B Can I use the circle circumference formula for a sphere?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion clarifies that the circumference formula for a circle can indeed be applied to a sphere, specifically for calculating the circumference of a great circle. The user inquired about the correctness of their calculation, which yielded a circumference of 19.4 inches for a sphere with a radius of 3.09 inches. The response confirmed that this is accurate, as the formula for circumference remains consistent across both shapes. The key takeaway is that the circumference of a sphere is derived from its great circle, which is the largest circle that can be drawn on the sphere's surface. Understanding this concept simplifies the calculation process for spheres.
Perchaddition
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Trying to calculate a circumference of a sphere from a radius of 3.09 inches. Is 19.4 a correct answer? Just ran numbers in the first circumference calculator I found http://calcurator.org/circumference-calculator/. Can I use the same formula for a sphere? What can I say ...Geometry is not my passion
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Perchaddition said:
Trying to calculate a circumference of a sphere from a radius of 3.09 inches. Is 19.4 a correct answer?
Yes.
Perchaddition said:
Just ran numbers in the first circumference calculator I found http://calcurator.org/circumference-calculator/. Can I use the same formula for a sphere? What can I say ...Geometry is not my passion
The circumference is always that of a circle. In the case of a sphere, it is the circumference of a great circle, circles of maximal circumference.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes berkeman, Perchaddition and jedishrfu
Define circumference of a sphere.
 
  • Like
Likes jedishrfu and mfb
fresh_42 said:
Yes.

The circumference is always that of a circle. In the case of a sphere, it is the circumference of a great circle, circles of maximal circumference.
Thank you. Appreciate your explanation.
 
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...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
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...
Back
Top