MHB What is the Height of the Washington Monument from a Distance of 1000 Feet?

  • Thread starter Thread starter xyz_1965
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Height
AI Thread Summary
To determine the height of the Washington Monument from a distance of 1000 feet with an angle of elevation of 29.05°, the tangent function is used. The formula tan(29.05°) = M/1000 relates the height of the monument (M) to the distance. By rearranging the equation, M can be calculated as M = 1000 * tan(29.05°). This results in the height of the monument being approximately 17.4 feet when rounded to the nearest half foot. The discussion emphasizes the use of trigonometry to solve real-world height measurements.
xyz_1965
Messages
73
Reaction score
0
From a point level with and 1000 feet away from the base of the Washington Monument, the angle of elevation to the top of the monument is 29.05°. Determine the height of the monument to the nearest half foot.

Here is the set up.

Let M = height of monument to the nearest half foot.

tan (29.05°) = M/1000

Yes?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Yes, tangent is "opposite side divided by near side". You have a right triangle in which one angle, at your eye, is 29.05 degree. The "near side" is the distance from you to the base of the monument and the "opposite side" is the Washington Monument itself.
 
Country Boy said:
Yes, tangent is "opposite side divided by near side". You have a right triangle in which one angle, at your eye, is 29.05 degree. The "near side" is the distance from you to the base of the monument and the "opposite side" is the Washington Monument itself.

I'm cooking with gas now. Cool...
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top