Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #605860 > unrolled thread

Is light really a cycloid wave, and, the math of hooks

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Is light really a cycloid wave, and, the math of hooks Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 23:23 -0800
    Re: Is light really a cycloid wave, and, the math of hooks poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-22 00:56 -0800
    Is light really a cycloid wave, and, the math of hooks john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 06:12 -0800
      Re: Is light really a cycloid wave, and, the math of hooks Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 14:23 -0800
        How dumb is MIT and the Reber anaheim robot spam Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 16:45 -0800
      h00ks are c00l noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-11-25 15:27 -0800
        h00ks are for fishing noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 12:27 -0800
          Re: h00ks are for fishing noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 14:31 -0800
      Re: Is light really a cycloid wave, and, the math of hooks poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-12-02 22:27 -0800
        Re: Is light really a cycloid wave, and, the math of hooks poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-12-02 22:33 -0800
        Re: Is light really a cycloid wave, and, the math of hooks moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-04 05:42 +0000
          Re: Is light really a cycloid wave, and, the math of hooks noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 12:19 -0800
    Is light really a cycloid wave, and, the math of hooks Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 19:38 -0800
      reinspect all waves in physics-- water waves, string instrument waves Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-11-25 14:27 -0800
        Re: reinspect all waves in physics-- water waves, string instrument waves Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-11-25 18:11 -0800
          Re: reinspect all waves in physics-- water waves, string instrument waves Who goes there? <whogoesthere@nowhere.invalid> - 2016-11-25 22:07 -0500
            Re: reinspect all waves in physics-- water waves, string instrument waves Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-11-25 20:50 -0800
              Re: reinspect all waves in physics-- water waves, string instrument waves Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 12:52 -0800
                Re: reinspect all waves in physics-- water waves, string instrument waves Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 13:51 -0800
              Re: reinspect all waves in physics-- water waves, string instrument waves Who goes there? <whogoesthere@nowhere.invalid> - 2016-11-29 10:31 -0500
                Experiment to prove sinusoid in math and physics is a quack sham Re: reinspect all waves in physics-- water waves, string instrument waves Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 15:04 -0800
                  Re: Experiment to prove sinusoid in math and physics is a quack sham Re: reinspect all waves in physics-- water waves, string instrument waves Who goes there? <whogoesthere@nowhere.invalid> - 2016-11-30 00:28 -0500
            what is a dilletante noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 20:11 -0800
              x.x is whom noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 12:13 -0800
    Is light really a cycloid wave, and, the math of hooks Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-12-03 10:53 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#605860 — Is light really a cycloid wave, and, the math of hooks

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 23:08:34 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Is the light wave that of a shape of a Cycloid wave, where it does
 not dip below the x-axis?
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 07:08:34 +0000


Is the light wave that of a shape of a Cycloid wave, where it does not dip below the x-axis?

Now this question came to mind from looking at the sine and cosine function being truly a semicircle wave, wave front. 

And trying to imagine the Physics of energy following a path of semicircle path-- seems too much energy involved. 

So, what can save in energy and still be a wavefront? 

The Cycloid shape looks to be more energy efficient. 

A cycloid shape is this ^^^^ only with rounded tops. Ascii does not have a key for semicircles joined. 

Now I say too much energy involved in the dipping down and back up because in a cycloid, the wave can sort of cheat. So as the two wavelets appear ^^ the light wave can sort of jump the gap as this -- from M to N. 

AP 


END

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 23:17:35 -0800 (PST)

Subject: The mathematics of HOOKS, what is the optimal formula for a hook
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 07:17:36 +0000


The mathematics of HOOKS, what is the optimal formula for a hook

Well I ran into this question today, from using a elastic cord with two hooks to keep snow out of my boots when walking in snow drifts. And I had a packet of hooks and it was blarney pathetic in getting them untangled. 

Hooks are great at hooking things when you do not want them hooked. 

So, what is the mathematics and physics behind hooks. 

If I had a straight pole and placed a semicircle hook at the end, is it better than the pole with a elliptic hook? How about a V shaped hook? Is that better? What about a L shaped attachment? Obviously we need to define Hook for math and physics. 

Now many of the functions I have recently been doing are hook shaped at the starting such as Y=x^2 or Y=x^3. A golf club is a hook shape, and a hokey stick. 

