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

Groups > sci.physics > #621379 > unrolled thread

anomaly in Malus law is not physics, but is because of the use of fake math trigonometry that causes the so called anomaly

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  anomaly in Malus law is not physics, but is because of the use of fake math trigonometry that causes the so called anomaly Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 15:27 -0800
    Re: anomaly in Malus law is not physics, but is because of the use of fake math trigonometry that causes the so called anomaly edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-03-03 18:29 -0800
      Re: anomaly in Malus law is not physics, but is because of the use of fake math trigonometry that causes the so called anomaly Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 18:51 -0800
        Re: anomaly in Malus law is not physics, but is because of the use of fake math trigonometry that causes the so called anomaly "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-03-03 19:28 -0800
        Re: anomaly in Malus law is not physics, but is because of the use of fake math trigonometry that causes the so called anomaly moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-03-04 22:46 +0000
          Mike Moroney a failure of physics but even worse in math Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 15:02 -0800
            Re: Archimedes Plutonium a failure of physics but even worse in math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-03-05 02:49 +0000
        Re: anomaly in Malus law is not physics, but is because of the use of fake math trigonometry that causes the so called anomaly edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-03-05 13:02 -0800
          Re: anomaly in Malus law is not physics, but is because of the use of fake math trigonometry that causes the so called anomaly Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 01:39 -0800
            diadians & tetrahedronometry noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-03-11 12:01 -0800
              Re: diadians & tetrahedronometry noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-03-12 00:17 -0800
                Re: diadians & tetrahedronometry noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 00:21 -0700

#621379 — anomaly in Malus law is not physics, but is because of the use of fake math trigonometry that causes the so called anomaly

Newsgroups: sci.math 
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 00:54:06 -0800 (PST) 

Subject: Malus law anomaly in physics--deviation of 1 to 5 degrees-- cause is 
 Old Math trig 
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> 
Injection-Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 08:54:06 +0000 


Malus law anomaly in physics--deviation of 1 to 5 degrees-- cause is Old Math trig 

Old Math trig is off by at least 3 degrees. 

In Old Math they thought 30 degrees was .5 when actually it is 27 degrees and 63 degrees not 60 was .5 for sine and cosine. 

So a anomaly of 5degrees is dispelled when using 3+3 degrees as 6 degree margin of error. 

Nothing wrong with the physics theory or experiment-- and only thing wrong is muddleheaded Old Math trigonometry. 

AP 

On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 7:57:59 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 

the Malus law in physics has an anomaly only because trig of Old Math is screwed up by at least 3 degrees// and where some believe a square midpoint has triangles 60-30-90 

Now not only is the physics Malus law free of anomaly-- because trig of Old Math is bogus. But we often see this mistake in math itself. Offer students a square. Say-- mark the midpoints of two opposite sides. Say, construct 4 right triangles from those midpoints. Say-- look up in Old Math Trig what those angles are. Invariably you get almost all the class say 60-30-90 right triangles when in truth they are 63-27-90 right triangles. It is because Old Math Trig is confusing-screwy. A similar mistake was done in physics with the Malus law. 


On Sunday, February 26, 2017 at 6:09:44 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 

Trigonometry of Old Math is in error and that error may show up in physics-- wrong Faraday law answers, wrong Malus law answers

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#621411

On Friday, March 3, 2017 at 6:27:11 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
[]
> 
> Now not only is the physics Malus law free of anomaly--
> because trig of Old Math is bogus. But we often see this mistake
> in math itself. Offer students a square. Say-- mark the midpoints
> of two opposite sides. Say, construct 4 right triangles from those
> midpoints. Say-- look up in Old Math Trig what those angles are.
> Invariably you get almost all the class say 60-30-90 right triangles
> when in truth they are 63-27-90 right triangles. It is because Old
> Math Trig is confusing-screwy.

Interesting slight of hand. For your triangles you are oh so close.
the smaller angle is only nearly 27 (actually 26.565 degree). But
close enough for usenet work. And many students may "guess" it is
30 degrees. But then the instructor proceed to provide the correct
answer.  In a grade school class this might be demonstrated by
getting out a protractor and measuring!

