Would love to hear your thoughts on this

Would love to hear your thoughts on this
I can't make head nor tail of that diagram, so I'm afraid I won't be much help.
Ill give you a hint, Pi may have more reference to being the 16th letter of the greek alphabet then just a cool name. Basically to disect a circle you have to break it into 16 slices first. (360 has 24 variables. 360/24=16) Theres much more to it though I dont want to over state the obvious. What do you not understand about it or where should we start. Note what I will teach you is not taught in schools.
I don't understand. What do you mean by "24 variables"? If you mean factors of division, then .
Your second diagram confuses me. How did you come to the conclusion that Pi is inaccurate? The length of any Euclidean circle's circumference divided by the length of its diameter is and always will be . Also, you can simplify your supposed more accurate ratio "Ci" to ... So I'm guessing your goal was to get rid of Pi's irrationality and replace it with a close but inaccurate ratio of integers?
Also, Pi isn't just involved in circles. So unless you want to destroy the incredible trigonometricexponential relationship that set up the beautiful , as well as pretty much everything else in established mathematics, have fun with that.
Sorry about the 360 24 thing, glad your paying attention. I feel it is inaccurate not because its been changed 6 times in the last 2000 years or that it takes over 100 setups that would, if typed out would take out many small trees in the processing of the paper, to define the most balanced of shape, though because it is not quiet balanced enough for my standards of infinite reliability. It did not make the cut
The number of balance points times a million, divided the non arbitrary degrees of a circle. Then minus the rotations needed to begin to define the circle (with balance (yes balance in a circle)), which is directly connected to the number of balance points (3). Then divided in proportion with the simplest real number square that can contain it. 36 is very prevalent if you progress in the balances.
How come with the current value of pi it is impossible to have a square and a circle with the same exact area? Its not with the new value.
Its origins are similar to a formula to convert degrees kelvin to nanometers. Nanometers measure the wavelengths of the visible light spectrum with a gap of 360 nanometers to 720 nanometers, start to end.
The principles are great, I think we should keep much of their energy though the path they travel, I feel, could have a bit less friction. Is it wrong to want to limit wasted energy and resources?
Last edited by Galileo; February 26th, 2012 at 12:40 PM.
What?
It isn't  or not more so than it's impossible to have two identical squares. The accuracy of the value of pi used for calculation of the area of the circle will always be irrelevant compared to the accuracy of the measurement of the length of the sides of the square.
That seems rather arbitrarily decided. Are you saying we can see from exactly 360nm to exactly 720nm wavelengths? Also, why would you want to convert from temperature to distance, and why is this relevant?
Okay, I'm splitting this off and sending to pseudoscience.
Qoute: That seems rather arbitrarily decided. Are you saying we can see from exactly 360nm to exactly 720nm wavelengths? Also, why would you want to convert from temperature to distance, and why is this relevant?
We can see farther into the ultraviolet then the infared. The relms have similar physics. Lets say that 80% of the way through the visible light spectrum (wavelengths of our elements) produces vitamin x though it is hard to reproduce in a grow bulb for growing indoor plants. Since the relms share the same physics in different proportions we can produce the wavelength that is similar in physical qualities and produce some thing similar to vitamin x. It is not the best and will most likely lead to long term problems in similar ways to pharmaceutical products though it works in some cost benefit ratios. There is uv A,B and C. We can see B and C. I used to be an indoor grower which is why I was messing around with the Kelvin to nanometer formula in the first place. I was trying to find a balance that I could not explain if you can not follow the formula. I have no problems telling you though we need foundation first.
Think of a rainbow slinky that is smaller on one end and goes through the six not seven colors, as the three primes do not split that way, every rotation
to bad we can not do anything with the electromagnetic waves of the solar flares.
It looks like the proof has something to do with the way you relate squares to circles? But I don't see how the current pi value could be off by a full 0.0074 of the truly correct value. Surely we have tools capable of physically drawing circles to a higher precision than that, and then exactly measuring those circles.
Remember that, when logic fails to yield a conclusive result, we can always test our ideas by physically building them in the real world to see if we were right.
Except it hasn't. Pi has only ever had one vale; it can only have one value. There might have been various approximations used (more than 6, I'm sure) but that is irrelevant.
What is that supposed to mean?or that it takes over 100 setups that would, if typed out would take out many small trees in the processing of the paper, to define the most balanced of shape, though because it is not quiet balanced enough for my standards of infinite reliability. It did not make the cut
The number of balance points times a million, divided the non arbitrary degrees of a circle. Then minus the rotations needed to begin to define the circle (with balance (yes balance in a circle)), which is directly connected to the number of balance points (3). Then divided in proportion with the simplest real number square that can contain it. 36 is very prevalent if you progress in the balances.
Of course its not impossible. Define a circle with a diameter and a square with side 1. Done.How come with the current value of pi it is impossible to have a square and a circle with the same exact area?