So, can math offer some insights into what is a hook and what is a better hook. 

AP 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#605861

On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 9:23:25 AM UTC+2, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Newsgroups: sci.math
> Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 23:08:34 -0800 (PST)
> 
> Subject: Is the light wave that of a shape of a Cycloid wave, where it does
>  not dip below the x-axis?
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 07:08:34 +0000
> 
> 
> Is the light wave that of a shape of a Cycloid wave, where it does not dip below the x-axis?
> 
> Now this question came to mind from looking at the sine and cosine function being truly a semicircle wave, wave front. 
> 
> And trying to imagine the Physics of energy following a path of semicircle path-- seems too much energy involved. 
> 
> So, what can save in energy and still be a wavefront? 
> 
> The Cycloid shape looks to be more energy efficient. 
> 
> A cycloid shape is this ^^^^ only with rounded tops. Ascii does not have a key for semicircles joined. 
> 
> Now I say too much energy involved in the dipping down and back up because in a cycloid, the wave can sort of cheat. So as the two wavelets appear ^^ the light wave can sort of jump the gap as this -- from M to N. 
> 
> AP 
> 
> 
> END
> 
> Newsgroups: sci.math
> Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 23:17:35 -0800 (PST)
> 
> Subject: The mathematics of HOOKS, what is the optimal formula for a hook
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 07:17:36 +0000
> 
> 
> The mathematics of HOOKS, what is the optimal formula for a hook
> 
> Well I ran into this question today, from using a elastic cord with two hooks to keep snow out of my boots when walking in snow drifts. And I had a packet of hooks and it was blarney pathetic in getting them untangled. 
> 
> Hooks are great at hooking things when you do not want them hooked. 
> 
> So, what is the mathematics and physics behind hooks. 
> 
> If I had a straight pole and placed a semicircle hook at the end, is it better than the pole with a elliptic hook? How about a V shaped hook? Is that better? What about a L shaped attachment? Obviously we need to define Hook for math and physics. 
> 
> Now many of the functions I have recently been doing are hook shaped at the starting such as Y=x^2 or Y=x^3. A golf club is a hook shape, and a hokey stick. 
> 
> So, can math offer some insights into what is a hook and what is a better hook. 
> 
> AP
===========================
it is not a cycloid 
***IT IS A HELLIX**   !!
---

TIA
Eng
Yehiel Porat
=====================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#605895

I have it as a CURTATE CYCLOID.
Put a reflector on a spoke of a bicycle 
wheel and trace it as it rides past.
The closer to the axle is the reflector,
the flatter the curtate cycloid's wave.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#606239

On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 8:12:30 AM UTC-6, john wrote:
> I have it as a CURTATE CYCLOID.
> Put a reflector on a spoke of a bicycle 
> wheel and trace it as it rides past.
> The closer to the axle is the reflector,
> the flatter the curtate cycloid's wave.


Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 13:40:21 -0800 (PST)

Subject: list of Old Math trigonometry mistakes Re: review of the gameplan
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 21:40:23 +0000

list of Old Math trigonometry mistakes Re: review of the gameplan

Now here is a mistake on my part, and AP is quick to admit mistakes but a math professor never admits mistakes even when they have y=0 when x=2 and x=3.14... 

My mistake is that sine does not switch centers from (1,0) to (0,0) but that the center remains the same and what that forces the sine wave to be semicircle wave but the cosine wave to be cycloid wave. What a astounding surprise!! 

AP 


END

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 14:13:08 -0800 (PST)

Subject: what a huge surprise, cosine is a cycloid wave while sine semicircle
 wave Re: list of Old Math trigonometry mistakes Re: review of the gameplan
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 22:13:09 +0000


what a huge surprise, cosine is a cycloid wave while sine semicircle wave Re: list of Old Math trigonometry mistakes Re: review of the gameplan

- hide quoted text -
On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 3:40:35 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> Now here is a mistake on my part, and AP is quick to admit mistakes but a math professor never admits mistakes even when they have y=0 when x=2 and x=3.14... 
> 
> My mistake is that sine does not switch centers from (1,0) to (0,0) but that the center remains the same and what that forces the sine wave to be semicircle wave but the cosine wave to be cycloid wave. What a astounding surprise!! 
> 
> AP 

This is an astounding recognition that sine is far different than cosine, in that when graphing sine, it is a semicircle wave but cosine turns out to be a cycloid wave. 

