# Number Pi = religion ,sacred geometry = truth ?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by tom5806, Jul 26, 2015.

1. ### tom5806Registered Member

Messages:
3
Number Pi became our greatest religion in science and mathematics and it is here for over 2000 years ,like a bible . Science is about the truth , number Pi with connection to the circumference is not showing
the truth .

So we pray for number Pi and keep challenge ourselves how much decimals we can remember ,even if memory has nothing to do with logic -we are pretending how much clever we are , while we don't understand the basic shape of the universe , we have also Pi day, when everybody is celebrating our ignorance ,etcetera . No matter for us, that the circle has a finite circumference.

Number Pi is the only option and possibility ,which exists for us , its our God in science. And it seems like that nobody is even trying to find the truth,because we are close enough for all our needs . And number
Tau didn't solve anything just simplified few equations.

So i don't want to just criticise here , but i have the solution. Because i like the truth. I discovered
math system of the universe and created an equation . Equation how to count the circumference without number Pi and with an exact result . Yes ,i know how its sounds ,but the Earth is a sphere and not flat ,also the circle has a finite circumference and not transcendent ,or irrational.

First lets by brave and we must admit two facts :

1.our decimal math system is man made
2. circle has a finite circumference

Another misleading is that we use to think(or many people) that by counting the circumference by more and more decimals of number Pi we getting closer and closer to the final result . This is not a full truth.

We don't know the final result ,so you can just guess . No matter what result you guess , you will figure out
that after few decimals of Pi you can't get any closer to your guessed result . The number which is missing to the end becomes as a constant exactly like the number Pi is. So saying that counting the circumference by
40 decimals of Pi we can reach the accuracy of hydrogen atom is a pure fantasy , simply because we don't
know the value of that constant which we are missing . When i was thinking about this ,the first
constant which crossed my mind was Plank's constant.

Also number Pi has base of Zeno's paradoxes ,and it is not solving any problem at all , but this problem just
multiplies and multiplies by each next decimal. If we want to solve problem ,we need to find different method , not apply the same over and over again .
And i can't not mention the well known Einstein's quotes :

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.

We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.

Now few examples and comparisons :

let's say that the radius =160 000 mm (to get length of approx. 1km circumference)

A. result by Pi of 16 decimals
B. result by well know fraction 22/7
C. result by my equation

A . 1 005 309.649148733824

B. 1 005 714.285714285696
difference(22/7 - Pi) 404.636565551872 mm​

C. 1 005 333.333333333333
difference ( my equation - Pi) 23.684184600599 mm​
the constant in case of 22/7 is approx 0.0404% (well known)
the constant in case of my equation is approx 0.0023%

number Pi counted up to 16 decimals is created by polygon of 100 663 296 sides where is also the same amount of arcs ,which are of course longer than the side.

Now prove to me that this difference in length between the length of arc and and length of side multiplied
by 100 663 296 can't be approx 23 mm per approx of 1km of given circumference .
I don't think that anyone can prove anything here. By another decimal of Pi there will be just the same problem, but multiplied by 2 , hence 201 326 592 arcs and sides .

few more results :

(forget those zeros , its because of win.excel )

My 3 questions - can you prove to me that the results by my equation are wrong ?
- if not, do you think it would be worthy to publish this equation ?
- if yes, how and where ?​

That's why i put this into pseudo science ,because nobody is able to talk about Pi (by my experience) and constantly they mark you as a daily crackpot ,while they are cowards to admit those two facts ,which i mentioned on beginning, constantly using sarcasm and misleading debate ,in the better case someone tries to educate you about number Pi .. Seriously i feel sometimes like,when i say to somebody that the circle has a finite circumference ,like when Giordano Bruno said that we are not alone in the universe.

And finally , partially the answer for my question in the title . The math system which im talking about
is everywhere around us ,sacred geometry, ancient mythology ,ancient ruins , ancient monuments ,pyramids and the universe itself . The most mysterious number is number 432 .
I really wonder why modern science simply ignore this stuff , because for example the number 432 is important part of a very important equation already. Very well know Einstein equation E=MC2 . Simply because 432 x 432 = speed of light - but in miles.