But most geometry classes start with an equilateral triangle.
Three sides all length of 2. Which gives three angles of 60.
Split the triangle from the apex to  the midpoint of the base.
Voila! two 90-60-30 triangles.

I commend you for your efforts, but the final results just
 fall short.
ed

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

#621416

You have comprehension difficulties Ed. I started with a square or rectangle not a triangle 60-60-60.

You probably will spend the rest of your life under the bogus idea that sine is a sinusoid, when in fact it is a semicircle wave.

AP

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

#621422

Lewdi cranked himself because of this:
>
Lewdi, Poster Ingatu made you crank yourself, didn't he!
... ahahahahahah... AHAHAHAHAHA... ROTFLMAO!
>
"Archimedes Plutonium"  aka 'Lewdi" <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>  one can read my, AP's, recent posts <snip>
>
F.Art.Ingatu wrote:
Mr. AP, you have delusions of grandeur.
You are not even wrong, which is why
posters will not waste their time with
>
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
mindrot
Single-sided, low density.
Sitting in the right pew, but in the wrong church.
Skylight leaks a little.
Slinky's kinked.
How dumb is "Archimedes Plutonium"? Is so stupid about calculus; how stupid
is he? So stupid he the derivative be a tangent line, forcing the integral
to be a rectangle of 0 width. A rectangle of 0 width is a line segment, not
a rectangle.
Smart as a fence post.
Smoke doesn't make it to the top of his chimney.
So dumb, village idiots tell jokes about him.
So stupid, mind readers charge him half price.
>
hanson wrote:
Archie, you certainly described yourself very well
in your paragraph above. It even sounds like that it is
you, yourself, Archie that is f.art.ingatu.... which is why
you, the mentally barren Lewdi was endowed with  these
accolades from
>
"Uncle Al" Schwartz <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> who wrote:
I cannot believe how incredibly stupid Archie-Poo, AP, aka
Ludwig Poehl, the Lewd Wig, Lewdi <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>, is.
I mean rock-hard  stupid.
Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid.
Surface of Venus under 80 atmospheres of red hot carbon
dioxide and sulfuric acid vapor dehydrated for 300 million
years rock-hard stupid.  Stupid so stupid that it goes way
beyond the stupid we know into a whole different sensorium
of stupid.
Archie-Poo is trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid.
Stupid so collapsed upon itself that it is within its own
Schwarzschild radius.  Black hole stupid.  Stupid gotten so
dense and massive that no intellect can escape.  Singularity
stupid. Archie-Poo emits more stupid/second than our entire
galaxy otherwise emits stupid/year.  Quasar stupid.
Nothing else in the universe can be this stupid.
Archie-Poo is an oozingly putrescent primordial fragment
from the original Big Bang of Stupid, a pure essence of stupid
so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws
of physics that define maximally extrapolated hypergeometric
n-dimensional backgroundless stupid as we can imagine it.
Archie-Poo is Planck stupid, a quantum foam of stupid, a
vacuum decay of stupid, a grand unified theory of stupid.
Archie-Poo is the epitome of stupidity, the epiphany of stupid,
the apotheosis of stupidity.  Archie-poo is stooopid.

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

#621515

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:

>You have comprehension difficulties Ed. I started with a square or 
>rectangle not a triangle 60-60-60.

Which was his point.  An equilateral triangle split in half has sides of
(1,sqrt(3),2) and angles (30,60,90).  Your triangle is *not* the same as
the one from an equilateral triangle. It has sides (1,2,sqrt(5)) and 
angles (26.565,63.435,90). It just *looks* like the 30-60-90 triangle.
And since sin(26.565...) is (1/sqrt(5)) it just proves what you call "old 
math".

Nice attempt at trying to fool people, but that's an old trick.

