360 degrees is the last angle, and 370 is not an angle;; sine function in purely polynomial form

[Archimedes Plutonium]

One of the easiest fames in physics when Oersted noticed the compass needle deflect when placed near a electric current. Instant fame and recognition for a simple experiment.

Anything like that in math history? I think not. However, there easily could have been from assigning angles greater than 360 degrees as having completed a full revolution and now you repeat the older angles such as 10 is now 370 degrees, 20 is now 380 degrees. No fame for that, but what if someone said, alright, sine function has gone from (0,0) to (4,0) in 360 degrees and is now repeating that pattern because degrees after 360 resembles the same pattern.

In other words, what makes the trig functions periodic, is merely the notion that after 360 degrees, you just increase the angle size but which is really the same angles from 0 to 360.

Few people realize this, even those in mathematics, realize that what makes trig functions periodic is not something ingrained in trig functions, but is only due to the fact that you increase the size of angle, repeats the trig function involved.

Now, let us have a moment of philosophy-- is an angle of 370 degrees really existing and if so, is it really just another way of saying 10 degrees? Now most would say it exists for it is a full revolution plus 10 more degrees. But then someone versed in Logic may say the definition of angle from 0 to 360 involves two rays for which geometry cannot have angles larger than 360.

In other words, if there had been someone to notice, like Oersted, that angles larger than 360 claimed to be valid angles just as 370 is valid as is 10 degrees, and that the existence of trig functions as periodic functions, depends merely on the notion that there exists angles larger than 360 degrees.

The periodicity of trig functions is all because, we believe angles larger than 360 degrees exist.

But do they, in truth exist?

I say they do not, that angles give out when you reach 360 degrees. That 360 means going around completely. if there is a angle of 370, then there has to be a figure in geometry that has a angle of 370. Squares have 360, but never 370. Circles have 360 but never 370.

So, if ever there was a Oersted who claimed one of the greatest prizes in physics for doing almost nothing, then there should be a Oersted of math, who founded the idea that because you go beyond 360 in angles, even though they are nonexistent angles, and thus founding of trigonometry, because the trig functions are not periodic, save for the silly notion that angles greater than 360 are genuine angles when they are not. Now, do not get me wrong, Oersted found truth in physics with his demonstration and deserves fame.

And whoever was the mathematician that is ascribed as founding angles greater than 360 is probably not a famous mathematician for that work, for, in my opinion, angles do not go larger than 360 degrees. To me, angles have a borderline, just as numbers have a borderline of finite and which numbers larger are different numbers. The borderline of angles is 360 degrees, and beyond such as 370 is not 10 degrees.

So, the idea of the trig functions being periodic, was only a illusion, based upon the crippled idea that angles beyond 360 exist. If you want to talk about angle 370 degrees, it is not an angle but something else.

Alright, previously I wrote:

On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 1:54:36 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Alright, ever notice how odd sine is? Ask for a function and usually what you get is something like this y= 2x^2 + 3. You get algebra in 99.9% of the time.

But if someone gave you sine as function how odd is that for it is asking you not to use operators on numbers but rather asking you to place a circle on graph paper and spinning around right-triangles inside the circle.

So, what New Function Theory aims to do is dliver the sine function in a form using  Y = some x's, where we no longer have the word "sine" telling us to do some task on circle and right-triangles.

First question-- is this possible and the likely answer is that since a circle has the equation x^2 + y^2 = 1 which is rendered into a function by cutting in half, and further means nothing preventing it from replacing sine.

Now, Old Math people have a somewhat silly excuse as to why sine and cosine are periodic. Their excuse is that as you reach 360 degrees the angles are different and larger 450 =90 degrees with same triangle values repeating.

In New Function theory we open a floodgate of new periodic functions, all of them written in polynomial type of function.

Let me start that with a step function, and see if i get into any trouble.

The function Y=1 and function Y= -1, two parallel lines, the upper and lower bounds of sine and cosine.