Maybe you are thinking of the old Greek problem of "squaring the circle"? This is about constructing a circle with the same area as a square using only compass and straightedge  it can be shown that this is impossible (because Pi is irrational).
You can't convert kelvin to nanometres. That is meaningless.Its origins are similar to a formula to convert degrees kelvin to nanometers.
More like 390nm to 750nm.Nanometers measure the wavelengths of the visible light spectrum with a gap of 360 nanometers to 720 nanometers, start to end.
I get the impression you don't know what you are talking about.
Much as black holes put out xrays? I would imagine wavelengths would elongate as they defuse or a wavelength could be made up or alter physics in an adjacent relm which may take longer to defuse away the remnants of do to the environment?. To bad their physics could not be measured to see what they defused from. That has always been a topic of interest for me though I could only speculate off of other physics that perhaps are universal to some arbitrary extent. Like a chem trail.
Strage  I agree pi is irrational. I can not have a real number area from a real number radius in a circle? Who writes this stuff?
I do not want to arbitrarily connect irrational to its meaning...
irrational (adj)  Bing Dictionary
irˇraˇtionˇal [ i ráshən'l ]
 lacking in reason: contrary to or lacking in reason or logic
 lacking logical thought: unable to think logically
 unable to think clearly: lacking the normal ability to think clearly, especially because of shock or injury to the brain
Last edited by Galileo; February 27th, 2012 at 08:02 AM.
And all numbers that are not integers greater than zero are unnatural.
I'm surprised no one went for the "imaginary" pun...
Would that be the square root of minus pun?
Careful, mathematical puns are the first sine of madness. I know that one cos I heard it from a friend.
So...... anyway..... Galileo, how did you arrive at ? Note the trigonometric functions in the pun above. At multiples of Pi there are critical points. That's known to be certain from using the right angle approach in radians. You can test it out. Using "Ci", you will find rather arbitrary values.
We can see exactly none of either. We can see the visible spectrum  which is why it's called the visible spectrum.
We could easily produce light at "80% of the way through" the visible spectrum. We could probably build LEDs that have peak emission at that wavelength.
No we can't. If we could, it wouldn't be ultraviolet, it would be violet.
That's a little vague. There are many formulae which could relate temperature to distance.
The number of colours is also arbitrary. For instance within the 'red' portion, we have magenta, mauve, crimson.....
Harold Thats what I am trying to do. If you have any questions feel free to ask. I came on to discuss math and balance not argue.
Strange  Bad pun I suppose. lol
Brody  ((3000000 / 3600)720) / 36 I like to flex numbers when I get bored. Yes color theory. Do you see how it lines up with the elements? Ever throw a penny in the fire? It burns green. Notice the wavelengths of copper and zinc on the new periodic table? the table holds true for all the elemental photons. Why is the sky blue? Its 78.08 % nitrogen which produces blue photons. Do you see how the second new periodic table is built on these foundations and balances with the three groups of 40 elements when broken into six colors?
Drowsy Turtle. Check to see what wavelength ozone is produced at. To save you time it is 185 nanometers. This is UVB light. We see it as a purple glow though just because we can not see all the photons our rods and cones can pick up similar wavelength physics. I used to design grow bulbs so if you would like to get into this topic I would love to.
Some one mentioned imaginary. All I am asking is that you imagine what was not taught in school. To quote Einstein "Imagination is more important then knowledge."Most_Recent_Periodic_Table_of_Elements.jpg
Last edited by Galileo; February 27th, 2012 at 07:59 PM.
I genuinely can't tell if you do or actually don't know about the standard number system. Do you know what we're talking about here: ? There are many common misconceptions for those not familiar to concepts outside the Real Number system. And from your other thread, it seems like you're confused about the terms "rational" or "irrational".
Also, you talk about "balance" a lot. What exactly do you mean by that? How does the concept come into this proof?
And above all else... Describe how you came to the conclusion that is in any way, shape, or form... wrong.
Ok. I am not so familiar with terms just how the concepts feel. Could not afford college.
Balance. Well symmetries and repeating patterns on constant progressions if that makes sense.
I got this number that looked a lot like pi so I did some comparison study. Here is a sample of what I saw. I noticed it did some strange things...