Get graph paper and compass. On point (1,0) graph the semicircle with radius 1. Now, trace out the right triangle as it moves from (1,0) to (1,1) and the sine is a quarter circle with peak at (1,1) and a low at (2,0) but the cosine is a quarter circle with a peak at (2,1) and a low at (1,0). Now the right triangle from x=1 to 2 has the hypotenuse on the leftward side of the right triangle but as the hypotenuse passes the 90 degree mark at (1,1) and enters into the x=0 to 1 region, the hypotenuse turns over or switches over, and is on the rightward side of the right triangle. 

What this causes or forces the functions of sine and cosine to do, or to be, is that the sine is a semicircle wave while the cosine is a cycloid wave. 

AP 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#606290 — How dumb is MIT and the Reber anaheim robot spam

    A couplet short of a sonnet. 

     A few beads short in her rosary. 

     A few beers short of a six-pack. 

     A few stink-bombs short of a full load. 


A room full of typing monkeys beat MIT math+Reber anaheim robot spam to the line -- sine is a semicircle wave. 

     A few bricks short of a wall. 

     A few clowns short of a circus. 

     A few clues shy of a solution. 

     A few ears short of a bushel. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#606473 — h00ks are c00l

that is intersting, although
there are no netonian rocktons (or particles;
mod pi, the area of the wavefront is growing
at teh secondpower of the speed of light;

the sinusoid is indeed the sideview of a simple spiral or spring,
which is the trace on the wire of the oscilloscope,
which is just a tap of a poin
on a "one dimensional wire

> Put a reflector on a spoke of a bicycle 
> wheel and trace it as it rides past.
> The closer to the axle is the reflector,
> the flatter the curtate cycloid's wave.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607405 — h00ks are for fishing

go, fishing ... and think about what you are not going to type,
for a change

> there are no neWtonian rocktons (or particles;
> mod pi, the area of the wavefront is growing
> at the secondpower of the speed of light;

> > The closer to the axle is the reflector,
> > the flatter the curtate cycloid's wave.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607603 — Re: h00ks are for fishing

thanks for the apology;
have fun, wTf you go to catch fish

> > mod pi, the area of the wavefront is growing
> > at the secondpower of the speed of light;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607657

On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 4:12:30 PM UTC+2, john wrote:
> I have it as a CURTATE CYCLOID.
> Put a reflector on a spoke of a bicycle 
> wheel and trace it as it rides past.
> The closer to the axle is the reflector,
> the flatter the curtate cycloid's wave.

=============================
the right model is 
more  combined (double combined )

to see the wheel of the bicycle
if it had a combined  motion 
1
the  usual rotation 

plus !!!
2
at the same time
moving perpendicular to the wheel plan  

in that way- you get a **helix** movement !!
-----
old copyright
Y.Porat
=======================================
  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607658

On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 8:27:14 AM UTC+2, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 4:12:30 PM UTC+2, john wrote:
> > I have it as a CURTATE CYCLOID.
> > Put a reflector on a spoke of a bicycle 
> > wheel and trace it as it rides past.
> > The closer to the axle is the reflector,
> > the flatter the curtate cycloid's wave.
> 
> =============================
> the right model is 
> more  combined (double combined )
> 
> to see the wheel of the bicycle
> if it had a combined  motion 
> 1
> the  usual rotation 
> 
> plus !!!
> 2
> at the same time
> moving perpendicular to the wheel plan  
> 
> in that way- you get a **helix** movement !!
> -----
> old copyright
> Y.Porat
> =======================================
in that way 
you get
at a 'vertical cross section 
and the horizontal cross section

the same as described by classical presentation of the
EM wave 
no need to be a trained engineer for  3 D 'reading'
in order to understand it !!!

TIA
Y.Porat old   copyright 
=========================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607734

poraty350@gmail.com writes:

>On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 4:12:30 PM UTC+2, john wrote:
>> I have it as a CURTATE CYCLOID.
>> Put a reflector on a spoke of a bicycle 
>> wheel and trace it as it rides past.
>> The closer to the axle is the reflector,
>> the flatter the curtate cycloid's wave.