Now, if you have not noticed, all straight lines are periodic functions, but i have two of them to form into sine. So what i need to do is manipulate the domain and range so that Y = 1 is good for x=0 to 1.9, then from x=2 to 3.9 in 10 Grid, Y= -1 and alternating back and forth.

So how do i accomplish that without violating my rule that a single formula forms the entire function? For i seem to have two functions.

Well here is where i manipulate the domain with range. For what i seek looks like this

___      ___      ___
      ___      ___

Now i do not have to worry about vertical lines nor discontinous for in  New Math Grids we must always connect up present points with successor points and so no discontinuity nor vertical

___
       \____

And so far i built a box shaped sine functiion from straightline functions. Once i replace them with semicircles or semiellipse i will have achieved a polynomial trigonometry.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 00:43:56 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Re: How do you get the sine function without using circles or right triangles
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 08:43:57 +0000

So here is a bit dicey, here.

I want to get a periodic Function of repeating semicircles or repeating semiellipses, or even repeating sawtooths or repeating semi trapezoids.

I want to get them all with one formula.

I have at the moment, I have two parallel lines Y = 1 and Y= -1

And if I play around with the domain, by saying Y =1 for all x from 0 to 1.9 then Y= -1 for all x from 2 to 3.9.

Seems like I violated my one formula only.

Or have I ?

If I have, maybe I need to say that a Function can have at most two formula.

You see, the final aim of this pursuit, is we no longer write sin(x) or tan(x), but rather write something like this

x^2 + y^2

We make it where all of Calculus has only x, y, constants as terms. We make it where the Power rules reach into every function, giving them a derivative and integral.

We no longer say a Function where you have to do some sort of geometrical acrobatics of spinning right triangles inside a circle, or rolling a wheel on the x-axis marking off points traversed. No longer do we have alien symbols of sine, cosine, tangent, Ln, asking you to do something out of the ordinary. We have just x to powers of x and y to powers of y. We have just x and y.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Now is there some sort of evidence that 360 degrees is the last and final degree to be?

Well there is the idea i mentioned that no geometry figure of two rays has more than 360 degrees.

Another argument would say- imagine a angle of 450 = 360 + 90 where 0 and 180 are the x-axis, then 90 and 270 the y-axis so then 450 and 630 would constitute the z axis and so 540 and 720 degrees would make 4th dimension and as we further go around we have more perpendiculars in higher dimensions. Which is not true by physics.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Now maybe if this holds up as true, for i am not convinced myself that angles beyond 360 are as fiction as witches flying on brooms. To overturn something you have accepted for much of your life is not something to be done in one day with a few arguments.

But let us just say that Logic biulds the definition of angle and as that one ray of two rays meet in 360 degrees that 370 is just fiction.

And as someone counter argues that a marker on a wheel rolling marks out 360 degree as pi distance and 370 degrees as pi distance and a little more, still fails logic as angle defined by two rays and not by a wheel rolling for distance-- angle is not length, angle is the separation of two rays from a vertex.

Now, why am i pursuing this so avidly? It is because i want to construct the sine function as purely a polynomial of x and y without ever having to instruct someone-- get a circle and spin right triangles around the inside of this circle.

Now algebra has the formula of circle as Y = sqrt ( 1 - x^2)

Similarly, what i want to do is write a formula that is sine in terms of y and x, where you never have to say or use "sine"

Now what progress do i have on that account?

I have two functions Y = 1 and Y = -1 which gives me the periodic of sine (since angles no longer provide that for trig)

And i can split up the domain so i have a semicircle from 0 to 2 for Y = 1 then a semicircle from 2 to 4 for Y = -1. Here the domain of x gives sine its periodic characteristic. But do i need two functions?

Another idea that popps to mind is to have one function x^2 +y^2 = 1 and have two separated domains-- the usual x-axis and a second domain of the Naturals superimposed.

The definition of function only prohibits more than one y value but not banning two separated domains.

