Phew Trigonometry for Globe

@blidge
Again, approximation has nothing to do with math.

@DavidOrJohn
The formula has always two factors:
1. Velocity
2. Acceleration
That applies in either for C & A, and it is not made up. Simulation + Observation + real Calculation by mechanics resulting &=0.7929:1 or Phew=3.1716

Your opinion on mathematics is about as much use to me as a kick in the balls.

Please open your windows and accept the reality that many experts even object the existing rate of pi. And they didn't joking at all. They proposed  alternatives other than 3.14159.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on February 11, 2018, 10:09:35 AM

Quote from: Danang on February 11, 2018, 03:45:24 AM

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on February 09, 2018, 08:56:14 AM

Quote from: Danang on February 09, 2018, 07:49:56 AM

David, sorry to say that method is out of date. Try again.

Based on what?

Best is do math based on the reality of the real circumference. At least 0.2929 & 0.7071 be put in the calculation.

What you mentioned was just math based on manual approximation.

What calculation do you want me to put those two numbers into?

If you split any n-sided polygon into n isosceles triangles the area becomes n*a*a*sin(360/n)*0.5.

It is irrefutable that as n approaches infinity n*sin(360/n)*0.5 approaches pi.

Try it now on a calculator

Trigononetry should be the product of a definite circumference calculation.

Pre-number setting has to be obtained from realities on a real periference.

S=Vo.t+a.t²

S=vS+aS
S=xS+yS

Slope = velocity Slope (x) + acceleration Slope (y)

S per-quadrant:
(Vo(x)=1m/s. t(x)=0.7071, Vo(y)=0m/s, a(y)=0.2929² m/0.7071s², t=0.7071
)
S=1m/s*0.7071s + 0.2929²m/0.7071s²*0.7071s²=0.7929 m.

C=0.7929 m * 8 = 6.3431 m.

Do you realize if you use the actual values instead of rounding to 0.7071 & .2929 then phew=3.171572875...

If you do your calculation correctly phew becomes an irrational number.

You can't use rounded values. 

Not to mention you calculation is not the circumference of 1/8 of a circle.  You can't calculate the circumference of a circle without using pi or in your place phew.  Such a calculation would be much more complicated and that ain’t it. 

IOW, prove graphically that your equation works or admit you're wrong.

Mike

I just want to know the updated value of Euler's Identity.

Please open your windows and accept the reality that many experts even object the existing rate of pi. And they didn't joking at all. They proposed  alternatives other than 3.14159.

What sources do you have for the "many experts" who object to pi?

Quote from: Danang on February 12, 2018, 12:51:10 AM

@blidge
Again, approximation has nothing to do with math.

@DavidOrJohn
The formula has always two factors:
1. Velocity
2. Acceleration
That applies in either for C & A, and it is not made up. Simulation + Observation + real Calculation by mechanics resulting &=0.7929:1 or Phew=3.1716

Please explain why 3.1716 gives the wrong results in every real world use.

Cos(3.1716) = -0.99955, it should be -1.0
Cos(3.1716/4) =  0.701782334, it should be 0.707106781
Cos(3.1716/3) = 0.491312758, it should be 0.500000000

I didn’t plug these into a calculator.  I ran a Taylor series in a spreadsheet out to n=100 for both pi and phew and these are the results.  Why doesn’t phew they give the correct values?

Mike

How can we believe that a Taylor series is accurate if you don't include all of the figures?

Quote from: MicroBeta on February 12, 2018, 03:25:31 AM

Quote from: Danang on February 12, 2018, 12:51:10 AM

@blidge
Again, approximation has nothing to do with math.

@DavidOrJohn
The formula has always two factors:
1. Velocity
2. Acceleration
That applies in either for C & A, and it is not made up. Simulation + Observation + real Calculation by mechanics resulting &=0.7929:1 or Phew=3.1716

Please explain why 3.1716 gives the wrong results in every real world use.

Cos(3.1716) = -0.99955, it should be -1.0
Cos(3.1716/4) =  0.701782334, it should be 0.707106781
Cos(3.1716/3) = 0.491312758, it should be 0.500000000

I didn’t plug these into a calculator.  I ran a Taylor series in a spreadsheet out to n=100 for both pi and phew and these are the results.  Why doesn’t phew they give the correct values?

Mike

How can we believe that a Taylor series is accurate if you don't include all of the figures?

Why dont you run the spreadsheet?