>=============================
>the right model is 
>more  combined (double combined )

>to see the wheel of the bicycle
>if it had a combined  motion 
>1
>the  usual rotation 

>plus !!!
>2
>at the same time
>moving perpendicular to the wheel plan  

>in that way- you get a **helix** movement !!
>-----
>old copyright
>Y.Porat
>=======================================

Good luck arguing with Sefton over that.  He's been kooking about
precessing spinny things since forever.

Not that it matters, you can't copyright an idea.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607928

wait, hold on, glimmer of i.q >= one point
of some thing

> >at the same time
> >moving perpendicular to the wheel plan  
> 
> >in that way- you get a **helix** movement !!
> >-----
> >old copyright
> >Y.Porat
> >=======================================
> 
> Good luck arguing with Sefton over that.  He's been kooking about
> precessing spinny things since forever.
> 
> Not that it matters, you can't copyright an idea.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#606313

At the moment, I have the cosine as cycloid, and a good chance sine is also cycloid.

Here is a chance for EM theory to shine and tell us what it is.

iPhone post 

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#606461 — reinspect all waves in physics-- water waves, string instrument waves

On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 9:38:08 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> At the moment, I have the cosine as cycloid, and a good chance sine is also cycloid.
> 
> Here is a chance for EM theory to shine and tell us what it is.
> 
> iPhone post 
> 
> AP

Now John calls a wave curtate cycloid. I guess it comes from "curtail".

Anyway, since math has no sinsuoid wave, which is all a fiction, because to get a sinsusoid you have to lengthen the x-axis arbitrarily to 3.14...-2 = 1.14... while leaving the y axis normal.

Since the world has no sinusoid waves, we have to ask, what are the waves we actually observe in nature? Is the wave in water that of a ellipsoid wave or perhaps the upside down Curtate Cycloid?

The violin string when plucked, is that a Curtate Cycloid?

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#606498 — Re: reinspect all waves in physics-- water waves, string instrument waves

So has anyone actually seen, observed a sinusoid wave in Nature? Even those waves in medicine monitoring the heart are elliptical waves.

Does Nature yield any sinusoid wave?

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#606504 — Re: reinspect all waves in physics-- water waves, string instrument waves

On 11/25/2016 9:11 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> So has anyone actually seen, observed a sinusoid wave in Nature? Even those waves in medicine monitoring the heart are elliptical waves.
>
> Does Nature yield any sinusoid wave?
>
> AP
>
Of course.  A pure tone of a single frequency (no harmonics, no 
additional tones) is a sine wave. Easily seen on an oscilloscope.

Also a capacitor-inductor resonance.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#606505 — Re: reinspect all waves in physics-- water waves, string instrument waves

Hello about oscilloscope. I am looking to see if a sinusoidal wave can exist, since a sinusoid is formed by making the x-axis longer than the y-axis by 3.14...-2= 1.14...

Now we can draw a sinusoid on paper or have one come across our TV screen as art manipulation or on the oscilloscope like the TV.

What I want is a natural sinusoid should one exist. A sinusoid created by physics not a human art work.

So can we get a sinusoid as a wave on a rope? Or is that a elliptical wave. The wave on a cello or guitar, are they elliptical or sinusoidal?

iPhone post 

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#606563 — Re: reinspect all waves in physics-- water waves, string instrument waves

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2016 11:27:31 -0800 (PST)

Subject: the sine wave is ^v^v^ but the cosine from all reckoning is shaped ^^^^^^^^
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2016 19:27:31 +0000


the sine wave is ^v^v^ but the cosine from all reckoning is shaped ^^^^^^^^

- hide quoted text -
On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 12:25:03 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> I do not know what I was thinking there when I said upside down cycloid for cosine. What I truly was thinking is that the cosine has a chance to be different from the sine graph other than being a sine that starts at (0,1) vice (0,0). 
> 
> Hopefully let me solve this today and lay it to rest. 
> 
> iPhone post 
> 
> AP 

Alright, the problem I have is to come to some conclusion as to whether cosine is a cycloid wave such as this ^^^^^^^ and leaving the sine as a semicircle wave ^v^v^v^, mind you, both are semicircles, but does one bob up and down while the other remains always up? 