Now also, if true that 360 is the last and largest angle would be an ideal teaching tool for the massive crowd of math oafs currently in math who do not understand a borderline exists between finite and infinite numbers 1*10^604, because, if their is a borderline for angles at 360, only a stir crazy oaf would not admit to a borderline for numbers.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Alright i have two modes of posting-- desktop when serious with long detailed posts; iphone when casual and reflective sitting next to heater and snacking and thinking. Iphone posts are short and with grammar and spelling errors, but highly relaxing and convenient.

Perhaps a better remedy of sine as pure polynomial

We have formula of circle in particular is x^2 + y^2 = 1

We have a composite function of the circle with Y = 0, the x-axis.

When x is 1, 3, 5, .. those are the centers of the circle and then the semicircle of positive numbers is graphed at centers 1, 5, 9, .. For centers 3, 7, 11, ... negative numbers semicircle is graphed.

Is this the polynomial function of sine? I hope so

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Now let us look at another argument in favor of the existence of angles greater than 360. The argument that the hexagon interior angles are 6 times 120 degrees to make 720 degrees.

720 degrees is two full rotations about a circle, does it feel as though if you walked the sides of a hexagon that you went around twice when in truth you went just once as 360 degrees, and worse yet let us say you walked around the hexagon exterior to it where its 6 vertices have exterior angles of 240 times 6 is 1440 degrees.

So, here is an example of where illogical mathematicians make a definition of angle as two rays from a vertex angle the degrees is the distance subtended by the rays in a unit circle. That is the definition of angle and degrees. So what went wrong with the hexagon?

Simple, the interior angle at a specific vertex is 120 and exterior is surely 240 but to speak of a 720 degrees asks what are the two rays involved and where is the vertex of this 720 degree angle of two rays.

There is none. Boneheads of math looked at the hexagon and simply disobeyed their definition of both angle and degrees.

True there are 6 angles of 120 degrees apiece, but there is totally nothing in a hexagon of 720 degrees.

In math, every angle larger than 360 degrees is a fictional angle.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Sorry i cannot sleep when discovering something big and important. Here is a proof that the definition of angles in math will not allow the existence of angles larger than 360. Just as witches, ghosts and fire breathing dragons are fictional so are angles greater than 360

Proof: we have the definition of angle as two rays with vertex and the degrees subtended by the rays. We have the default case of 1 ray of 0 degrees. That is the definition. Now we draw a circle and apply the definition with two radii. We go through all the angles from 0 to 360. However we note that the two rays always has an interior and exterior subtended angle so for example 10 degrees interior and 350 exterior. Now what happens when someone claims a angle of 370 exists, what is its exterior angle?

If you have angles greater than 360, you lose the concept of interior and exterior angle.

So what is this prattle of a hexagon having 720 degrees? Hexagons have 6 angles which are 120 degrees each, but 720 is a meaningless number regarding angles. Every angle beyond 360 is a meaningless number.

QED

Is there some analogy to this? Why a simple analogy is to say add 5 horses with 5 grasshoppers and end up with 10 horses.

AP

[bassam king karzeddin]

Interesting to raise this serious issue about FAKE ANGLES, especially to save the physical science from the so many inherited fictions in mathematics.

Also I wrote few topics here and at Quora regarding the fictional angles that never existed and also impossible to exist in reality

But, mainly I was talking or meaning those angles below 360 degrees, and particularly those angles below 90 degrees

In fact the vast majorities of those known angles to the mainstream academic mathematicians, are so simply non existing angles, and not because they are impossible construction, but because they are indeed fiction angles. and also below 90 degrees (for sure)

So, here is a great chance for people wanted to learn super mathematics, that their best Journals and Universities do not know yet,

But definitely, once they smell the idea, they would immediately start fabricating stories as if old references, where those old references never occurred to them the right idea

So, let us save the Physics from the diseased corrupted mathematics to its rusted bones from fictions

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
13/02/17

[bassam king karzeddin]

So, simply if anyone wants to learn and know about the existing angles below 90 degrees, then it is too simple idea, just consider a right angle triangle with constructible sides, so you have two other angles which are less than (pi/2), but certainly existing angles

And contrary to the existing angles, just consider a Pythagorean triangle, with at least one side of length that is not of a constructible side number

And Guess how many fake angles you have in your mythematics,

And watchup how soon many would become so professional and experts in this rare issue, especially from Wikipedia with huge explanations and also many fabricated references, WONDER!

