C...
|
| [2] https://observablehq.com/@mbostock/hello-three-js
| gtirloni wrote:
| Thank you, very useful pointers.
| skilled wrote:
| By inspecting page source.
|
| If you mean technical, you have no choice but to actually study
| the topic and understand it so that you can create examples
| like the author did.
| iammjm wrote:
| Superb
| mirkodrummer wrote:
| This. This is the internet. I'm glad we can still enjoy quality
| driven content. To author if you're here: any ways to support
| your work?
| primarydonkey wrote:
| You can support him on Patreon:
|
| https://www.patreon.com/ciechanowski
| krinchan wrote:
| I appreciate the mention and demonstration of Fourier Transforms.
| It makes a lot of previous sound codec discussions click a bit
| more now.
| sgraaf wrote:
| Bartosz' blog posts are in a league of their own.
|
| They way he is able to explain complex subjects by starting from
| first principles, gently adding more and more layers, with
| beautiful, custom-made figures and animations is truly,
| literally, awesome.
|
| I strongly recommend supporting the author via his Patreon if you
| enjoy his blog posts.
| armchairhacker wrote:
| The article on mechanical watches had so much depth and such
| good explanations I thought he was a mechanical watch engineer
| or enthusiast who happened to also have web design, 3d
| animation, and writing skills
| [deleted]
| behnamoh wrote:
| This is how school must be. I'd rather pay people like him to
| create interactive content than pay the school to teach my kids
| useless material in dry, rigid ways.
| russellbeattie wrote:
| These are amazing - from the design to the interactive demos to
| the writing. I think "digital monograph" is almost a more apt
| description than "blog post". I've written tons of blog posts
| and they have almost nothing in common with what he's doing.
| 8,000 well written words plus formatting and links plus 50 or
| so embedded demos is really an astounding amount of work. What
| I appreciate most is the use of the medium itself. Imagine if
| the standard format for academic papers was updated from the
| black and white two-column format used for a half century to
| something like this?
| Scarlxd wrote:
| The resources were awesome! Everyone should check this out!
| mfwit wrote:
| Incredible stuff as always from Bartosz.
| anderspitman wrote:
| I was 20 minutes into this before I realized the interactive bits
| were automatically turning themselves off and on based on which
| one was visible in the viewport. That seems obvious, but the fact
| that it worked so intuitively and without bugs on my system says
| a great deal. This is what master UX design looks like.
| lelandfe wrote:
| That it all worked perfectly on my phone is testament to a
| _ton_ of testing.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| It's a few lines of standard JavaScript. Nice touch used by
| many sites, not difficult.
| behnamoh wrote:
| > not difficult.
|
| And yet, not so common especially on popular websites with
| $$$ development costs.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Someone has to care enough to notice, often the case.
| woliveirajr wrote:
| > at room temperature the average velocity of a particle is a
| staggering 460 m/s so to make the particles visible I'm showing
| their motion significantly slowed down
|
| Isn't 460 m/s the speed of the shock waves?
|
| I mean, it you make some "air particle" move, it'll hit a nearby
| particle, and so on, and this wave has a speed of 460 m/s. In a
| solid object (wood, for example) the particles are close together
| and the speed will be greater. If you remove air particles it'll
| decrease the pressure and the speed will be slower...
| pqn wrote:
| Speed of sound isn't too directly affected by air pressure I
| think (holding all else constant):
| https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/146207
| jcims wrote:
| Yes, IIUC basically that's the point where the local particle
| speed is no longer sufficient to clear the leading edge of the
| wave.
| jcims wrote:
| I love it when I'm halfway through something and take a second to
| pause and wonder why someone put so much effort into it, and them
| I appreciate that they did. This is amazing.
|
| One thing that surprised me the first time I learned it is how
| 'dense' air is under normal circumstances. The 'mean free path'
| is the mean distance that a particle travels before changing
| velocity (typ due to collision). The mean free path of
| atmospheric air at standard pressure is ~65 nanometers, with
| ~2x10^19 (20 billion billion) molecules per cubic _centimeter_
| experiencing about 10^33 collisions per second. This is roughly
| the volume of an adult 's ear canal.
| moritonal wrote:
| Whilst I imagine he'd produce content regardless of income, he
| does have a slightly successful Patreon. To encourage this
| effort, consider supporting him in some form, if you don't.
| jcims wrote:
| Nice callout. Done.
| jarenmf wrote:
| I was able to reach 10^-7 mbar with a good vacuum system and I
| though I would have few thousand molecules, turns out there is
| a billion (10^9) molecules per cubic centimeter at that vacuum
| level.
| jcims wrote:
| And yet somehow, as far as we know, the energy of every
| molecular collision is faithfully preserved during a
| supernova, when effectively the entire volume of a star
| collapses into its core in less then a second.
|
| Reality is very strange.
| mortenjorck wrote:
| Ordinarily, I follow the HN best practice of clicking through to
| a link first rather than upvoting based solely on the headline
| and domain.
|
| Seeing there's a new Bartosz Ciechanowski explainer might be my
| one exception to this rule.