I suppose physics would answer this. In that light is transverse, but light can be transverse if one component is up&down while the other component is always up as in this figure diagram: 

| 
|____ 
| 
| 

whereas we normally think of transverse light wave as this 


__|__ 
   | 

Now that is a Single Transverse Wave, and what I have been offering for several years now, is the idea that light wave is a Double Transverse Wave where we double the waves in destructive interference making full circles like this 

OOOOO rather than this ^v^v^v 

The benefit of light being Double Transverse, is that the speed of light is always a constant, because it forces the particle-that-is-light to ride along the x-axis rather than bob up and down with a transverse wave. 

And I suppose that the radical bobbing down and up of light in the cycloid pattern ^^^^ is what discourages light from being cycloid up only. For it is easier on light to be ^v^v^ rather than be ^^^^ because the energy needed to lift the particle of light from ^ to ^ is more energy than to go from ^ down to v. Here is where physics can give the answers, via experiments. 

But math can weigh in also with an answer. If we follow the sine from (2,0) unit circle centered at (1,0), the cosine tags along where ever the sine is. So at x=2, sine is 0 and cosine is 1. That means the cosine is not a semicircle but a quarter circle cycloid and does not bob up and down below the x-axis but remains in the restricted range of y=0 to 1. So, this indicates that math forces sine to be of shape ^v^v^ 
while cosine is of shape ^^^^^^. 

And that is a huge surprise, and a huge change in trigonometry theory. 

AP 

END

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2016 12:02:28 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Several proofs that the sine and cosine of Old Math Trigonometry are fakery
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2016 20:02:28 +0000

Several proofs that the sine and cosine of Old Math Trigonometry are fakery

Well, the first proof is the massive contradiction of Old Math Trigonometry: 

1) They define sine as opposite/hypotenuse which is all fine and dandy, until you plot a circle with center at (1,0) and discover that y=0 when x=2 and x=3.14... and both of those cannot be true simultaneously. What needs to be thrown out is not the definition but the idea that 180 degrees represents a number on the number line as 3.14.... And thus, the sinusoid curve is also thrown out as delusion garbage. For the sine is the semicircle 

2) Someone should have been alerted to the fact that plotting the sinusoid delivers a intersection of sine and cosine at (.5, .86) as angle 60 and 30 degrees, yet Old Math never sees, nor accepts that intersection. Instead, Old Math wants to believe that sine intersects with cosine at (.7, .7) as 45 degrees. And Old Math contorts their sinusoid to meet that demand when there really was no demand other than (.5, .86). This is the kind of stuff that Euler,  Gauss and Riemann should have recognized and corrected, not leave it up to AP to correct. For it is really-- child's play mathematics. 

3) The correction of integral and derivative of sine and cosine in Old Math. In Old Math, those silly bards thought the integral of sine is -cosine+C, and the derivative of sine is cosine. That was mostly just wishful thinking and a lot of sloppy math and logic. 

Consider the values of sine and cosine cannot be larger than 1, and consider that the slope of function Y=x is 1. Now, consider either the sine as being a sinusoid or being a semicircle. Take your pick, for either one cannot be a geometry curve that satisfies the condition that the derivative has to be 1 or smaller. When you graph sine as sinusoid there are slopes that are steeper than 1 and if you graph as semicircle, there are slopes steeper than 1. So the Derivative of sine or cosine are not inverses but rather, a whole different function is the derivative of both sine and cosine. 

For area under graph, or integral, Old Math has sine and cosine as inverses. They have integral of cosine is sine +C, and integral of sine is -cosine +C. The area of a quarter circle in 1by1 is .78 square units. And we know the sine and cosine of Old Math sinusoid curve is smaller in area than quarter circle. We know that the derivative in Old Math of sine and cosine can not be larger than 1, which means the area of sine and cosine cannot be larger than the isosceles right triangle of Y=x function, and thus, the area for integral of sine and cosine is .5 or less square units. This contradiction means the integral of sine and cosine are not inverses of one another, and that sine and cosine are not sinusoids. 

Summary of what is left remaining true: What is true is that sine and cosine are quarter circles in 1by1 and that their derivative is not "inverses of one another" and that their integral is not inverses of one another. In fact, the integral has already been solved as a linear type function of Y = .78n + C where n is a integer. 

So, massive upheaval in Trigonometry, but it needs it in order to do correct math, not idiotic math by people with little to no logic. 