Thanks for reading and sorry for my english , not my native language .

3. ### sideshowbobSorry, wrong number.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
4,564
But it's the only thinking we have.

danshawen likes this.

5. ### krash661[MK6] transitioning scifi to realityValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,973
ponder 3, nothing more.

7. ### BrianHarwarespecialistWe shall Ionize!iRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
813

"A" lpha notation /He/ derivative 27 , 54, 108, 216, 432

Pm me for the answers you seek. Blue...

8. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
31,639
Hello tom5806,

I don't understand. Pi is defined as the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. How can a definition not be true?

Pi is finite, too. Is there a problem?

Tau is just 2 times Pi.

Why haven't you posted your equation so we can take a look at it?

I don't believe anybody is disputing either of these facts. Are they?

You don't think that we get better approximations as we increase the number of decimal places of pi that we use? Why not?

I'm not quite sure what you're saying. Surely using a value of 3.14159 for pi is more accurate than using 3.1. Isn't it? And 3.141592654 would be better again.

So your equation - whatever it is - gives a better approximation to pi than 22/7. Ok. But what are we gaining over existing methods of calculating pi?

Prove to you how? Experimentally? Or mathematically?

You seem to have proved that yourself already, because your results differ from the ones we get when we use the real value of pi.

Why not publish it right here in this thread?

Everybody agrees that circles have a finite circumference. You know what finite means, don't you? It means not infinite. If I have a circle of radius 1 unit, it has a finite circumference of $2\pi$ units. Nobody is saying that its circumference is infinite, are they?

Ok. Show us the equation. Then we can maybe talk about the sacred geometry and so on.

I thought the most mysterious number was 762.5 myself. I guess I was wrong.

A mile is a completely arbitrary unit of length invented by human beings. So is the metre, for that matter. The speed of light is what it is, regardless of the system of units we use. If we measure it in metres per second it is 299 792 458. If we measure it in units of light years per year, it has value 1. If we measure it in furlongs per fortnight, it has some other numerical value. The choice of units doesn't matter, as long as you've defined your units and know what you're talking about.

Notice, though, that pi is a unitless number. That is, it has value 3.14159... no matter what system of units we work in. It's a kind of dimensionless constant of nature, which is what makes it more significant than the number 432 or 762.5.

9. ### tom5806Registered Member

Messages:
3
Thanks for your reply , first of all , Pi is not finite ,if you understand how it is calculated , then you can't say something like that , number Pi is transcendent and irrational .. my advice is for you to watch this video ... or check any other stuff about Pi. Equation by your definition Pi= C/D is still just an approximation ,not exact result for us , because we are unable to count the exact result "C".
And even if you know C then you can't get exact result of D , simply because Pi is approx ., therefore D will be approx as well ,not exact result . Pi itself is truth . But not circumference calculated by pi.
That equation Pi=C/D would be good if we know absolute accuracy of C and D . When you apply this equation into my results Pi will be completely different as you know it .
So example C = 56.55 and D = 18 .. C/D in this case would show Pi with value of 3.14166666666 ..... Not value which you know. The constant 0.0023% means that no matter how many digits of Pi you use ,you will still miss
the value of that constant .

10. ### originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,579
.
Pi is irrational and finite. No matter how many decimal places you go out to Pi will be less than 3.15. So it is obviously finite

That only indicates that the diameter of a circle with a circumference of 56.55 is NOT 18.

11. ### tom5806Registered Member

Messages:
3
seriously .. do you know how number Pi is calculated ? if not please stop answering here ,if you have lack of basic knowledge ... Pi is irrational and transcendent number .. its endless .. until you will post any nonsense again, go on google please and educate your self a bit ... second thing is that you don't have even a basic knowledge of problematic of our decimal math system .. you can't write down exact 1/3 or 2/3 of 10 .. endless number 666666.... means 2/3 ,if it is possible to write down by fraction
thats mean is exact number . 10/3 = 3.3333333333333333 .. its impossible in our decimal math write it down exact 1/3 of 10 ,or 2/3 of 10 .. but it is clearly 1/3 .or 2/3 . the same like 5/3 = 1.6666666666666666 ... which is 2/3 exactly ... you are funny .. "NOT" ...

