Geometric Measurements

[Tiki Man]

I have had this thought ring in my head for over a year, and just now have I remembered to mention it.

Look at the measurement of a triangle. 90, 60, 30. 180 degree total.

Look at a square. 90, 90, 90, 90. 360 total.

I conceived the idea of reverse measurement, where 180 degrees as it is now would be zero, and 0 would be 180. Concave angles would be measured in negative.

Every closed polygon would have a total of three hundred and sixty degrees if measured this way, three sides, four sides, or eight hundred and seventy nine sides, it does not matter. Three hundred and sixty degrees for every two dimensional angled shape, convex or concave using negatives as well.

Angle measurement would be degrees off of current course, so a slightly bent line would have a small degree of measure. Basically, look at the wrong numbers on a protractorand you have this simple way of measure.

The purpose of this post is to question our method and let people hear of this method if they have not.

[truthaddict11]

pissed off in your geometry class or something?

[Pawn Power]

i somewhat understand what you are saying, is their any other way you can explain it?
i will show it to my dad he teaches calc

[apathy maybe]

There is a better system. It is based on Pi. But I can't explain it 'cause it has been too many years since I did stuff like that.

[truthaddict11]

i find the system for geometry we use now to be pretty easy.

[Tiki Man]

A hexagon, normally measured, has angles that add up to 720:

120, 120, 120, 120, 120, 120 = 720

In my method, 0=180, 180=0, 90-90, 120=60, 60=120. Simply by looking at the "wrong" numbers on a protractor, you get a reflection of the angle, reflected over the 90 degree axis.

The normal angle measurement determines the width of an angle. In my imagined system, angles are measured by "degree of change from course", so a wide open angle, which should be a lot, is hardly bent, which is a little. And 90 remains 90.

Back to the hexagon, since 120=60, the new angles would be:

60, 60, 60, 60, 60, 60 = 360

Imagine one vertex dented inwards as shown below.

60, 60, 60, 120, 120, -60 = 360

Take any polygon using this methodand arrive at 360 for all of these two dimensional shapes. Never bother to mess around with the numbers 720, 540, or more ever again.

[FatFreeMilk]

your method sounds very complicated. What's wrong with the system we use now? I think it works just fine. Hey man Geometry has been my best year in math in my whole life, seriously!
Did you think of this all by yourself?

There is a better system. It is based on Pi

That only works for circles and stuff.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I deffinitely can see how Joel's method would be beneficial. And it's no more simple and no more complicated than the current system.

There is a better system. It is based on Pi.

Interesting....
I'm only in high school, so it's likely that I'm yet to learn this stuff, but I seriously can't imagine such a method to measure polygons. How can you use pi, a product of hom many times a diameter must be extended in a circular path around the center of a circle, to measure polygons?

[DaCuBaN]

I think the author may have simply been a little confused - perhaps they were meaning radians? I seem to remember that pi gets involved there somewhere, though I'm no math whizz.

Probably why I stink so much at 3D modeling

There are countless measurements for angles in use today as it is

From Unit To Unit Multiply By
degree (°) (°) 1.000 000 E+00
grade (gr) (°) 9.000 000 E-01
minute (min) (°) 1.666 667 E-02
quadrant (quad) (°) 9.000 000 E+01
radian (rad) (°) 5.729 578 E+01
revolution (rev) (°) 3.600 000 E+02
second (s) (°) 2.777 778 E-04

No doubt one of these wil match the theory put forward

Remeber:
If you think you have an original idea you simply haven't done enough research.

*EDIT*

Radians explained

[Tiki Man]

Hmm, I see the usage of modern angle measurement, but a conversion to the method I mentioned would be simpler, in the fact that every polygon would have 360 degrees.

...And the simple thing like making a 180 degree turn would make more sense, because a 180 degree angle is currently a straight line.

Degree of change in course is more logical for everyday polygon measurements.

"If you think you have an original idea you simply haven't done enough research."
Such a good thing to remember. I have had so many ideas, only to see them already in use! I don't really beleive my concept of geometry is original, just not discussed.

[dark fairy]

all of this is very interesting i just got through with geometry so it does make sense... but really that system used now is very weird but i don't see how you can have the negative distance of something i feel we'd be in another dimention if that were to happen...because i mile from where i am right now would leave me at the park and a negative mile wouldn't exist or so we think

[Hate Is Art]

I don't understand at all, I think I will keep the regular measurements. They make sense!

[Misodoctakleidist]

The reason we have such a stupid system is becuase the 360 degrees were origionaly the 360 (or so they thought at the time) in the earths orbit of the sun.

Radians are a more logical measurement, a whole circle is 2 pi radians.