3.148148148148148148184 / 3 = 1.0493827160493827160493
ci = 3.14814
3ci = 9.444444444444444444444444444444
6ci = 18.88888888888888888888888888888
9ci = 28.33333333333333333333333333333
12ci = 37.77777777777777777777777777777
15ci = 47.22222222222222222222222222222
18ci = 56.66666666666666666666666666666
21ci = 66.1111111111111111111111111111
24ci = 75.55555555555555555555555555555
27ci = 84.99999999999999999999999999999
30ci = 94.44444444444444444444444444444
33ci = 103.88888888888888888888888888888
36ci = 113.33333333333333333333333333333
39ci = 122.77777777777777777777777777777
42ci = 132.22222222222222222222222222222
45ci = 141.66666666666666666666666666666
Ci(r squared / 3 = 18.888
when r = 3
( same as 2(ci)r )
18.8888888888888 = E
E x 2 = 37.7777777777777777777777777777
E x 3 = 56.6666666666666666666666666666
E x 4 = 75.5555555555555555555555555555
E x 5 = 94.4444444444444444444444444444
E x 6 = 113.333333333333333333333333333
E x 7 = 132.222222222222222222222222222
E x 8 =151.111111111111111111111111111
E x 9 = 169.999999999999999999999999999
E x 10 = 188.888888888888888888888888888
E x 11 = 207.777777777777777777777
E x 12 = 226.666666666666666666666
E x 13 = 245.555555555555555555555
E x 14 = 264.444444444444444444444
E x 15 = 283.333333333333333333333
E x 16 = 302.222222222222222222222
E x 17 = 321.111111111111111111111
E x 18 = 339.999999999999999999999
E x 19 = 358.888888888888888888888
E x 20 = 377.777777777777777777777
E x 21 = 396.666666666666666666666
E x 22 = 415.555555555555555555555
E x 23 = 434.444444444444444444444
E x 24 = 453.333333333333333333333 (18 steps away from 113.33333) 24 hours in a day. surface area in Sq units when r = 6
a bit more........
3600 / 18.888888888888 = 356.790123456789012345678901234567890
360  356.7901234567890 = 3.2098765432098765432098765432 (never touches 1)
2(pi)r
R = 3
18.8495559215387594307756
37.6991118430775188615512
56.5486677646162782923268
75.3982236861550377231024
94.247779607693797153878
113.0973355292325565846536
131.9468914507713160154292
150.7964473723100754462048
169.6460032938488348769804
then just some bordem...
360 / 16 = 22.5
18.888888 / 22.5 = 0.839506172839506172839506172839
18.8888888 / ci = 6
6+6+6 = 18
18.88888  18 = .888888
6 x .888888 = 6.75
(1080 / 67.5 = 16)
6 / .8888888 = 5.333333
(5.33333 x 3 = 16)
((ci x 5.3333 = 16.790123456789...
360 x .888888 = A or 320
360  A = B or 40
360 / 40 = 9
.88888 / 9 = 0987654320987...
Are these not recognizable patterns?
Last edited by Galileo; February 27th, 2012 at 08:24 PM.
In good time my anxious friend. First we need to establish a stable foundation.
There is a difference between growing and conquering, one requires imagination, the other requires a parcel to be where they are not productive
Worship was never of interest to me nor do I do well with orders on sites designed to stimulate discussion and expansion of knowledge, I do not find balance in this.
Perhaps you could outline for me how you justify sequestering anything which you do not ascertain under threat of pain to another when no pain or intention of pain has been introduced by the individual being sequestered? Are you a parent?
Last edited by Galileo; February 27th, 2012 at 09:59 PM.
It was a simple request.
This is a thread in pseudoscience. Isn't that good enough? I don't see how this is a threat to the sanity or enjoyment of other members. Anyone who browses the pseudoscience section not expecting a fair amount of cracked pottery is merely a victim of their own mistaken expectations.
In all fairness that's a small difference. Also I'm not sure, but I think not every single last human being's eyes are the same. There's probably some wiggle room on that spectrum where some people can see wavelengths longer than 750 nm, and some can see shorter than 360 nm. I'm not sure though. I'd have to ask in the biology section.... which would make for an interesting thread.
Possibly, but doesn't seem so. To me, it's just the usual confused speculator of a science forum... like me :P It would've been much more obvious that this was a troll. Apparently, he is (or as it seems to him) inching on an unexpected unificative idea of the elements, color theory, and geometry.
kojax, the fact this is in the Pseudoscience section is irrelevant, as most or many of the threads here we're originally posted in the more serious subfora. It really does seem there have been more and more posts recently that haven't been thought through.
Yes. But that's not anything special. You can play around with common repetends and get interesting patterns no matter what ratio you're dealing with.
It seems as though you're searching for some numerical perfection (is that what you mean by "balance"?).
Let me tell you, if you ever find some perfect pattern in anywhere, you will keep running into imperfection.
Observe the repetend , which is approximated by (same except it skips the 8).
The true ratio for the above repetend is in irreducible terms... whose inequivalent square is . Note it skips the 8. And from my experience, in every other way you play around with the numbers you will find chaos out of order. (call it "mathematical entropy")
And don't shy away irrational constants because they're not "perfect". The most important constants in all of mathematics are all irrational, unless you also want to make a case out of and and and and etc. etc. etc.
« ive been ten years regarding this as an hallucination till now  Ronald Patrick Marriott » 