Quote from: defender_of_truth on February 12, 2018, 07:21:43 AM

Quote from: MicroBeta on February 12, 2018, 03:25:31 AM

Quote from: Danang on February 12, 2018, 12:51:10 AM

@blidge
Again, approximation has nothing to do with math.

@DavidOrJohn
The formula has always two factors:
1. Velocity
2. Acceleration
That applies in either for C & A, and it is not made up. Simulation + Observation + real Calculation by mechanics resulting &=0.7929:1 or Phew=3.1716

Please explain why 3.1716 gives the wrong results in every real world use.

Cos(3.1716) = -0.99955, it should be -1.0
Cos(3.1716/4) =  0.701782334, it should be 0.707106781
Cos(3.1716/3) = 0.491312758, it should be 0.500000000

I didn’t plug these into a calculator.  I ran a Taylor series in a spreadsheet out to n=100 for both pi and phew and these are the results.  Why doesn’t phew they give the correct values?

Mike

How can we believe that a Taylor series is accurate if you don't include all of the figures?

Why dont you run the spreadsheet?

But I need to understand who Taylor is first, so I can feel with my discernment if he can be trusted. Should I also trust the programmers of the spreadsheet formula? This conspiracy is very interconnected and the people behind it have superhuman cognitive abilities and super computers to tie it all together and weave an intricate web of deceit!

Quote from: inquisitive on February 12, 2018, 07:25:04 AM

Quote from: defender_of_truth on February 12, 2018, 07:21:43 AM

Quote from: MicroBeta on February 12, 2018, 03:25:31 AM

Quote from: Danang on February 12, 2018, 12:51:10 AM

@blidge
Again, approximation has nothing to do with math.

@DavidOrJohn
The formula has always two factors:
1. Velocity
2. Acceleration
That applies in either for C & A, and it is not made up. Simulation + Observation + real Calculation by mechanics resulting &=0.7929:1 or Phew=3.1716

Please explain why 3.1716 gives the wrong results in every real world use.

Cos(3.1716) = -0.99955, it should be -1.0
Cos(3.1716/4) =  0.701782334, it should be 0.707106781
Cos(3.1716/3) = 0.491312758, it should be 0.500000000

I didn’t plug these into a calculator.  I ran a Taylor series in a spreadsheet out to n=100 for both pi and phew and these are the results.  Why doesn’t phew they give the correct values?

Mike

How can we believe that a Taylor series is accurate if you don't include all of the figures?

Why dont you run the spreadsheet?

But I need to understand who Taylor is first, so I can feel with my discernment if he can be trusted. Should I also trust the programmers of the spreadsheet formula? This conspiracy is very interconnected and the people behind it have superhuman cognitive abilities and super computers to tie it all together and weave an intricate web of deceit!

Meanwhile what is the value of a circle circumference divided by its radius?

Maybe even phew is incorrect and we are missing some important detail!

Maybe even phew is incorrect and we are missing some important detail!

"Since the Taylor expansion is infinite and we cannot count to infinity, the the Taylor expansion must be wrong."

Or something like that

Quote from: defender_of_truth on February 12, 2018, 07:54:41 AM

Maybe even phew is incorrect and we are missing some important detail!

"Since the Taylor expansion is infinite and we cannot count to infinity, the the Taylor expansion must be wrong."

Or something like that

Yes exactly! I couldn't find the words. Thanks!

Quote from: blidge on February 12, 2018, 08:03:25 AM

Quote from: defender_of_truth on February 12, 2018, 07:54:41 AM

Maybe even phew is incorrect and we are missing some important detail!

"Since the Taylor expansion is infinite and we cannot count to infinity, the the Taylor expansion must be wrong."

Or something like that

Yes exactly! I couldn't find the words. Thanks!

It correctly generates an irrational number.

Quote from: blidge on February 12, 2018, 08:03:25 AM

Quote from: defender_of_truth on February 12, 2018, 07:54:41 AM

Maybe even phew is incorrect and we are missing some important detail!

"Since the Taylor expansion is infinite and we cannot count to infinity, the the Taylor expansion must be wrong."

Or something like that

Yes exactly! I couldn't find the words. Thanks!

The Taylor series is an infinite sum that converges on a specific value.  Of course infinite is impossible so you have to go out far enough to be confident in the example.  Here are a couple of links that will explain it all.  Not that the expansions for trig functions use radians, not degrees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_series

http://people.math.sc.edu/girardi/m142/handouts/10sTaylorPolySeries.pdf

My point is that cosine, sine, tangent are each a ratio of the sides of a triangle.  We also know that the Cos(60°) aka Cos(pi/3) is always 0.5.  i.e. the hypotenuse over the adjacent leg of a right triangle will be h/a=0.5.