| giarc wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=ciechanow.ski
|
| A link to all the HN submissions from ciechanow.ski
| sebmellen wrote:
| I did the same. The minute I saw it on the homepage, upvote.
| green-eclipse wrote:
| I'm a simple man. I see ciechanow.ski and I upvote.
| symlinkk wrote:
| Reddit: Orange Edition
| meta-level wrote:
| Bartosz, you have to choose another name, I just upvoted by
| reflex, when I saw it's you again
| hiidrew wrote:
| Quick babe wake up, new Ciechanowski intractable dropped.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| When I started playing around with square/triangle waves, I
| couldn't help but hear
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyMKWJ5e1kg
| igtztorrero wrote:
| lagrange77 wrote:
| This guy!
| patel011393 wrote:
| As an educational psychologist, there's a lot to love here and I
| catalog posts like these as examples of expert exposition.
|
| One suggest to Bartosz: breaking one long essay into many smaller
| pages or hiding content until the viewer has indicated
| understanding of previous steps will be even more useful (see:
| https://tigyog.app/d/H7XOvXvC_x/r/goedel-s-first-incompleten...).
|
| Explorable models are a great way to increase engagement and
| understanding. Beyond that, I would supplement this with highly
| frequent comprehension questions to check for learning. I bet
| you'd find a way to make it fun and approachable.
| naillo wrote:
| Nothing really to say about this other than excellent work again
| and this really inspires me to make amazing web-based material in
| ways I haven't really experienced since the ~2012 era.
| mNovak wrote:
| I'm really curious to know how he selects the topic of each
| article; the archive has quite a range!
|
| This is the type of blog I aspire to make, one day
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| +1 for the recommendation for "The Scientist and Engineer's Guide
| to Digital Signal Processing" by Steven W. Smith. I spoke to
| Steven many years ago about his putting all of the book PDFs
| online for free and since then have recommended at least 5
| university libraries to buy it because the students could get
| free copies of a great book that can be referenced in the
| library.
|
| FWIW the The Scientist and Engineer's Guide doesn't actually
| cover a lot on sound. It starts in a particular DSP way with
| frequency domain definitions and convolution - and I actually
| think Steven's background is in medial imaging, though I could be
| mistaken.
| voidhorse wrote:
| I'm actually reading through it right now after trying out a
| few other DSP resources. It is by far the clearest and most
| approachable, without sacrificing much depth at all. It's a
| great book.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| It's the best. I learned DSP from that ~20 years ago and
| still use those mental models whenever I need to think
| through a problem. A good book like that is a friend for
| life.
| belkarx wrote:
| The book is amazing: http://www.dspguide.com/ (link for the
| lazy)
| WhitneyLand wrote:
| Wow. Such a profound insight could not get published for 15
| years because others couldn't grasp it. Including Lagrange!
|
| It's an uncomfortable reminder of how essential reputation and
| credibility are in the machinery of science.
|
| _"The paper contained the controversial claim that any
| continuous periodic signal could be represented as the sum of
| properly chosen sinusoidal waves. Among the reviewers were two
| of history 's most famous mathematicians, Joseph Louis Lagrange
| (1736-1813), and Pierre Simon de Laplace (1749-1827). While
| Laplace and the other reviewers voted to publish the paper,
| Lagrange adamantly protested. For nearly 50 years, Lagrange had
| insisted that such an approach could not be used to represent
| signals with corners, i.e., discontinuous slopes, such as in
| square waves. The Institut de France bowed to the prestige of
| Lagrange, and rejected Fourier's work. It was only after
| Lagrange died that the paper was finally published, some 15
| years later."_
|
| from chapter 8 http://www.dspguide.com/ch8/1.htm
| comboy wrote:
| > Lagrange had insisted that such an approach could not be
| used to represent signals with corners, i.e., discontinuous
| slopes, such as in square waves.
|
| Isn't that true though? You can only approximate it, right?
| AceJohnny2 wrote:
| In practice, yes you can only approximate it, because in
| theory it requires an infinite series of sinusoidal waves.
| But since maths is all about the theory, Laplace's
| objections were silly. (though I admit I don't know what
| the state of acceptance of infinite series was at that
| time)
|
| Also, it's fine to cut off the infinite series of
| sinusoidal waves because all physical systems cut off
| around a given frequency, for example human hearing around
| ~20kHz.
| armadsen wrote:
| Also, in practice, there's no such thing as a truly sharp
| corner, which makes sense intuitively based on the math,
| I think. But real systems have inertia, friction, stray
| resistance/capacitance/inductance, etc. so you can't have
| a truly perfect square wave in a physical or electrical
| system in the real world.
| tuatoru wrote:
| * Lagrange's objections
| AceJohnny2 wrote:
| whoops! thanks. Too late to edit.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Corners in signals are like limits in calculus or
| irrational numbers in arithmetic. Once you accept them as
| an abstraction that you can't touch them directly all the
| anxiety dissipates.
| retrac wrote:
| In the same sense that a circle does not exist, because you
| can only approximate it with an arbitrary number of
| points/lines. But an infinite number of points the same
| distance from the origin is a good definition of a circle.
