What is the error in this proof for calculating the surface area of a sphere?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around identifying an error in a proof for calculating the surface area of a sphere, which is stated as 4*(pi)*r^2. The original poster presents a reasoning process involving arc lengths and circumferences of circles related to the sphere's geometry.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to derive the surface area by summing circumferences of circles, questioning the validity of their reasoning and the dimensional consistency of their approach. Some participants express confusion about the underlying concepts and the validity of the statements made in the proof.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants exploring the validity of the original proof. Some have pointed out potential issues with the reasoning, particularly regarding dimensional analysis and the foundational concepts used. There is no explicit consensus yet, but critical perspectives are being shared.

Contextual Notes

Participants are grappling with the original proof's assumptions and definitions, particularly regarding the relationship between lengths and areas. There is a noted lack of clarity in the original poster's explanation, which may contribute to the confusion in the discussion.

Gear300
Messages
1,209
Reaction score
9
The given surface area of a sphere is 4*(pi)*r^2.
There are several proofs to this, but I'm just looking for the error in this one:

For the arc length, s = rx, x being the angle in radians.
Therefore, s = 2(pi)r = C, C being circumference of circle.
The surface are of a sphere is the sum of the circumferences of a number of circles surrounding around a point from which the radius extends. Therefore, a set of n points is needed for n circles.
For a sphere, if just a horizontal cross section was taken (that includes the center), it would come out as a horizontal circle of circumference 2(pi)r. If for each point on that circle, there was a vertical circle that surrounded the center, then only half the total number of points would be needed for the surface area of the sphere (since the other half would produce circles that would coincide with the first half). Thereforce, only half the length of the circle would be needed, being only (pi)r, which would be the value for n.
Therefore, n number of points can be given by s = (pi)r. With (pi)r number of points, the sum of the circumferences of each of these points can be given by [(pi)r] * [2(pi)r], which results in 2*(pi)^2*r^2. The difference between this and the official formula is by and additional coefficient of (pi/2). I'm having trouble spotting the error in this proof.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That is so distorted I don't know where to start. How about "The surface area of a sphere is the sum of the circumferences of a number of circles surrounding around a point from which the radius extends." I don't think I ever saw that in Euclid. Do you believe it?
 
Cant exactly tell. Whats wrong with the concept?
 
Gear300 said:
Cant exactly tell. Whats wrong with the concept?

For one thing the sum of lengths is a length, not an area. It's dimensionally wrong. And that's only the beginning of it's utter wrongness.
 
ಠ_ಠ...I see that you are right.
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K