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

#621518 — Mike Moroney a failure of physics but even worse in math

On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 4:46:54 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >You have comprehension difficulties Ed. I started with a square or 
> >rectangle not a triangle 60-60-60.
> 
> Which was his point.  An equilateral triangle split in half has sides of
> (1,sqrt(3),2) and angles (30,60,90).  Your triangle is *not* the same as
> the one from an equilateral triangle. It has sides (1,2,sqrt(5)) and 
> angles (26.565,63.435,90). It just *looks* like the 30-60-90 triangle.
> And since sin(26.565...) is (1/sqrt(5)) it just proves what you call "old 
> math".
> 
> Nice attempt at trying to fool people, but that's an old trick.

     A flower short of an arrangement. 

     A few french fries short of a Happy Meal. 

     A lap behind the field. 

     A modest little person, with much to be modest about. 

     How dumb is Mike Moroney in trigonometry; so dumb he thinks trigonometry definition of sine as opposite/hypotenuse, yet has sine be y=0 when x= 2 and x= 3.14... He does not know what contradiction means in math. He fails to connect a definition with practice. No wonder he failed physics, he cannot even get math straight.


     A Pithecanthropus brain in a Cro-Magnon body. 

     A photographic memory, but the lens cover is glued on. 

     A prime candidate for natural de-selection. 

     A room temperature IQ. 

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

#621557 — Re: Archimedes Plutonium a failure of physics but even worse in math

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:

>     A flower short of an arrangement.

>     A few french fries short of a Happy Meal.

>     A lap behind the field.

>     A modest little person, with much to be modest about.

Mr. Plutonium, you really shouldn't talk about yourself that way.

>     How dumb is Mike Moroney in trigonometry; so dumb he thinks 
>trigonometry definition of sine as opposite/hypotenuse, yet has sine be 
>y=0 when x 2 and x= 3.14...

I see why you are so bad at math now. You need to learn to evaluate
math functions to evaluate sin(2). FWIW, sin(2) ~= 0.9093.

>He does not know what contradiction means in math. He fails to connect 
>a definition with practice. No wonder he failed physics, he cannot even 
>get math straight.

I aced physics and math in college, with college math credits from high
school advanced placement.  I have a good engineering position now, unlike 
yourself.

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

#621626

On Friday, March 3, 2017 at 9:51:27 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> You have comprehension difficulties Ed. I started with a square or rectangle not a triangle 60-60-60.
> 
> You probably will spend the rest of your life under the bogus idea that sine is a sinusoid, when in fact it is a semicircle wave.
> 
> AP

I pointed out the "lesson" you presented is NOT common in geometry classes.
So it was a straw-man argument that I wanted to knock down.

I understand the trig functions pretty well. It seems you do not.
You do not realize exactly what you are plotting.  Your semicircle
wave plot is based on an x-axis that is not the angle in degrees
or radians or  any other standard unit. It is fine to change the
x-axis scale, but it is wrong to then argue the trig functions
are wrong. Especially when the argument is based on fictitious
student mistakes in introductory geometry classes.

Enjoy.
  ed

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

#621738

No you have a poor understanding of trig because you know sine is opposite/ hypotenuse of a unit circle centered at (1,0)

Hence, therefore at x=2 your sine must be 0. Yet you think sine is Y=0 when x = 3.14... So your understanding is messed up

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

#622554 — diadians & tetrahedronometry

nah, you are simply bad at algebra;
use diadians on a right trigon on the diameter --
get a fresh start!

> Hence, therefore at x=2 your sine must be 0. Yet you think sine is Y=0 when x = 3.14... So your understanding is messed up

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

#622635 — Re: diadians & tetrahedronometry

or, construct the right or left tetrahedron on the diameter,
touching the sphere internally;
that is tetrahedronometry

> nah, you are simply bad at algebra;
> use diadians on a right trigon on the diameter --
> get a fresh start!

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

#622778 — Re: diadians & tetrahedronometry

just a special case, since
four points determine a sphere, and
they determine the tetrahedron inscribed therein;
there are no right trigona!

> or, construct the right or left tetrahedron on the diameter,
> touching the sphere internally;
> that is tetrahedronometry
> 
> > nah, you are simply bad at algebra;
> > use diadians on a right trigon on the diameter --
> > get a fresh start!

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web