Replying to @ZebMic @justinskycak
Remember the mathematical constant named pi? They claim to "prove" it via calculus. Measure the circumference to diameter ratio of a coin, then think about that. Their conventional sphere volume formula is about one third off, but they "prove" it via calculus.
Replying to @chujusansuu
This is why you should never use pi=3.14...
The area of a circle equals the area of a concentric square only if the arc divides the sides into 4 equal parts. That makes the side to radius ratio 4 / √5.
Replying to @miniapeur
Allegedly, that person turned basic geometry into the mess it is today. Everything built on that is messed up — including "real" analysis and physics. It's not just about difficulty; it's about deviant philosophy presented as "real" science.
Replying to @BasicGeometry @miniapeur
Verifying that it's an identity; not tautology:
Note, that the arc intersects the sides exactly at their quarters only if side / radius = 4 / √5.
The arc intersects the sides of a concentric square at its quarters only if side/radius=4/√5, hence 3.2r² is the only true area balance ratio.
The area of a circle from a different perspective. ⭕📐
Replying to @gmac4247
To those who understand how the mathematical constant named pi was *theoretically approximated* this single post should make it clear why that approach is fundamentally and critically flawed.
The reply is open for transparent empirical measurement data. Not for academic rubbish.
Replying to @gmac4247
The polygon approximation of the pi doubles the side count of a circumscribed hexagon repeatedly via angle bisection. But when the sides become short enough, their points coincide with the arc. Hence they cease to be upper limits.
Replying to @gmac4247
Mainstream geometry insists that a tangent line can always be drawn. A tangent line coincides with a circle only at a single point. Yet, when attempting to circumscribe a 24-sided polygon about a circle, each side coincides with the arc along a significant section.





























