#177 Consider a spherical world.?
479155
It would be 1 meter divided by 2pi, or 0.159 m (159 mm) approximately.
268355
The geometry of the universe is non-euclidian. if you carry on going in a straight line you will eventually come back to your starting point.
715942
the radius of the Earth 6375.654784689 Km. There are many living things on it and it will not be ever counted exactly.
1068729
i think n=6..\nyes this can be done..if you know the formula..\nof volume and surface arae of a hypersphere and also the form of gamma fucntion..\nhope you can do it yourself..i saw these two links and based on the formula given for volume and surface ares and the gamma fucntion expression its evident that n=6.\nHope you can figure it out yourself.\nvolume= pi^3/6 (radius =1 here)
506532
Ahhhhhhh... isn't it great to be 30 going on 10.  Life it too short to be grown up.  Greatest shaped object huh.... okay well lets see.... you have limited my choices here, that is not fair btw. :p ~ How about a circle.  You can not invert it mathematically.  It has no beginning nor ending.  You can do so many wonderful things with it, such as foot ball, balloons, rings and what not.  It is perfect, yet can not be computed to the last digit (PI) and last but not least, because I say so.  LOL  :)
350355
Earth is an oblate spheroid, resembling a sphere flattened at the poles.\n\nThe volume of an oblate spheroid is\n\n    V = 4/3 X 3.14 X a^2 X b\n\nwhere π is the mathematical constant pi, and a and b are the equatorial and polar radii.\n\nSubstituting a = 6,378,135 m and b = 6,356,750 m\n\nThe Huge EarthThe mean radius of the earth is approximately 6.4 million meters (exact = 6.37 x 106 m). Its volume is then:\n\n(4/3) x 3.14 x 64000003 m3\n\nThis comes to 1,097,509,500,000,000,000,000 cubic meters.
967530
May be a Sphere/Circle of defined polygons or Trees.... with infinite edges and finite branching points....
123925
the same way you figure small radius.  i'm not sure i see the dilemma. ???
969814
G = 6.67 x 10^11 N.m2.kg-2, a universal constant\nM = 5.9742 × 10^24 kilograms, the mass of the earth\nr = 6378.1 kilometers, the radius of the earth\n\nSo add 390 to r.  G times M divided by r squared is your new g.
810893
Oscar. You have written too much. This 125m tower stuff does not matter compared to r=6.38*10^6. Why is this talk about 1.00 km and angle theta? See what “zipper” above says. Besides I answer your last question << Why is the trajectory of the cannonball not parabolic?>>. Why should it be if both you and Newton demand it to be circular? Assume that V1 of cannonball is the 1st cosmic speed corresponding to a circular track. Let V2 be > than V1, then you receive an oval track. Take V3 > than V2, then the track may become parabolic, so that cannonball would never return back to the cannon to linger out among planets and stars. If you are intrigued calculate a set of velocities and corresponding orbits of the cannonball. If cannon is not available consider a football! I like your inventive wits – to be honest!
281413
You could make a model of the solar system.  Use different sized Styrofoam balls for the planets.
63817
tsniperx\n2 months ago\n\nVolume of one block cube = 10cm*10cm*10cm = 1000cm^3\nVolume of two block cube = 2000 cm^3\nVolume of one sphere = (4/3)*pi*r^3 = (4/3)*pi*(5cm)^3\nVolume of one sphere= 523.59877 cm^3\n\nno spheres= Volume of clay / Volume of sphere= 2000cm^3 / 523.59877cm^3\nNo spheres must be integer = 3 spheres
665482
our mind cannot imagine what it never and can never experience.\n\nU can imagine the spacetime as like a sphere. but a sphere is a 3D object. The universe is a 4D sphere. Can u imagine that? no. Imagine a dot, then imagine a line, then imagine a square, then imagine a cube, then imagine a... 4D cube. physically, u cannot imagine it. But these r consistent logical object. They can exist logically despite unobservable and unimaginable by us.\n\nWhen i say logically it exists, i mean, it exists. for example, on a sphere, if u keep travelling eastward, u could end up where u started. in a 4D spherical universe, u can travel straight forward and come back to where u started. the problem is, will the universe last long enough for u to do it even if your human life is that long.\n\nThe reason our universe is proposed to be spherical(not in the 3D sense) is because of the geometrical properties it has that resemble a 3D sphere. For example, it is observed, galaxies r accelerating away from each others in every direction. They say the universe is expanding. This in 3D is equivalent to having a 3D sphere/ballon blown up. u will see points on the ballon get further and furtehr apart at increasing relative speed as their distance increases.\n\nOf coz a 4D "sphere" "looks" nothing like a 3D sphere.(can u even look at it??) It is just called a sphere because we do not have another name for it. We don't call circles 2D spheres because... they have names.\n\nAs for, if the universe is a (4D) sphere, where does this spehere exist?? in vacumm? the vacumm as we know it is IN a 3D spatial space. Just like a 3D sphere cannot exist on a 2D plane, a 4D sphere definitely cannot exist on a 3D space. When u place a 3D sphere in a 2D plane, u only see "parts" of it, as circles. And by induction, in our 3D universe and with our 3D minds, when a 4D sphere is place in front of u, all u see is normal 3D spheres which are just "parts" of the complete 4D thing that we will never be able to imagine, but know exist. So, the universe as a 4D sphere must exist in a 5D or higher space then?? And then where does this 5D(or higher) space exist in?? even higher space? and so on and so forth? This then becomes a question of philosophy and logic, instead of science.\n\nwhen u try to look at a 4D spatial thing in our 3 spatial D space, we use time to assist us. So, a 4D spahere if appear to us would not appear all at once, but in a series of change. This is the curiosity of our time dimension. Although it is equivalent to spatial dimensions as demonstrated by einstein, it however knit its existence into our conscience. It is as if our mind is not capable of understanding the 4th D all "at once" and so, we observe the 3Ds we can handle, and the forth D is revealed to us slowly. God was saying, "don't worry, i wont overwhelm u with this 4th D. I'll show u bit by bit." Maybe if u wanna see a 4D spehre at once... u should "experience" all the experiences of 3D parts at once, whatever that means. or this is like...knowing. You know what u know. u do not need to go thru the mind and recall every pieces of knowledge piece by piece to know u know. at once u know. so, to imagine a 4D sphere, all u have to do is know it. And hence, here come mathematics to help u describe something that u know but cannot describe.\n\nok i m drifting off to something unrelated and soon i will be talking about my garden and the stock market. bye
998200
Polar\nits use to converse from dimensional to polar.\nexp\n(3,4) --> (5;53)\nits mean 5 for radius and 53degree
50989
Eleven if you count the two adjacent sides of the polygon, otherwise nine.\n\nThinking outside the box answer:\nUnlimited if one does not limit themselves to the other vertices as termini.
627749
The easy answer is no. The pieces that the sphere would have to be split into would not be physically possible. The proof itself depends on the axiom of choice. In fact, there are models of set theory that don't have the axiom of choice where the Banach-Tarski paradox cannot happen. This shows that an infinite number of choices is needed, which demonstrates the physical impossibility.
508642
Well you can't really have a center of the diameter line of a sphere.  But I guess the common dividing point would be where the prime merdian (zero degrees longitude) passes through the equator.  The intersection point is in the eastern Atlantic ocean, south of Ghana in Africa.