Rings

 Posts: 5035
 Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am
Rings
Take the Earth's equator and add 30 feet to it. Now you have a slightly larger ring to compare with the equator.
Have both of them occupy the same plane so that the smaller ring is inside of the larger ring and they both share the same center. My question is whether there's enough space between the two rings to fit a sheet of paper through?
PhilX
Have both of them occupy the same plane so that the smaller ring is inside of the larger ring and they both share the same center. My question is whether there's enough space between the two rings to fit a sheet of paper through?
PhilX

 Posts: 5035
 Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am
Re: Rings
Maybe you would like to explain that if Jupiter were substituted for Earth, the same answer would occur.
PhilX
Re: Rings
No, I would not. That was my point. Wrong forum.
If you need to duck to walk under this ring , you're old enough to know this is the wrong place to post such questions.

 Posts: 5035
 Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am
Re: Rings
Since you seem to know so much about philosophy, maybe you can answer this question which no one to date has or at least is willing to. What is philosophy?
PhilX
Re: Rings
If the circumference of a circle is C then its radius is r = C/2π. If C is replaced by C + 30 then the new radius is
r' = (C + 30)/2π = C/2π + 30/2π.
The new radius is exactly 30/2π larger than the original radius.
Now what is curious about this and a bit counterintuitive is that the change in the radius is independent of the original circumference C. So if you started with a tiny tiny little circle and added 30 to the circumference, the new radius would increase by 30/2π. And if you started with a circle the size of the universe and added 30 to it, the new radius would increase by 30/2π. [About 4.77...]
I imagine it's that factoid that attracted PE's attention. The increase in the radius is independent of the size of the original circle. Is there some philosophy in that? I do think most people would be surprised by that and might have predicted that the size of the original circle matters.
I must admit that when I saw the title I thought you wanted to talk about ring theory.
r' = (C + 30)/2π = C/2π + 30/2π.
The new radius is exactly 30/2π larger than the original radius.
Now what is curious about this and a bit counterintuitive is that the change in the radius is independent of the original circumference C. So if you started with a tiny tiny little circle and added 30 to the circumference, the new radius would increase by 30/2π. And if you started with a circle the size of the universe and added 30 to it, the new radius would increase by 30/2π. [About 4.77...]
I imagine it's that factoid that attracted PE's attention. The increase in the radius is independent of the size of the original circle. Is there some philosophy in that? I do think most people would be surprised by that and might have predicted that the size of the original circle matters.
I must admit that when I saw the title I thought you wanted to talk about ring theory.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest