Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: angle dy/dx for y = 1/x function #15 Uni-textbook 7th ed.: TRUE
CALCULUS; without the phony limit concept

Replies: 10   Last Post: Jul 22, 2013 2:40 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
JT

Posts: 1,150
Registered: 4/7/12
Re: quantum spin 1/2 explained as circumnavigation of a triangle
instead of the enclosed square; why we need 120 system not 360

Posted: Jul 22, 2013 1:13 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

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.
>
>
>
> 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. 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? So, Jonas, do you stop and think, or do you just post opinions no matter how silly?
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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, one revolution, but the interior angles add up to just 180 degrees. So a triangle is 180 but we did a 360. 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.
>
>
>
> 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 i would claim the sum of the innerangles is 1080 degress, you do realise that 8*135 equals 1080?

The outer angles add up to 360 for any polygon.

>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> AP





Date Subject Author
7/20/13
Read angle dy/dx for y = 1/x function #15 Uni-textbook 7th ed.: TRUE
CALCULUS; without the phony limit concept
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
7/21/13
Read Re: angle dy/dx for y = 1/x function #15 Uni-textbook 7th ed.: TRUE
CALCULUS; without the phony limit concept
JT
7/21/13
Read Re: angle dy/dx for y = 1/x function #15 Uni-textbook 7th ed.: TRUE
CALCULUS; without the phony limit concept
JT
7/22/13
Read quantum spin 1/2 explained as circumnavigation of a triangle instead
of the enclosed square; why we need 120 system not 360
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
7/22/13
Read Re: quantum spin 1/2 explained as circumnavigation of a triangle
instead of the enclosed square; why we need 120 system not 360
JT
7/22/13
Read Re: quantum spin 1/2 explained as circumnavigation of a triangle
instead of the enclosed square; why we need 120 system not 360
JT
7/22/13
Read Re: quantum spin 1/2 explained as circumnavigation of a triangle
instead of the enclosed square; why we need 120 system not 360
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
7/22/13
Read Re: quantum spin 1/2 explained as circumnavigation of a triangle
instead of the enclosed square; why we need 120 system not 360
JT
7/22/13
Read Re: quantum spin 1/2 explained as circumnavigation of a triangle
instead of the enclosed square; why we need 120 system not 360
JT
7/22/13
Read Re: quantum spin 1/2 explained as circumnavigation of a triangle
instead of the enclosed square; why we need 120 system not 360
JT
7/22/13
Read Re: quantum spin 1/2 explained as circumnavigation of a triangle
instead of the enclosed square; why we need 120 system not 360
JT

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.