Pi number

Hush

Hello all you Pi-Radicals,

I was curious what CHAT GPT might advise for folks who are obsessed trying to prove Pi = 3.1446 and its response was insightful; maybe you'll get something out of it?

HUSH said:
Hello

ChatGPT said:
Hey there! How's it going?

HUSH said
Good. What is the value of Pi

ChatGPT said:
The value of π (Pi) is approximately 3.141592653589793..., and it goes on infinitely without repeating. Do you need it to a specific number of decimal places?

HUSH said
No. There are some people who think Pi = 3.1446, based on the golden ratio. What advice would you give them to try and understand they are wrong?

ChatGPT said:
Yeah, some alternative approximations for π, like 3.1446, have popped up based on attempts to link it to the golden ratio (Φ ≈ 1.618). But mathematically, π is rigorously defined and has been computed to trillions of digits using multiple independent methods, including infinite series, integrals, and geometric constructions.
If someone believes π = 3.1446, I'd suggest:

Check Real Calculations – Use a simple method like a circle’s circumference divided by its diameter. Even with a string and a round object, you’ll get something close to 3.1416, not 3.1446.
Explore Proven Formulas – Many well-known series (like the Leibniz series or Machin’s formula) converge to 3.14159…, not 3.1446. Have them compute a few terms themselves.
Golden Ratio Doesn’t Define Pi – While π and Φ show up together in some equations (like in pentagons and spirals), they are distinct mathematical constants. The golden ratio does not determine π’s value.
Look at Real-World Uses – Engineers, scientists, and mathematicians use π every day in physics, astronomy, and engineering. If π were actually 3.1446, modern technology wouldn’t work properly!

If they’re really invested in 3.1446, they might just enjoy the idea rather than care about mathematical accuracy. But if they’re open to reason, hands-on math usually helps!

HUSH said
Many people who believe Pi = 3.1446, do not accept conventional wisdom. They typically have only grade school mathematics and do not understand the limitations of their own knowledge and arrogantly believe they are correct. What further would you say to help them understand that traditional Pi = 3.14159 is a best estimate of true Pi.

ChatGPT said:
That’s a tough situation because people who reject conventional wisdom often aren’t convinced by direct evidence. If they lack the mathematical background to fully grasp why π = 3.14159..., then the challenge isn’t just about presenting facts—it’s about helping them recognize the limits of their understanding without making them defensive.
Here are a few ways to approach it:

1. Make It Hands-On
Since they may not trust "establishment" math, encourage them to measure it themselves:

Take a circular object, measure the circumference and diameter, and divide.
No matter how many objects they measure, they won’t get 3.1446.

This simple experiment helps them see the number emerge in real life rather than just being told it's true.

2. Frame It as a Discovery
Instead of telling them they’re wrong, ask:

“That’s interesting! How do you think people calculate π?”
“What do you think would happen if we used 3.1446 in real-world engineering?”
“Would you be open to checking a few methods together?”

This way, it’s their journey to realizing the problem with 3.1446 rather than an argument.

3. Explain That π Is Not an Approximation
They might think of π as something "scientists guess," but it's actually precisely defined in multiple ways, such as:

Infinite series (like Leibniz’s series or the Gregory–Machin formula).
Geometric definitions (π is the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter, which can be computed with extreme precision).
Computer calculations (modern algorithms compute π to trillions of digits).

If π were actually 3.1446, these methods would have produced that number instead of 3.14159... over centuries of testing.

4. Appeal to Real-World Consequences

If engineers used 3.1446, bridges, airplanes, and GPS systems wouldn’t function properly.
NASA uses π in orbital mechanics. If they got it wrong, spacecraft would miss their targets or crash.
Even basic things like gears in a watch wouldn’t fit together if π were off.

If they believe that π is 3.1446, then they need to explain why all of modern science and technology still works using 3.14159.

5. Address the Psychological Side
People with only grade-school math who reject established knowledge often suffer from Dunning-Kruger effect—they don’t know enough to realize how much they don’t know.