So simple and naive the IDEA, is not it?

But Mythematickers are real thieves and so shameless

[last...@gmail.com]

What a limited mind you have.

[bassam king karzeddin]

On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 6:13:42 PM UTC+3, last...@gmail.com wrote:
> What a limited mind you have.

My mind is so limited for infinitely many non existing real positive numbers and consequently the fake angles they do create illegally

But definitely your mind is so vast that can contain any angle, right?

Then try moron to construct exactly only one of those claimed fake angles, say (10) degree angle!

Ops, this is impossible construction for sure, then do something much easier, just prove its existence first, but not in your mind only, since then it is so easily assumed existent and of course you believe it blindly and beyond any doubt

Congratulation for this so easy task!

Prove its existence (the task is for every one thinks himself as mathematician)

But, for sure you can not, because you do not comprehend the reason yet, (for sure)

[abu.ku...@gmail.com]

= one is the usual radiansphere, but
it also applies to the unit-diametersphere

> 1.000... = x^2 + y^2 + z^2

[burs...@gmail.com]

Unicorn numbers are there to reveal the truth for our
children and grand children. We will not live until this
point in time, but its important to already tell the
truth, the earth is flat.

By a theorem of the renowned Prof. Muckendorf from
the Waldorf Institute for potential and abstract
Insanity, there will be only finitely many grand
grand etc. children, or there will be a child,

which will be below every other grand child. This
is a mathematical fact, which can be easily shown
by the FISON/BISON lemma of shifting gears. So
sooner or later the truth will be reveal,

either to the last grand child or the new limit
child. But unfortunately this children will not
have anymore access to observatories(*) because
of the progressive air polution, which is extremly
heavy especially in Beijing,

no wonder every Chinese is switching from bicycle
to car, and this increases the air polution more
than every European taking an airplan every year
for holidays, so even if Angels Deserve to Die, why

should they be excluded by Muckendorfs theorem? we
must be aware that Chop Suey! is not an option, there
is no option to not tell the truth now, and make an
end to the BIGSTUPID and their mythmuckitis.

The truth must be told.

(*)
http://www.observatory-guide.org/europa.html

Am Montag, 13. Februar 2017 17:27:48 UTC+1 schrieb bassam king karzeddin:

[abu.ku...@gmail.com]

n.b, that is sec0ndp0wer(diameter) mod pi,
being the area of the sphere, but
there is another spatial p.t on essentially the same box,
D^2 = A^2 + B^2 + C^2,
the sed0ndp0wers of the areas of a trirectangular tetrahedron

[abu.ku...@gmail.com]

well, times pi, but divide both sides by pi, and
you've got PI, 1/pi is the areal mensuration of se0ndp0wering per se, s.t
the diameter is the secondr00t(PI)

[upandc...@gmail.com]

So does the number ten actually exist? I think that’s the point your trying to make ultimately

[upandc...@gmail.com]

Limited to his own understanding which isn’t actually a bad thing

[bassam king karzeddin]

On Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 8:10:06 AM UTC+3, upandc...@gmail.com wrote:
> Limited to his own understanding which isn’t actually a bad thing

But he (AP) is absolutely and perfectly right about the non-existence of such an integer angle (370) DEGREES

Other wise, show us that angle 370 D in any existing triangle with exactly known sides?

And you can't nor anyone else can, for sure

BKK

[bassam king karzeddin]

So, if not agreeing then you don't mind my commands, for sure

bkk

[bassam karzeddin]