AP 

END

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2016 12:35:05 -0800 (PST)

Subject: flipping transverse wave into longitudinal Re: the sine wave is ^v^v^
 but the cosine from all reckoning is shaped ^^^^^^^^
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2016 20:35:05 +0000

flipping transverse wave into longitudinal Re: the sine wave is ^v^v^ but the cosine from all reckoning is shaped ^^^^^^^^

On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 1:27:39 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 

> Now that is a Single Transverse Wave, and what I have been offering for several years now, is the idea that light wave is a Double Transverse Wave where we double the waves in destructive interference making full circles like this 
> 
> OOOOO rather than this ^v^v^v 
> 

Come to think of it, if light was Double Transverse OOOOOO, then all it needs is a 90 degree rotation of each individual O to become a longitudinal wave. 

Now if the OOOOO was the voltage electric component and the ^^^^ was the Magnetic Field component, then the Magnetic Field component offers that 90 degree rotation to convert the transverse wave OOOOOO into a longitudinal wave of cross section O. 

So here I have a physics means of wanting sine and cosine to be different, for then the cosine component of ^^^^^^ can serve to flip the sine component OOOO that is transverse, flip it into being a longitudinal wave. 

Now some physics experiments already have shown that light waves are both transverse and then longitudinal. 

AP 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#606915 — Re: reinspect all waves in physics-- water waves, string instrument waves

Page58, 8-2, PreCalculus, Infinity borderline -- biggest number and smallest number Correcting Math textbook 5th ed.

Page58, 8-2, PreCalculus, Infinity borderline -- biggest number and smallest number Correcting Math textbook 5th ed. 

Now my understanding is that in 8th grade (13 years of age) is taught the straightline function with formula Y = mx +b. So that is a prerequisite to enter PreCalculus class. The student must be equipped with having learned Y = mx +b and is not new to Y= mx+b. 

So that PreCalculus can be taught at 9th grade or above. 

Class 

This lesson is on How Big can Numbers go and how Small can Numbers go. 

Now we have a graph of the x-axis and the y-axis here, starting at 0 we go to 1, then 2 then 3 etc etc 

We go up on the y axis the same. Now, how far out can we go before we must stop because we run into infinity borderline? What is the biggest number in mathematics that we can use? 

Well, the answer is a huge number. A number so large that Physics has nothing remotely close to this huge number. This number is 1 followed by 604 zero digits and looks like this: 

10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 

This number is huge and impossible for you to count up, for if all your life was spent on counting this number. You would never reach the end of this number. 

Now how does math get such a number as the border between finite and infinity? Because, after this number, all the numbers after are infinite-numbers, numbers that we cannot use in math. 

Class, we get this huge number from a figure called a Tractrix and here I draw the Tractrix on the board: 

(drawn in 1st quadrant only with radius 1 and starting at (0,1). 

Bring a Funnel to class to show the funnel imitates the Tractrix, and bring a circle or ball the size of the funnel to class to compare. 

Notice the Tractrix has a arm that keeps going along the x-axis, a never ending arm that crawls along the x-axis. 

Have the class Google search for Tractrix to see pictures. 

Now, class, a famous mathematician, a long time ago, some 300 years ago discovered that the area of this tractrix equals the same area of a circle of radius 1. Since we draw only a quarter, 1/4 of the tractrix we draw only a 1/4 circle on the board. 

What this mathematician discovered is that the area of 1/4 Tractrix equals the area of 1/4 Circle with same radius of 1 at Infinity. So, that big number is obtained because the Circle area equals the Tractrix area for the first time at that big number above. 

Because the area of tractrix equals circle area at that big number, we have reached the borderline of infinity. 

Notice the circle is a closed figure, but the Tractrix is open at its end. And that was the amazing remarkable discovery, that a closed figure equals the same area as a open ended tractrix figure. 

So, if circle area equals tractrix area, to find infinity border, all that mathematicians have to do is find out when the area of the tractrix does in fact equal the circle area for the first time in its arm. And the first time that the tractrix area equals the corresponding circle area is at that huge number listed above- which is abbreviated by the symbol 1*10^604, or, 1 with 604 zeroes after it. 

