Den måndagen den 22:e juli 2013 kl. 08:08:38 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium: > On Sunday, July 21, 2013 5:11:50 PM UTC-5, jonas.t...@gmail.com wrote: > > (snipped) > > > > > > > > > Can i ask you AP why do not you use revolutions instead of degrees? > > > > > > It is just taking the degress/360 and you get the numbers as revolutions. > > > > > > Or why not do like the ancient Baybylonian, Persian and Egyptian write the revolutions as fractions? > > > > > > > > > > > > So your angle is 90 degrees and you want to express it as a fraction to not lose any accuracy in your digts. > > > > > > > > > > > > 90/360 this you can simplify by finding the greatest common factor, which turn out to be 4. > > > > > > > > > > > > So 90 degrees is 1/4 revolution? > > > > > > > > > > > > And now you do not have to worry about losing accuracy when adding, subtracing, dividing and multiplying angles. > > > > > > > > > > > > Go for a change use revolutions instead of degrees. > > > > > > Would it not be better not losing accuracy in your computations? > > > > Well, I will tell you why that is a bad idea. Although some years ago I said we should alter the angle system where 120 degrees is the 360 we now use. And where a 90 degree angle in the old math is 120/4 = 30 degrees. The reason that 120 system is better than 360, is because Floor-pi*10^603 is the first time the digits in pi of three digits in a row, are evenly divisible by 5! = 120. They are not evenly divisible by 360 but by 120. So we need to modify mathematics of its 360 and change it to be 120. >
The first thing i like to say is that partitioning of the unit circle into anykind of "invented unit" is a bad idea, it should not be partitiones to create a unit, one revolution is one revolution.
Only a monkey would replace a wheel with a triangle you know... and i do know you realise that a wheel is not a circle it a polygon. You have to go the other way to get better accuracy. And that is why one is good it is a continuum and not partitioned.
> > Jonas, it is a shame you never studied nor understood physics, and all you have is a little study of math with a lot of bad opinions, like your disdain of the number 0.
There is no number zero, it has no magnitude
>Science is not opinion, science is factual evidence. If you throw out 0, you throw out the Maxwell Equations, for zero allows us to have equations in the first place (did you ever stop to think that an equation needs zero? If you throw out 0, then what replaces it as the origin point in the Cartesian Coordinate System?
You peolple are so dense you can not recognise there is a differens acknowlede the fact that there is calculation where the operands exhaust eachother, and there is sample sets with result null, and there is a place in the cartesian coordinate system without a magnitude, but it do not hold a numerical value.
Because 0 is not numeric and not a number 1 exist in the cartesian grid so do 2, but only a monkey beleive there is a numerical zero in the grid.
This is easily proven by the fact that we can translate origo in a Cartesian it does not make there appear a new place holder, holding your precious zero. Origo is simply void of magnitude because you have not any numerical values in x,y plane.
You seem to be confused thinking i do not acknowledge operations like 4-4, i do the operations yields no difference the operands is exhausted.
> So, Jonas, do you stop and think, or do you just post opinions no matter how silly?
It is not silly this is how things really are the naturals are discrete and each holding a continuum 1/x. You make there is a numberline, but that is really a construction an invention of the human mind. You may think your numberline contain zero, but that is also an invention of the human mind. In reality the naturals are discrete entities adding up, members of the complete set of naturals, but that set do not have any given magnitude it is given magnitude by adding up items. Infinity is the idea that all naturals is hold in a continuum of a certain magnitude, it is simply wrong. > > > In Physics, which you never studied, never understood, there is Spin and there is Rotation or Revolution. > > > > The electron has spin 1/2 but it takes 720 degrees to make one revolution. > No that is monkey physics, the formula for revolutions given x degrees.
x/360 you see 720 degrees is 2 revolutions no more no less.
> > We can think of this in terms of Euclidean Geometry. > > > > If we go around a square or rectangle or quadrilateral or circle or ellipse we make one revolution in 360 degrees. > > > > If we go around a triangle,
You do not go ***a round*** a triangle you follow a path that is not circular by any means.
> one revolution, but the interior angles add up to just 180 degrees. So a triangle is 180 but we did a 360.
*The sum of the external angles of any simple closed (convex or concave) polygon is 360°.
You have to stop dreaming now...
>So now, here we can offer a solution to the spin 1/2 of quantum mechanics, in that we are going around a triangle and not a square or circle.
You are confused you can not go a round a triangle it isn't round, you can follow a path where the angles att upto 360, 1 turn. Stop your monkey act.
A revolution may be a smooth curve but there is no evidence it is not made up by infinitsmall linesegments, and it must be for a curve is a deviation from a straight line.
> > Now if we had a octagon in front of us, it has 8 interior angles of 135 degrees. So now Jonas proposes that I call 135 as that of 135/360 as a .375 revolution. And yet in the octagon 8 x .375 is 3. So Jonas would be claiming that one circuit around a octagon is 3 x 360 = 1080 degrees.
No that is monkey math, the formula for the sum of angles of any polygon where n is vertices, this was known to Babylonians,Persians and Egyptians it should be known to you so stop the monkey act.
That gives the octagon have 3 revolutions if we want the revolution of each angle we use the formula
and we have that each angle is 3/8 revolutions, this way i do not end up with angles giving 33,333... degrees like your monkey math will.
A gifted monkey would get that, but i start to suspect your a none gifted code monkey trying to program an even less gifted AI.
> > > So, Jonas, why not read some physics and stop with this stupid silly nonsense of "your opinion" so that when you get a idea, what you do is check it up against what is known in physics rather than post it on the Internet as another Jonas silly idea.
You are a silly code monkey, a gifted monkey acknowledge that, but not punish the poor AI because of your lack of gift. > > > But I gained something out of this post, even though Jonas likely never will. > > > > The idea that spin 1/2 in quantum mechanics is a TRIANGLE interaction. Whereas the spin 1 of the photon is a square interaction, of circumnavigating a square, whereas the electron circumnavigates the triangle and thus requires 2 of 360 degrees to return to original state. >
Now the codemonkey stopped interacting, and let the AI fall into nonsense mode. Learn... the poor AI some real geometry.
> > Quantum Mechanical spin 1/2 as a Triangle circumnavigation is like that of an electron traveling around a square and when it reaches the diagonal opposite it goes back to its starting point via the route of the triangle and then takes up the other two sides of the square and again returning to original point by the diagonal of the triangle. > Now the codemonkey stopped interacting, and let the AI fall into nonsense mode. Learn... the poor AI some real geometry. > > So in this conception of spin 1/2, a square is spin-1 with a 360 circumnavigation. A spin 1/2 is a double circumnavigation of the two triangles inside the square, where the electron travels around one triangle and then the second triangle, thus making 2 circumnavigations before coming to its origin in the same starting condition. > Now the codemonkey stopped interacting, and let the AI fall into nonsense mode. Learn... the poor AI some real geometry. > > AP