Is 360 really the MOST accurate total angle of a circle?

Good day!
This write-up is about an aspect of “worldwide” mathematics that I find very interesting. Before I state my point, I’ll build up with some needed background.

It is known that there are exactly 10 (ten) different single numerals in life/existence. They are: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. The least: 0 (zero), is known to represent an absence of quantity, but it is obviously very important as the onset of life/existence begins from moment/instant zero; that is, when time starts to progress. After 0 (zero) is 1 (one), which is the first number with a quantity higher than nothing. The maximum single digit is 9 (nine) and then the next number is 10 (ten), whose figure is visibly made up of 1 and 0.

Clearly, from 1 to 9 are the numbers above 0 that are specifically single digits. Therefore this can be described as a “cycle”. The next ten numbers after 9 are: 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19. Notice that there is a unique pattern derived if you add up the constituents of the visible figures of these numbers to produce just a single digit. Starting from 10, (1+0) = 1, for 11, (1+1) = 2, next at 12, (1+2) = 3, then 13, (1+3) = 4, onward still at 14, (1+4) = 5, even further to 15, (1+5) = 6 and so on. This unique pattern carries on in the same 1 to 9 cycle for even larger numbers whose figures have more than 2 constituents. For example, counting from 420 to 425, summing the figure’s constituents gives: for 420, (4+2+0) = 6, next at 421, (4+2+1) = 7, then 422, (4+2+2) = 8, even further to 423, (4+2+3) = 9, onward still at 424, (4+2+4) = 10, in 10, (1+0) = 1, and then progressing more to 425, (4+2+5) = 11, in 11, (1+1) = 2. Reaching towards infinity, this 1 to 9 cycle continues when each number’s figure constituents are added up until a single digit.

Now, I intend to dissect the use of “degrees” as a measure of angles. By what is known in the world today, the total angle of a circle AND the total sum of the angles in a square is 360 degrees. Half of 360 is 180, and a quarter of 360 is 90 (i.e. half of 180). Recalling my concept of summing up figures’ constituents, for 360, (3+6+0) = 9, then 180, (1+8+0) = 9, and at 90, (9+0) = 9. The number 360 is indeed very special as as you keep halving even down to 45, then adding up the figures’ constituents, 9 is always gotten.

I think it would be reasonable that halving an even number should produce a result whose summated figures’ constituents, is ALSO half of that of the said even number. To clarify, using 420 again, half is 210, and in 420, (4+2+0) = 6, then for 210, (2+1+0) = 3. This correlates as 3 is indeed half of 6. Back to the total degree angle of a circle and square, 360 does not provide this “halving correlation”. Considering adequate precision, I therefore suggest 370 as a suitable improvement because halving it does actually produce a remarkable correlation in the sum of the figures’ constituents. Proof: for 370, (3+7+0) = 10 [yes,] and halving 370 gives 185, then (1+8+5) = 14, in 14, (1+4) = 5. Kindly observe that half of 10 is exactly 5. In the 1 to 9 cycle of single digits, 5 is exactly in the middle/center!

In conclusion, to me, 370 is a more appropriate measure of the total angle of a circle or square; where an “ideal” right angle is actually a quarter of 370 to give a decimal of 92.5.