Have the class practice on a few large numbers with positive exponents, such as 10^1 then 10^3 then 10^10 then 10^100 etc 

Now tomorrow we do the infinitesimal, the reverse of huge number that of the smallest number (ignoring 0), or what mathematicians call the inverse of the big number as infinitesimal. 

Have the class practice on inverse such as 5 inverse is 1/5, and 34 inverse is 1/34 and 100 inverse is 1/100 and how to write that as 10^-2. Homework practice. 

Part 2, How Big can Numbers can go, and how Small can numbers go. 

Previously, I outlined how big can numbers go and I talked about the Tractrix. And now I need to talk about How Small can numbers go, before they reach the infinity borderline-of-smallness. 

Through-out this discussion we ignore 0, and the infinitesimal is truly the smallest math number. 

Now I do recall in High School, in my studies, that one year we spent a lot of time learning about lines with formula Y = mx + b. Quite a lot of time and good valuable time. So that is a ideal setting for teaching infinity border and teaching the function definition. 

Now it is hard to do this because I know the subject well, but what I am making pains in doing is trying to teach it to youngsters who are learning for the first time. I am trying to write these pages so the 8th or 9th or 10th grader in High School can understand it all. This is the largest single failure of math education in the USA, in that the teachers of math in College, in particular, never really teach the subject for the student to absorb. And the hideous, pathetic classrooms of silent students furiously taking notes. If there was actual teaching going on, there would not be note taking. Because the book for the course should be the notebook and the classroom attendance should be an hour of "understanding" not taking notes. 

So, in these pages of Calculus, if a student reads them, they should be able to write their own textbook on Calculus once they complete High School level Calculus. That is real learning. 

So now, I am trying to fathom back to when I was 13, 14, or 15, or 16 years old and learning math in High School and listening to this lecture I am about to write, as to how much of it would I absorb, how much would I learn? 

So, let me do the lecture on How Small of Numbers exist in math. 

We learned previously that the infinity borderline is 1 with 604 zeroes after it. In mathematics we abbreviate the 604 zeroes with a exponent. Do all of you know what an exponent is? Show hands of those that know what an exponent is. 

So our biggest number that exists in math is 1*10^604. And if anyone tells you there are larger numbers after that number. You tell them, you are smarter because all numbers beyond that huge number are infinity numbers, not normal rational numbers but oddball infinity numbers. 

Anyone here know how to write that number if we divide it into 1? The division is called the inverse. 

So that big number divided into 1 is the inverse and does anyone know how to write it? 

So we write it as 1*10^-604. Notice the exponent has a negative sign which means it is a very small number. 

Now let us practice on exponents for some time, and the teacher give practice on writing exponents: 
  
1000 with exponents is what, and 1 divided by 1000 is what? 
  
10000 with exponents is what, and 1 divided by 10000 is what? 

.1 with exponents is what? 

.01 with exponents is what? 

.001 with exponents is what? 

So have the teacher do several of these as homework. 

Now how big is our biggest number 1*10^604. Here I want the teacher to be innovative in teaching how big is this big number. So have some examples such as one cat has a litter of 10 kittens, now if 10 cats each had litters of 10 kittens. 

Do several examples of teaching that shows how huge this number 10^604 is. The number of atoms in the universe is less than 10^60. The number of galaxies in the universe is 10^12 and each of those galaxies has about 10^12 stars so the number of stars in the universe is only a mere 10^24 stars. 

And show how small this number 10^-604 is. Let me try the idea that you draw a circle on paper and divide that circle into being 10 points, now divide the circle into being 100 points then 1000 points. So that if our pencil point was a point, and we stippled 1000 pencil points, would we have a complete circle? So our 1000 points was that of 1/1000 or 10^-3 written as .001. 

Now teach them this tricky part of math, in that 1000 for large is written as 10^3 to indicate there are three zeroes after the 1 but written small for 1/1000 is written as 10^-3 as this .001 where we have just two zeroes. A lot of students get mixed up with that, and so give practice and homework on that. 

For example 1/10 is .1, or 10^-1 and 1/100 is .01 or 10^-2 and so on. This is confusing to young students. So spend some time on this confusion to students. 

Teach students that when you have small numbers you count the number of digits past the first digit to tell you what the exponent is. For example 10^-5 is .00001 or 1/100,000. Compared to large of 100,000 written as 10^5. 