In the links above the Taylor series for Cos(x) is:

1 – x²/2! + x⁴/4! - x⁶/6! + x⁸/8! ... - xⁿ/n! + xⁿ⁺¹/n+1!

Knowing this, if we run the Taylor series for x=phew/3 it should converge at 0.5.  This cosine of 60° (pi/3) is a good one to use because it equals an exact number.  It should converge at 0.5000000000 very quickly

For Cos(pi/3), I got to ten decimal places at n=12.  I ran the series for phew/3 out to n=170 (that’s as far as excel would go) and converged at 0.4913127576. 

There are other series that you could use but this was easy to do in excel without using VB code.  That way if I gave anyone the spreadsheet they could easily see what it’s doing.

Mike

"For Cos(pi/3), I got to ten decimal places at n=12.  I ran the series for phew/3 out to n=170 (that’s as far as excel would go) and converged at 0.4913127576."

Calculator programing might be okay, but I frequently found "remote controling" that manipulate the result number.
Everything is being monitored, including various devices activity.

I found the result 0.48 something till I used other method for cos 30 which resulted 0.49047
I didn't used (30°:45°), instead: 0.6666666666.
Here it is:
(0.6666666666*0.7929)-(0.6666666666*0.2929²=0.49047.

Phew is a theorem, not a series, which is initiated by assumption.
Both may be close, but not identical.

"For Cos(pi/3), I got to ten decimal places at n=12.  I ran the series for phew/3 out to n=170 (that’s as far as excel would go) and converged at 0.4913127576."

Calculator programing might be okay, but I frequently found "remote controling" that manipulate the result number.
Everything is being monitored, including various devices activity.

I found the result 0.48 something till I used other method for cos 30 which resulted 0.49047
I didn't used (30°:45°), instead: 0.6666666666.
Here it is:
(0.6666666666*0.7929)-(0.6666666666*0.2929²=0.49047.

Phew is a theorem, not a series, which is initiated by assumption.
Both may be close, but not identical.

What 'remote controlling'?

Quote from: Danang on February 12, 2018, 11:02:19 AM

"For Cos(pi/3), I got to ten decimal places at n=12.  I ran the series for phew/3 out to n=170 (that’s as far as excel would go) and converged at 0.4913127576."

Calculator programing might be okay, but I frequently found "remote controling" that manipulate the result number.
Everything is being monitored, including various devices activity.

I found the result 0.48 something till I used other method for cos 30 which resulted 0.49047
I didn't used (30°:45°), instead: 0.6666666666.
Here it is:
(0.6666666666*0.7929)-(0.6666666666*0.2929²=0.49047.

Phew is a theorem, not a series, which is initiated by assumption.
Both may be close, but not identical.

What 'remote controlling'?

What difficulty is it for manufacturers to install kinda "wifi" within devices? It's easy. I found the strange things in calculator, multi tester, (off line) cellular etc. They say including TV, electricity meter, lamp etc. Any devices I guess.

"For Cos(pi/3), I got to ten decimal places at n=12.  I ran the series for phew/3 out to n=170 (that’s as far as excel would go) and converged at 0.4913127576."

Calculator programing might be okay, but I frequently found "remote controling" that manipulate the result number.
Everything is being monitored, including various devices activity.

I found the result 0.48 something till I used other method for cos 30 which resulted 0.49047
I didn't used (30°:45°), instead: 0.6666666666.
Here it is:
(0.6666666666*0.7929)-(0.6666666666*0.2929²=0.49047.

Phew is a theorem, not a series, which is initiated by assumption.
Both may be close, but not identical.

Please define "remote controlling" and how/where have you "found" it.

You stated that phew was the correct value of the ratio of the diameter and circumference of a circle and now you're stating it's a theorem. 

Now that you've proved that your number doesn't work are you going to admit that pi is the correct number.

Mike

Quote from: inquisitive on February 12, 2018, 11:10:56 AM

Quote from: Danang on February 12, 2018, 11:02:19 AM

"For Cos(pi/3), I got to ten decimal places at n=12.  I ran the series for phew/3 out to n=170 (that’s as far as excel would go) and converged at 0.4913127576."

Calculator programing might be okay, but I frequently found "remote controling" that manipulate the result number.
Everything is being monitored, including various devices activity.

