Liverpool FC Forum

hawkmoon269 wrote:I think it should be Prolate spheroidical in shape.....

What the F**K, it sounds like something a doctor'd shove up yer ar.sehole.















OUCHIE Thats gotta hurt.      

woof woof ! wrote:For the one or two people in here that dont know ,a prolate spheroid is a spheroid that is "pointy" instead of "squashed," i.e., one for which the polar radius c is greater than the equatorial radius a, so c>a (called "spindle-shaped ellipsoid" ). A symmetrical egg (i.e., with the same shape at both ends) would approximate a prolate spheroid. A prolate spheroid is a surface of revolution obtained by rotating an ellipse about its major axis , and has Cartesian equations
(x^2+y^2)/(a^2)+(z^2)/(c^2)==1.

The ellipticity of the prolate spheroid is defined by
e=sqrt((c^2-a^2)/(c^2))==(sqrt(c^2-a^2))/c==sqrt(1-(a^2)/(c^2)).

The surface area of a prolate spheroid can be computed as a surface of revolution about the z-axis,
S==2piintr(z)sqrt(1+[r^'(z)]^2)dz

with radius as a function of z given by
r(z)==asqrt(1-(z/c)^2).

The integrand is then
rsqrt(1+r^('2))==asqrt(1+((a-c)(a+c)z^2)/(c^4)),

and the integral is given by
S = 2piaint_(-c)^csqrt(1+((a-c)(a+c)z^2)/(c^4))dz
= 2pia^2+(2piac^2)/(sqrt(c^2-a^2))sin^(-1)((sqrt(c^2-a^2))/c).

Using the identity
sqrt(c^2-a^2)==ce

gives
S==2pia^2+2pi(ac)/esin^(-1)e

Note that this is the conventional form in which the surface area of a prolate spheroid is written, although it is formally equivalent to the conventional form for the oblate spheroid via the identity
(c^2pi)/(e(a,c))ln[(1+e(a,c))/(1-e(a,c))]==(2piac)/(e(c,a))sin^(-1)[e(c,a)],

where e(x,y) is defined by
e(x,y)=sqrt(1-(x^2)/(y^2)).

Although an interesting idea I personally feel that instead of a prolate spheroid the use of a headless goat would, especially at throw ins, add more comedy value to any game .

hawkmoon269 wrote:What's wrong with using a rugby ball - it's worked in the past?

Yeah , until some clever fk picks it up an runs with it .   

andy_g wrote:to me its ridiculous that outfield players are allowed to use their hands for a throw in, the rules should remain consistent and forbid it. that would leave us with only the goalkeeper able to take throw ins which is obviously a bit stupid.

therefore i would favour the head in. the player has to place the ball on the deck, take a run up and launch himself at it, trying to get as much distance as possible with a diving header.

hahaha i just read this now, thanks for the laugh andy 

andy_g wrote:to me its ridiculous that outfield players are allowed to use their hands for a throw in, the rules should remain consistent and forbid it. that would leave us with only the goalkeeper able to take throw ins which is obviously a bit stupid.

therefore i would favour the head in. the player has to place the ball on the deck, take a run up and launch himself at it, trying to get as much distance as possible with a diving header.

thats a fantastic idea