So teach the students, not only the infinity borderline of Large infinity but the borderline of Small infinity with its negative exponent and called the infinitesimal as 1*10^-604. 

Say a few words that between the point (0,0) and the point (1*10^-604) there exists no more math numbers between them, and that there is emptiness of 
numbers we use in math, a gap a hole. Sure, there are infinity numbers in that hole or gap, but infinity numbers can not be used in proper mathematics. 

Now, I am not worried that the students will learn this with proficiency or master the ideas. I am satisfied that they just get acquainted with these ideas. I do not want them to see these ideas for the first time in college. I want them to see it in High School so that if they come across these ideas again, they will be proficient in the ideas and finally master them. 

Now I know from personal experience that small numbers are tricky. Because we know from large numbers that when you multiply say 10 by 33 your answer is larger than either two you started with, so we end up with 330. But with small numbers .1 times .33 the answer is smaller than either of the two you started with. So, young students have a hard time with this, and this hurdle to overcome during their education in science or math. And this problem flares up enormously in Calculus where you deal with decimal fractions continually. In the Sine and other Trigonometry functions, you have to deal with decimal fractions often. So give the students extra homework in decimal fractions. 

Now, lastly, notice how small the number 1*10^-604 is. It is so small that it is tinier than the size of the electron which you cannot see. So that if you asked someone to draw a circle using only the tip of a very tiny pen or pencil, that you could draw that circle with tip point marks with about 10,000 marks and it would look like a smooth curve with no holes in it. The computer screen shows the letter O as a circle, and the points that make up that circle are about 10,000 or less. And 10,000 as large is written 10^4 but written as small with 1/10,000 is written as .0001 or 10^-4, so the large has one more zero than the small. Now a point that is 1*10^-5 as .00001 for 1/100,000. If we had a point that was 1*10^-6, would mean that our circle drawn by 10^-5 are now lines when the dot points of the circle 10^-6 are drawn. 

What I am trying to teach here, is that dot points of 10^-5 become lines, tiny lines, if the dot points are now 10^-6. 

So, we have learned that infinity has a borderline for how Big is the biggest number and how small is the Smallest number. 

And when we Graph, we have these big and small numbers and in between the smallest numbers exists empty space, or exists infinite-numbers that we cannot use in proper math. 


Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH 
ELECTRON DOT CLOUD 

                ::\ ::|:: /:: 
                 ::\::|::/:: 
                     _ _ 
                    (:Y:) 
                     - - 
                 ::/::|::\:: 
                ::/ ::|:: \:: 

        One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And 
each dot represents another galaxy. 


            . \ .  . | .   /. 
           . . \. . .|. . /. . 
              ..\....|.../... 
               ::\:::|::/:: 
---------------      ------------- 
--------------- (Y) ------------- 
---------------      -------------- 
               ::/:::|::\:: 
              ../....|...\... 
           . . /. . .|. . \. . 
            . / .  . | .   \ . 

  
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ 
whole entire Universe is just one big atom 
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies 

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.      

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe         
Archimedes Plutonium

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607029 — Re: reinspect all waves in physics-- water waves, string instrument waves

On 11/25/2016 11:50 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Hello about oscilloscope. I am looking to see if a sinusoidal wave
> can exist, since a sinusoid is formed by making the x-axis longer
> than the y-axis by 3.14...-2= 1.14...
>
> Now we can draw a sinusoid on paper or have one come across our
> TV screen as art manipulation or on the oscilloscope like the TV.
>
> What I want is a natural sinusoid should one exist. A sinusoid
> created by physics not a human art work.

Most sinusoids of nature are a function of time so normally you'd need 
an oscilloscope type instrument to display them.

An improperly terminated radio wave transmission line can be 
demonstrated to have a voltage along its length that varies as a sine 
wave along its length. Old time "hams" could demonstrate this with a 
fluorescent tube held along the transmission line.
>
> So can we get a sinusoid as a wave on a rope? Or is that a
> elliptical wave. The wave on a cello or guitar, are they
> elliptical or sinusoidal?

A pure note will be sinusoidal. Musical instruments always have 
harmonics or distortions that give them their characteristic sounds, 
this also distorts them away from a pure sine wave. A quality tone 
generator will produce a pure sine wave.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web