Endercreeper01

In the graph, it both increases and decreases, but it decreases much greater. You can continue debating, but what do you think of my theory?

Show us the post then

Yes, but the circle is defined by the radius. As I said:

Using the radius is more natural because we define a circle by its radius, not diamater. Equation 1 is this: It has single pi because it is the change in the sum of angles a, b, and c and pi radians, 2 and 3 are made using integration, in equation 4, pi/2 is also tau/4 (1/4 of a turn), and what is equation 5?

The equations with iSingle pi have some factor of 2 or are made using integration

Most equations that use single pi involve integration to get the answer. Otherwise, you have to look really hard to find the factor of 2.

it was an example using spheres. In that picture, it was an example using spheres

I put the graph to show what happens. It is a sphere. It goes down and up, but the derivative is a lot less when it is going down

Well in many equations where pi is used, It is some even number multiple of pi and a single pi only comes from integration. And the circle constant should use the radius, like in all of our other equations, instead of the diameter.

Not just turns, we are saying it is more natural to use tau

According to my graph i showed you before, the coefficient of drag decreases with a higher reynolds number

Im talking about with circles then tau should be the circle constant and 2tau should be the sphere constant I agree with what you said, but we can just slowly bring tau in.

There are 2tau steradians in a sphere, and 2tau should be the sphere constant.

If you solve the equation, e^iτ=1 How is this silly? Yes So What if we can only measure the diamater directly? The radius shows up in almost all of our equations for circles. We can still slowly bring in tau

why do you disagree?

Doesn't it decrease? And I also posted this:

What do you think?

Im not sure exactly, but i think it would be because the Cd for a plate would probally be different if it was supersonic. someone said there was a way to calculate Cd at supersonic speeds, so im not sure if this also works at supersonic speeds

Hmm.. This seems interesting. I think you might.

Yes, but in this theory, you use the drag coefficient it would have if it was a flat 2D plate (based on Reynolds number) and you multiply that by the cosine of the average value of all angles less then 90 degrees.

Just discuss your points, and ill see if they are good.

There is a website named tauday.com and it was mad by a guy who thinks τ should be the circle constant. I agree with him, but what do you guys think?

Well gravity is proportional to the inverse if distance sqared, so then the other stuff would cancel out but then, As you would approach a mass then it gets bigger and bigger by 1/r^2, so it would have an effect Well gravity is proportional to the inverse if distance sqared, so then the other stuff would cancel out but then, As you would approach a mass then it gets bigger and bigger by 1/r^2, so it would have an effect

But the losses are part of the energy out