I found the result 0.48 something till I used other method for cos 30 which resulted 0.49047
I didn't used (30°:45°), instead: 0.6666666666.
Here it is:
(0.6666666666*0.7929)-(0.6666666666*0.2929²=0.49047.

Phew is a theorem, not a series, which is initiated by assumption.
Both may be close, but not identical.

What 'remote controlling'?

What difficulty is it for manufacturers to install kinda "wifi" within devices? It's easy. I found the strange things in calculator, multi tester, (off line) cellular etc. They say including TV, electricity meter, lamp etc. Any devices I guess.

What calculator did you find cellular.  Not that it matters.  I used excel and it certainly didn't know what I was calculating so your concerns of some conspiracy is unfounded.  Additionally, my calculator is 25 years old and only has wired connectivity.  And yes, I've opened it up so I know there isn't some mythical hidden hardware.

Mike

This guy can't be serious. Hidden code and radio transceivers in every device with an ALU? Are the pencils also bugged so that you can't work this stuff out manually? How about savants that can compute prodigiously?

Ironically, in my country, we would call you a space cadet and then remove sharp objects from your vicinity.

There are infinite number of angles larger than 60 which will give a solution to cos(X) = 0.5

Yes, that is correct.
Reducing it to the first quadrant (i.e. angles between 0 and 90 degrees, inclusive), if x=60 degrees, then cos(x)=0.5. If x is anything else, this no longer holds.

Or an old favourite of mine is splitting a regular polygon into isosceles triangles and calculating the area from those measurements and watching it reduce to pi X r^2 as n increases.

One issue with this is how you arrive at that limit.
If I understand it correctly, it requires knowing there are 2 pi radians in 360 degrees.

At least 0.2929 & 0.7071 be put in the calculation.

These numbers have nothing at all to do with the circumference, as such, they have no place in the calculation.

Trigononetry should be the product of a definite circumference calculation.

Or use angles and triangles.

S=Vo.t+a.t²

This has nothing at all to do with circles, nor with trig.

Ignoring keys numbers at a periference means you are wearing Rayban. ~

Ignoring keys numbers at a periference means you are wearing Rayban. ~

Ignoring key numbers and making up crap seems to be all you are capable of doing.

You are yet to provide any justification for why those numbers should be involved?

You are simply taking the value of 1/sqrt(2) and making up crap with it.
We know the value the trig functions take when the angle is 30 or 60 degrees.
There are based upon well known triangles and there is no doubt at all that the value we know are correct.
You repeatedly fail to provide the correct values.
Like I showed before cos(60) and cos(30) can be calculated as an exact but irrational value, based upon a right angle triangle with a hypotenuse of 2, the side adjacent to the 60 degree angle of 1, and thus the remaining side is sqrt(3). There is no doubt about this at all.
This means cos(60) is 0.5.
If your formula does not show that, your formula is wrong.
This also means cos(30) is sqrt(3)/2, which is approximately 0.86602540378.
Again, if your formula does not show that, your formula is wrong.

Ignoring keys numbers at a periference means you are wearing Rayban. ~

We're not ignoring them.  It's just that you don't know how to use them.  Now I understand why you haven't been able to figure out pi.

Mike

Maybe even phew is incorrect and we are missing some important detail!

It might be so IF a number of mind blowing realities within a periference didn't be told as I presented in my old posts.

Lately psychology science is getting better. (CMIIW).

They're more mature and wise dealing with those that are considered 'deviant'. Yet those psychologists are still scientific people.

At least mind it: being a sheeple is miserable. The whole society will move backward.

It might be so IF a number of mind blowing realities within a periference didn't be told as I presented in my old posts.

You have been unable to show anything which indicates a preference for the crap you have presented.
Meanwhile we have presented plenty of facts which indicate your phew crap and alternative trig doesn't work.
These are facts you are yet to refute or respond to in any rational manner.

It is far better to be a sheep than to reject reality just to be distinct.

Lately psychology science is getting better. (CMIIW).

They're more mature and wise dealing with those that are considered 'deviant'. Yet those psychologists are still scientific people.

At least mind it: being a sheeple is miserable. The whole society will move backward.

I don’t know where you went to school but when I went to college we had to derive and prove many of commonly used constants, including pi.  There was no blindly accepting something.  We had to understand how it was derived and why it works. 

The idea is you have to know why something works the way it does before you can understand how it’s used.  You should consider that before you dismiss the value of pi and call the rest of us sheeple for knowing it's correct.

Mike