Can I find the volume of a spherical section without calculus?

Moose352
Messages
165
Reaction score
0
How do I find the volume of a bowl shaped section of a sphere, given the depth of the section. I know i can integrate it, but a friend says that i can find the volume of a cone with equal height and radius, and then use that to find the volume of the spherical section.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Find the volume of the sector of the sphere that includes the bowl and subtract from it that volume of a cone whose vertex is at the center of the cone and whose base is the (flat) top of the bowl.
 
Thanks Tide, but the equation for the sector of a sphere is derived using calculus. Is there any way to find the equation for the spherical cap without calculus? And by calculus, i mean integration.
 
I don't know if there is a way to do it without calculus but I think the point is that it is a lot easier to find the desired volume using the sector and cone approach than it is to integrate directly. If someone is clever enough to get it without calculus I'd love to see it!
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top