Originally posted by JackTheTripper
4 cos(pi / 4) = 2.82842712
sqrt(10) = 3.16227766
edit on 10-12-2011 by JackTheTripper because: (no reason given)
I have been studying your math and all of the background resources you have provided on the derivation of a fundamental relationship between Phi and
Pi. Firstly I commend you on your efforts and probably one of the only few who have come to this thread and actually understood it ... I have a PhD in
Physics and Maths, have launched a few communications satellites, and have studied metaphysics and am open to new knowledge that sets mainstream
science back on a more fundamentally accurate path.
It too me quite a while to independently derive your Pi Phi formula, but I finally succeeded and reproduced the spreadsheet calculations you supplied
in the original 2011 post quoted here. I would love to believe the accuracy of your discovery as it offers scope for improved engineering of systems
requiring synchronous high speed rotational operations, etc ...
However, I get hung up on one specific point:
The value of 16 in your formula ( pi = sqrt(16/PHI) ) is derived from some reasonable (but not fundamental) geometric arguments and some very
approximate measurements of the dimensions of the Great Pyramid.
If the measurements are only a fraction of a percent out, the value of 16 cannot be taken as gospel, and one has to fall back on the argument that the
geometric argument of expansion to a 16 square is reasonably valid.
YOu get the current scientific value of Pi (3.14159265.....) by using the Phi-Pi relation with a value of 15.96935537648 rather than 16 in the
equation, which is only a small difference from the formula you propose, and not out of order in terms of the inaccuracies inherent in the Giza
dimensional measurement accuracies.
Therefore, if all we have to fall back on is the 16 square geometric principle, I am afraid that i would not stake my reputation and indeed my life on
the accuracy of the formula as you have presented it.
I still have an open mind though and would like to see you prove in more depth why the value of 16 is fundamentally accurate, beyond any shadow of a
doubt. If you are correct, this is significant for both engineering and science.
However, I am sitting on the fence at the moment and cannot be swayed to your side until further unrefutable evidence, to the required level of
precision and confidence, and/or other arguments that have holistic integrity can be put forward.
I would love to discuss what other facts and justification you can put forward and congratulate you in advance that you can meet the challenge.