I think I figured out what makes the wind!

[Ramius75]

Would it be based off of an infinitely many sided regular polygon?

I couldnt really remember what i did last time, but i used a very simple method whcih i think was how the ancient did it. Yes, its breaking the circle into a quarter circle and so and so fore. Breaking the triangluar into smaller and smaller pieces. its was quite long ago now, think in my polytechnic years or Collage. hehe. But thats the general idea. maybe if i have the time i will reinvent the reinvented wheel again.

Ramius

 

[MSTK]

I couldnt really remember what i did last time, but i used a very simple method whcih i think was how the ancient did it. Yes, its breaking the circle into a quarter circle and so and so fore. Breaking the triangluar into smaller and smaller pieces. its was quite long ago now, think in my polytechnic years or Collage. hehe. But thats the general idea. maybe if i have the time i will reinvent the reinvented wheel again.

Ramius

You know what? That just gave me an idea in finding the distance around a circle.

If you split a circle into four parts and you line them up like this:
\/\/\ (Only that the bottom and top are curved a bit)
And then measure up the two top sides, you get an approximate distance.

But if you cut them into, say, a hundred parts, then there is less curving and it is more precise.

So, the top and the bottom are basically the edges of the circle, and if you measure them and add them up, you got the distance around the circle!

And isn't Pi the distance around the circle divided by the diameter? They should use my method and plug in the number and find Pi easily.

 

[ainwood]

You know what? That just gave me an idea in finding the distance around a circle.

If you split a circle into four parts and you line them up like this:
\/\/\ (Only that the bottom and top are curved a bit)
And then measure up the two top sides, you get an approximate distance.

But if you cut them into, say, a hundred parts, then there is less curving and it is more precise.

So, the top and the bottom are basically the edges of the circle, and if you measure them and add them up, you got the distance around the circle!

And isn't Pi the distance around the circle divided by the diameter? They should use my method and plug in the number and find Pi easily.

This is used, in fact. Instead of using a triangle, they use a polygon with 10,000s+ sides. Same principle, though.

 

[Perfection]

In fact as you will learn, they deal with an infinite amount of sides.

Also a fun thing with your idea is wouldn't the side be half the circumferance or pi*r and the long way, and r the short way, so that explains why the area of a circle is pi*r^2.

 

[MSTK]

Oh, I see.

The shape I made by re-arranging the pizza slices is like a slanted rectangle. And I know that the size of a slanted rectangle is the same as the size of a normal rectangle with the same height and bottom side, because if you take a stack of post-it notes and slant it, it would still be the same size (the same amount of post-its), and different shape.
So if you think of the original rectangle as a stack of squares (the number of squares being its size), you can figure out the size by figuring out how many square would fill the very bottom and then stacking those squares until it is filled. So it is the Base * Height.
So the base of your Pizza-Slice slanted rectangle is Half of the Distance. Then the height is the "radius" of the circle? So to find out, you would multiply half the distance around the circle by the radius. D/2*R
But I found out that you can't find out the exact "circumferance", so you would have to use the Diameter * Pi (Because Pi is Circumferance times Diameter, you just reverse it). And since the radius is half of the diameter, the new way of finding it out is:
Pi*r*2/2*r which is the same as
Pi*r*1*r which is the same as
Pi*r*r which is the same as
Pi*r^2

Cool!

 

[Perfection]

Well, after an infinite amount of tiny triangular slices it is a rectangle with no slant whatsoever.

 

[Turner]

I applaud MSTK for sharing his knowledge and his observation. Reinventing the wheel isnt something to laugh at but i actually encourage it. I once used simple trigonometry to try to find the value of Pi.

Ramius

Yes, kudoes for using the ol' noggin' and figuring it out yourself....

This kind of thought is rare nowadays, when people know they can get someone else to do their thinking for them.

 

[CurtSibling]

*sigh*

Everyone knows its trees sneezing.

Als long as you don't claim it is some god sneezing...

 

[philippe]

hey give some positive feedback!
In these times of mindless consumption we should be hgappy poeple stop and pause about how everything works!

 

[cgannon64]

Als long as you don't claim it is some god sneezing...

What if I converted to animism?

 

[BassDude726]

I think it's great that someone took the time and effort to try to figure something out for themself when they could have easily looked it up in an encyclopedia or something. People are too lazy now with the sheer amount of information at their fingertips, and it's a rare case when someone has the curiousity or motivation to try something out themselves.

 

[Yoda Power]

The effect that you saw when blowing between the balls is called the Bernoulli effect.

So that is what Bernoulli is! I've been wondering this ever since I heard about the Bernoulli society for the first time.

 

[SanPellegrino]

No, it is just from the beans I ate

 

[col]

I wonder what keeps aeroplanes up?

 

[grahamiam]

So anyways I got tired of being a ninja and then I hung the balls from a plank of wood so they hung about one inch from eachother. I started blowing air in between them, thinking that they would blow apart. But they did not! They went into each other!

an early scientist or engineer! how wonderful! continue with your research and sharpen those math skills. you will enjoy a lifetime of learning just don't stop sharing what you find as others are looking too

 

[BassDude726]

Airplanes are also kept up in the air, coincidentally, by a variation on the same principle. In a simplified version, the shape of the wing causes air to flow faster over the top of the wing, causing the air molecules to separate more and making the air become less dense. The air under the wing maintains higher density, and thus creates lift.

 

[ainwood]

I wonder what keeps aeroplanes up?

Its not the Bernoulli principle

I read an article on it in New Scientist. I can't find the original, but there appears to be a better one here.

The 'problem' with the bernoulli argument (according to this auther) is that it relies on

"principle of equal transit times", or at least on the assumption that because the air must travel farther over the top of the wing it must go faster. This description focuses on the shape of the wing and prevents one from understanding such important phenomena as inverted flight, power, ground effect, and the dependence of lift on the angle of attack of the wing.

They go on to say that it is actually a straight Newtonian lift force => its a fscinating article.