Re: Snowflakes
 

What utter uneducated rubbish you speak. If you devoted your small and limited brain resources to considering the predominance and reasons for Natures hexagons instead of trolling and making absurd, insulting remarks about people, you may with great difficulty and doubt, learn something.

But if making offending remarks and not science is your interest in life, then each to his own. It takes all kinds to make a world. May I suggest you find another bridge, more suited to your tastes.

Re: Snowflakes
 

.....or a new polygon...

Re: Snowflakes
 

With the courtesy of Wikipedia, here is the definition of a regular hexagon, just for those super brains who do not know what an equilateral polygon is :-

A regular hexagon is defined as a hexagon that is both equilateral and equiangular. It is bicentric, meaning that it is both cyclic (has a circumscribed circle) and tangential (has an inscribed circle).

The common length of the sides equals the radius of the circumscribed circle, which equals (2xsqrt3)/3 times the apothem (radius of the inscribed circle). All internal angles are 120 degrees.

A regular hexagon has 6 rotational symmetries (rotational symmetry of order six) and 6 reflection symmetries (six lines of symmetry), making up the dihedral group D6.

The longest diagonals of a regular hexagon, connecting diametrically opposite vertices, are twice the length of one side.

From this it can be seen that a triangle with a vertex at the center of the regular hexagon and sharing one side with the hexagon is equilateral, and that the regular hexagon can be partitioned into six equilateral triangles.

NOW, why does Nature love this mathematical shape ?
Instead of persecuting the OP for raising a very scientific question, strain your limited brain capacity and answer that, if you possibly can divert from posting insults. There is always hope.

Re: Snowflakes
 

You're so charming, I can't think why anyone would want to persecute you.

Re: Snowflakes
 

Definitely a troll, no one's that abrasive without it being deliberate. No more feeding from me (hopefully I'll be added to the ever growing ignore list)

Re: Snowflakes
 

:LOL: Someone who thinks Wikipedia is a source of accurate data.

---------- Post added at 16:55 ---------- Previous post was at 16:54 ----------

I expect him to do the same to me shortly, hopefully someone will keep quoting me ;)

Re: Snowflakes
 

So basically, you're a troll who knows how to quote Wikipedia?

Mucho talento. Sorprendente!

Re: Snowflakes
 

Like this?

Though I don't know if Len from Bedford (the most obnoxious individual I've ever had the misfortune to meet - so must be the same person as the OP because there couldn't be two people so vile) will see it as I think I'm still on his ignore list.

Cheers Grim

Re: Snowflakes
 

Yes :D

Re: Snowflakes
 

"under" :D

Re: Snowflakes
 

Crap, gotta go to Bedford tomorrow on the bike to pick up some car parts... Will I be safe from this Len???

Re: Snowflakes
 

For the first time I totally agree with you.

Re: Snowflakes
 

Very safe, he's all bark and no bite.

Cheers

Grim

Re: Snowflakes
 

althouguh you may need to look out for a dodgy dilli in his chair - he may bite ;)

Re: Snowflakes
 

And somewhat disappointingly the OP's status is now 'guest' so I suspect we'll hear no more from him-well at least in that incarnation anyway.

I was wondering if we ever were going to get his explaination as to why hexagons crop up so often in nature, or his understanding of the true nature of gravity - we'll all just have to resign ourselves to living in ignorance as indeed we are doomed to never know what made his TV spontaneously turn itself off.

A sad, sad day indeed.