Last edited: Jul 27, 2015
12. ### SarkusHippomonstrosesquippedalo phobeValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,850
tom5806, no offence mate, but your "equation" is just approximating Pi to 377/120 - which was discovered as a reasonable approximation some 1800-1900 years ago.

It's not particularly accurate in the grand scheme of things, though, and more accuracy can be reached by using 3927/1250, which gives a 0.0002338% accuracy, so an order of magnitude better, or even better than that is 355/113, which is accurate to within a staggering 0.0000085%, so some 277 times more accurate than yours - and just as simple to use. This was first done back in the 4th or 5th century, I think.

You can get more accurate than that using a single fraction, but I believe 355/113 is the most "efficient" - i.e. any more accuracy than that requires more digits to write than it actually gets right.

And when people say it is finite, they mean it is a specific and definite number. Do not confuse that with the fact that it is infinite in length.

13. ### gmilamValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,002
Yes, it's the ratio of the circumference of a circle to it's diameter. It is what it is.

Yeah, so? Is this a problem?

14. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
31,639
tom5806:

It looks like you're confusing the notion of a finite number with the idea of number with a decimal expansion that has a finite number of digits after the decimal point.

If you write pi as a decimal, it has a non-repeating decimal expansion with an infinite number of digits after the decimal point. But pi itself is a finite number. For example, it is a number that lies between 3 and 4, both of which I hope you will agree are finite.

Take the fraction 1/3. That is a finite number. It is between the number 0 and the number 1. But it has an infinite decimal expansion, namely 0.3333.... In this case, it is a rational number and the decimal expansion repeats, but the decimal expansion has an infinite number of digits. The number itself is finite.

Also, notice that the fraction 1/3 has an infinite decimal expansion, but in some other bases it has a finite expansion. For example, in base 3, the fraction 1/3 would be written as 0.1, which does not repeat. To compare, the expansion of pi in base 3 would still be infinite.

I agree with you that pi is irrational and trancendental. I'm not sure if you know exactly what those terms mean at this point.

The equation is one definition of pi. It is exact. To calculate C for a given D, you need to use some kind of approximation to pi, so maybe that's what you're talking about. The equation itself is exact, though. It must be; it's a definition.

I know many ways to calculate pi to any number of decimal places you want. There's even a nice formula that can give you the n-th binary digit of pi, if you want it, for any given n, without having to calculate all the prior digits.
---

On another matter, why haven't you posted your equation yet?

15. ### SarkusHippomonstrosesquippedalo phobeValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,850
Let me help with that...

Not quite the enlightenment I was hoping for.

16. ### originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,579
Yes, luckily you supplied the information. If you look at your column in excel that is titled Difference, you will see how large the error is between your equation and Pi. That difference proves that your equation is wrong.
No there is no reason to publish this.
No where.

You mentioned that other sites (and this site) constantly identify you as a crackpot. Don't you think it is odd that every science site you go to tells you the same thing? Maybe you should reevaluate your thinking based on this input from people that actually have learned quite a bit of math.

Kristoffer likes this.
17. ### originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,579
If you use 355/113 * D the result is

D . 1 005 309.7345133
difference ( my equation - Pi) 0.08536454 mm

So both of our equations are wrong, but mine is less wrong.

By the way 432 x 432 = 186624, which is not the speed of light in miles/sec in a vacuum. It is actually a superluminal speed. But hey, it is close!

Last edited: Jul 28, 2015
18. ### SarkusHippomonstrosesquippedalo phobeValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,850
Plagiarism! Plagiarism! I plagiarised that equation first!!

19. ### originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,579
Damn! Caught again....

20. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
31,639
If this is all it is, why is tom5806 being so secretive about it? Is he afraid we'll steal his claim to first discovery of this miraculous formula?

tom5806: Is your formula based on approximating a circle by a succession of many-sided polygons? Is 754/120 the best approximation you could achieve using that method?

Messages:
18,754
No it's not.

22. ### originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,579
I don't think this is accurate.

Maybe you are thinking of the druids?

Or possible Spinal Tap?