Least Angle

[Robust]

What is it the diameter of, why are you dividing it by 180°, and what is the right angled triangle that you have calculated one side of?

 

One could use a configuration other than 180 degrees. It 's the simplest for me where accounting for the circle's oblateness and where the 180 degrees of its E/W coordinate gives maximum distance. The proving of it is in knowing the minimum distance between each angular degree and coordinating that figure with its right angle triangle - which gives by the Pythagorean theorem the chord length to distance on the arc.

 

You raise an interesting question as regards the circle's oblateness. A colleauge (atmospheric scientist) informs me that the figure I give for the circle's oblateness (1.001129....) coincides remarkably close to that known of the earth's atmospheric oblateness - the difference probably due to variations in atmospheric moisture content via the sun.

[Rincewind]

One could use a configuration other than 180 degrees. It 's the simplest for me where accounting for the circle's oblateness and where the 180 degrees of its E/W coordinate gives maximum distance.

But what does that have to do with the least angle, and what do you mean by least angle?

 

The proving of it is in knowing the minimum distance between each angular degree and coordinating that figure with its right angle triangle - which gives by the Pythagorean theorem the chord length to distance on the arc.

The triangle formed by the chord and the two radii may well be an isosceles triangle, but it is only a right angled triangle if the angle at the centre of the circle is 90° or 270°. So what right angle triangle are you referring to here?

 

You raise an interesting question as regards the circle's oblateness.

I did no such thing. If a circle has an oblateness of anything other than zero, then it's not a circle. If you wish to discuss ellipses (other than the circle), maybe you should start a new thread, so we keep the discussion in this thread to circles.

 

A colleauge (atmospheric scientist) informs me that the figure I give for the circle's oblateness (1.001129....) coincides remarkably close to that known of the earth's atmospheric oblateness - the difference probably due to variations in atmospheric moisture content via the sun.

A circle is a circle. The oblateness of the sphere of the atmosphere has no relationship to circles, no matter what you are doing.

 

--------------------------------------

 

You have also failed to answer my query as to where the diameter of 9 that you divided by 180 to get 0.05 comes from and why you have used that figure.

[Robust]

But what does that have to do with the least angle, and what do you mean by least angle?

 

 

The triangle formed by the chord and the two radii may well be an isosceles triangle, but it is only a right angled triangle if the angle at the centre of the circle is 90° or 270°. So what right angle triangle are you referring to here?

 

 

I did no such thing. If a circle has an oblateness of anything other than zero, then it's not a circle. If you wish to discuss ellipses (other than the circle), maybe you should start a new thread, so we keep the discussion in this thread to circles.

 

 

A circle is a circle. The oblateness of the sphere of the atmosphere has no relationship to circles, no matter what you are doing.

 

--------------------------------------

 

You have also failed to answer my query as to where the diameter of 9 that you divided by 180 to get 0.05 comes from and why you have used that figure.

I trust you are not attempting to describe the perfect circle. Any arcthat closes upon itself is oblate by nature. As pertaining to the static circle, I'm concinced that the figure given is correct in describing the proper disparity.

As to your 2nd query, the diameter of 9 comes comes from an extensive archeolgoical study into origins of the Base 10 number system (which thread I suugest be reviewed). It provides the formula for the least distancre possible between 2 adjacent angular degrees.

[C1ay]

I trust you are not attempting to describe the perfect circle. Any arcthat closes upon itself is oblate by nature.

So, are you now claiming that there is no perfect circles either since they would be an arc that closes upon itself?

[Robust]

So, are you now claiming that there is no perfect circles either since they would be an arc that closes upon itself?

I have always claimed that - and as I thought was common knowledge. Earth physics itself confirms it. My figures indicate that the closest we can come to 360 degrees is 359.5939 ad infinitum. And incidentally, you might also consider that there is no such thing eitheras the perfectly straight line.