Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why Pi = 3.141 .. instead of 3.144?

page: 5
17
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by JackTheTripper
 


Here's another which points to wolframalpha




posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 01:39 AM
link   

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)


Hi JTR,

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.

Many Thanks,
holiweb.



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 04:35 AM
link   

holiweb

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)


Hi JTR,

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.

Many Thanks,
holiweb.





Dear Holiweb,

One has to think the circle in 3d - from 2d lattice it seems to be circle but it's actually a spiral.
I get the pi-phi relation to 16 by the formula phi*(4/sqrt(phi))^2. As per www.stefanides.gr... :

Using this value for Pi 4/sqrt (phi) as the small side of an orthogonal triangle , 4 its bigger vertical and its hypotenuse 4/sqrt (phi)*phi , inscribing this triangle in a circle of diameter D equal to the hypotenuse = 16 . THIS IS THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF THE CIRCLE= TO THE SQUARE OF THE BIGGER SIDE 4*4= 16 = TO THE IS SQUARE’S PERIMETER.

Multiplying 4*D = 4*(4/sqrt (phi)*phi) = area of circle = (4/sqrt (phi))*(((4/sqrt(phi)*phi)^2)/4)

So we get this Squaring of the Circle relationship, elaborating on PLATO’S TIMAEUS.
edit on 8-12-2013 by JackTheTripper because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by JackTheTripper
 


Pi IS 3.14159....

There is no way out of it.



One has to think the circle in 3d - from 2d lattice it seems to be circle but it's actually a spiral.


Ok then show it. I am not sure if I understand you correctly. Maybe you are thinking of time or hyperdimension or something else.

Elaborate more on the spiral or whatever it is that you are trying to explain?

But PI will always be 3.14159....



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Deaf Alien
reply to post by JackTheTripper
 


Pi IS 3.14159....

There is no way out of it.



One has to think the circle in 3d - from 2d lattice it seems to be circle but it's actually a spiral.


Ok then show it. I am not sure if I understand you correctly. Maybe you are thinking of time or hyperdimension or something else.

Elaborate more on the spiral or whatever it is that you are trying to explain?

But PI will always be 3.14159....


Do the math and please try to disproove.

In section 53, of PLATO’S “TIMAEUS”, PLATO speaks about the triangular shapes of the Four Elemental Bodies, of their kinds and their combinations : These Bodies are the Fire (Tetrahedron) the Earth (Cube), the Water (Icosahedron), and the Air (Octahedron). These are bodies and have depth. The depth necessarily, contains the flat surface and the perpendicular to this surface is a side of a triangle and all the triangles are generated by two kinds of orthogonal triangles : the “ISOSCELES” Orthogonal and the “SCALΕΝΕ” Orthogonal. From the two kinds of triangles the “Isosceles” Orthogonal has one nature. (i.e. one rectangular angle and two acute angles of 45 degrees), whereas the “scalene” has infinite (i.e. it has one rectangular angle and two acute angles of variable values having, these two acute angles, the sum of 90 degrees). From these infinite natures we choose one triangle “THE MOST BEAUTIFUL”. Let us choose then, two triangles, which are the basis of constructing the Fire and the other Bodies : One of these two is the “ISOSCELES” orthogonal triangle, the other is the “SCALENE” orthogonal triangle, its hypotenuse having a value equal to the “CUBE” of the value of its horizontal smaller side and having its vertical bigger side the value of the “SQUARE” of its smaller horizontal side. The value of the smaller horizontal side is equal to the square root of the GOLDEN NUMBER, the ratio of the sides is equal, again, to the square root of the GOLDEN NUMBER (geometrical ratio) and the Tangent of the angle between the hypotenuse and the smaller horizontal side is also equal to the SQUARE ROOT of the GOLDEN NUMBER (Θ=51 49-38-15-9-17-19-54-37-26-24-0 degrees). By applying THE PYTHAGOREAN THEOREM, on this triangle we obtain a biquadratic ((fourth order)) equation:

(T**4-T**2-1=0, from, T**6 = T**4+T**2, via Φ**2-Φ-1=0)
from which we obtain the size of the small perpendicular (T) as the Square root of the Golden Number (T=SQR(Φ)).

It is concluded here that by “THE MOST BEAUTIFUL TRIANGLE”, PLATO correlates the four elements (UNIFIED THEORY) through the General Analogies of their sides (Fire, Air, Earth and Water), i.e. Fire/Air is equal to Air/Water is equal to Water/Earth, to T, where T is equal to the SQUARE ROOT of the GOLDEN NUMBER.
T = sqrt ((sqrt(5) + 1)/2)=1.27201965

The values of the sides of this triangle are given by surd numbers, (solution of a fourth degree equation). Reorganizing this triangle, we get another one with the same angle values, which has its bigger vertical side equal to FOUR (4), its smaller horizontal side equal to FOUR divided by the SQUARE ROOT of the GOLDEN NUMBER, and its hypotenuse equal to FOUR multiplied by the SQUARE ROOT of the GOLDEN NUMBER. (Four divided by the SQUARE ROOT of the GOLDEN NUMBER is equal to 3.14460551)
edit on 8-12-2013 by JackTheTripper because: the text above is direct quote of Mr Panagiotis Stefanides



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by JackTheTripper
 


I am not really understanding you.

Are you saying that 3.14159 IS NOT the ratio of a circle's circumference to it's diameter but 3.14461 instead?



One has to think the circle in 3d - from 2d lattice it seems to be circle but it's actually a spiral.


This makes me think of this. Am I close?



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by JackTheTripper
 





Do the math and please try to disproove.


disprove what?



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


Well, kind of yes, as it relates to poincare disk... like drawing a circle on the surface of a sphere. What does a circle look like if it's circumference C and radius r satisfy the C I have proposed. Anyone with mathematica?
the howto is here: mathematica.stackexchange.com...
edit on 8-12-2013 by JackTheTripper because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join