| In a similar way, an infinite set of sine waves
| approximating a square wave _is_ a square wave,
| mathematically speaking.
| SonOfLilit wrote:
| It's one of my favorite technical books. So simply explained,
| so full of engineering wisdom.
| rectang wrote:
| I have this conviction that I ought to be able to code up crude
| audio DSP processors before I understand the totality of the
| theory.
|
| For example, every DFT/FFT explanation seems to start with
| complex numbers. I wish there was a resource that was
| programming focused, starting with "Step 1: Process this
| artificially created periodic signal by multiplying it by sine
| waves of frequencies from from 1 to N. There are our bins! Step
| 2: OK, for real world signals we need phase, so _now_ let 's
| talk about complex numbers."
|
| I've been studying math for a while trying to build up the
| prerequisites for writing audio DSP code. I have this sneaking
| suspicion that at the end what I want to achieve won't be as
| hard as DSP resources imply. At least there will be parts that
| I could have done with hardly any theory at all. But because of
| the way these resources are written, I have to consume massive
| amounts of theory first.
|
| (For background, I've worked as a mastering engineer and have
| done a fair amount of audio production, so I know intimately
| what the tools ought to do.)
| cannam wrote:
| > "Step 1: Process this artificially created periodic signal
| by multiplying it by sine waves of frequencies from from 1 to
| N. There are our bins! Step 2: OK, for real world signals we
| need phase, so now let's talk about complex numbers."
|
| Maybe the latter part could be prepped by resynthesising the
| time-domain signal by summing the sines, and seeing that it
| doesn't match the original. And it can't, not least because
| all of the sines start at 0. But if you have cosines as well,
| it can. Then refer to the geometrical relationship between
| sine/cosine and phase.
|
| A preliminary to the earlier part might be to multiply a
| single long sinusoid by another one, and see what happens
| when their frequencies do or don't match. (But there is a
| whole well here about what it means for frequencies to
| "match", which in the discrete world has to do with how long
| the relevant part of the signal is.)
| laszlokorte wrote:
| I posted this as a submission a while ago but you might find
| it helpful. While learning about signal processing my self I
| built a collection of educational tools for visualizing some
| concepts. [1]
|
| Especially the fourier cube [2], the complex exponential [3],
| the digital filter designer [4] and the signal generator [5]
| might be helpful.
|
| Additionally the matrix multiplier [6] has an option for
| complex numbers that highlights the perspective that complex
| numbers can be seen as just a subset of 2x2 matrices.
|
| [1]: https://tools.laszlokorte.de/ [2]:
| https://static.laszlokorte.de/fourier/ [3]:
| https://static.laszlokorte.de/complex-exponential/ [4]:
| https://static.laszlokorte.de/signal-transform/ [5]:
| https://static.laszlokorte.de/signal-generator/ [6]:
| https://static.laszlokorte.de/matrix-multiplication/
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Your intuition is right, in that most of the heavy math is
| simply unnecessary or irrelevant at the practical level.
| Complex number notation doesn't fall into that category,
| though. The notion of frequency is intimately tied to the
| notion of vector rotation, and just as you can't represent
| Cartesian translation without negative numbers, you can't
| represent Cartesian rotation without complex ones.
|
| The Smith book is definitely for you; also check out Rick
| Lyons's books. Bo Pirkle and Julius O. Smith are good for
| audio-specific theory and applications.
| skybrian wrote:
| Saying that you can't represent cartesian rotation without
| complex numbers seems a bit much? You do need two numbers.
| But you can teach a trigonometry class without complex
| numbers, using either cartesian coordinates or polar
| notation. And matrices do work.
| skybrian wrote:
| I've been writing notebooks about doing DSP and audio
| processing in JavaScript. It might be a good place to crib
| off of:
|
| https://observablehq.com/collection/@skybrian/digital-
| signal...
| laszlokorte wrote:
| Wow, thank you very much! Straight to the point and very
| helpful, especially the web audio stuff.
| rvba wrote:
| I wish there was a post like this about fire.
|
| On atomic level. Like atoms oscilating? How many photons are
| emitted when say 5 carbon atoms connect with 5 oxyxen particles?
| I tried searching and no avail.
| 48cfu wrote:
| Interesting topic
| zebracanevra wrote:
| Hmm, on Windows 10 Chrome/Firefox the demos with the movable ears
| don't work very well when the position changes. Both browsers
| output horrible audio in those sections.
|
| edit: If I limit Firefox to 60fps (down from my display's 280hz)
| then it seems to work fine.
| bkallus wrote:
| I haven't taken beyond high school physics, so this question is
| probably obvious, but I haven't been able to find the answer
| (probably don't know the right terms to search).
|
| When I increased the slider that allows you to change the flow of
| time for the gas in the cube, it really looked like
| visualizations I've seen of increasing the temperature of a gas.
| Is there a deeper relationship here? Could an observer tell the
| difference between a cube $A$ of gas in which the flow rate of
| time were doubled and a cube $B$ of gas with normal time passage,
| but a correspondingly increased temperature? If so, what would
| give it away?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-10-18 23:00 UTC)