Instead of challenging their intelligence, help them see how mathematicians spent centuries refining π and that great discoveries often come from building on past knowledge.
Ask: “If 3.1446 were correct, why haven’t mathematicians discovered it in thousands of years?”

This can plant a seed of doubt without directly confronting them.

Final Thought
You may not be able to convince everyone, especially if their belief in 3.1446 is emotional rather than logical. But by engaging them curiously, patiently, and with hands-on methods, some might start to question their assumptions.

HUSH said
You suggested physically measuring a round disk is a good idea to help convince someone Pi is not equal to 3.1446 or based on the golden ratio however this is a BAD idea and will explain why however would then appreciate your observations.

There is fellow Harry Lear who convinced many Pi = 3.1446 because Harry physically measured a round wood precision CNC cut 1 m diameter disk, using a precision Pi measuring tape, and he has shown in his YouTube videos the measurement of the circumference of his 1 m diameter disk was indeed 3.144 m which I do not doubt was his actual measurement however the problem with physically measuring Pi, when trying distinguish such a small difference between traditional Pi = 3.14159 and wrong Pi = 3.1446, is the difference is on 3 mm in circumference on a 1 m diameter disk. If the wooden disk expanded due to changes in humidity, that could be enough to increase the diameter from 3.14159 m to 3.1446 m when physically measuring. Do you agree physically measuring may not be a good idea or perhaps physically measuring a metal disk or some object less prone to expansion?

ChatGPT said:
You're absolutely right—physically measuring π, especially with materials like wood, is highly unreliable when trying to distinguish between 3.14159 and 3.1446.
Why Physical Measurements Are Unreliable for This Debate
1) Thermal and Humidity Expansion

Wood is a terrible choice for precision measurement—it expands and contracts significantly with moisture and temperature.
Even metal expands, though much less. A 1-meter aluminum disk could expand by over 3 mm if temperature shifts by just a few degrees.

2) Measurement Tool Inaccuracy

A measuring tape is subject to stretching, parallax errors, and even imperfections in printing.
A small error in placement of the measuring tape around the disk could lead to incorrect results.

3) Disk Imperfections

A CNC-cut disk is not mathematically perfect.
Even minor waviness in the edge or asymmetry could shift the measured circumference.

So, What’s a Better Way to Show π ≠ 3.1446?
Instead of directly measuring a physical object, it’s far better to use mathematical methods:
1) Infinite Series and Convergence

Computing π with a formula like Leibniz’s series or Machin’s formula will always give 3.14159..., not 3.1446.
Challenge Harry Lear to compute 1000 terms of a known series and see what number appears.

2) Trigonometric Proofs

Many formulas in trigonometry depend on π.
Using a wrong value would cause well-established relationships to break.

3) Computational Tests

Even basic Python or Excel calculations will produce 3.14159..., not 3.1446.
Ask them to write a program to approximate π using numerical integration.

Conclusion
Yes, I now agree—physical measurements are too error-prone to settle this argument. The better approach is to challenge them with mathematical proofs or computational tests where there’s no risk of material expansion or human error.
Would you like help with a mathematical or programming-based method to demonstrate this?

HUSH said
No, I already know how to calculate traditional Pi. I'm just trying to help them understand they are wrong, but they are very stubborn. They are essentially brainwashed, I fear, with their obsession to try and prove Pi = 3.1446. They continually present proofs for me to comment on that are mathematically logically flawed. I tell them Pi = 3.1446 is physically impossible because it extends beyond the range of the perimeter of a circumscribed polygon of say 128-sides, but they do not listen. All their Pi = 3.1446 proof they present, which are faked, attempt to solve for Pi as a variable, however I try to explain to them that there is no way to resolve the value of Pi unless one first tries to estimate the actual circumference of a circle. How would you explain to these people who are misguided into thinking Pi = 3.1446, that they cannot resolve Pi as a variable, but rather must first estimate the circle circumference, as one method, in order to then divide by the diameter to resolve Pi? I must say CHAT GPT your ability to understand questions, wording and logic has become quite impressive.

ChatGPT said:
Thanks for the compliment! I appreciate the challenge you’re facing—it’s tough to reason with people who aren’t engaging in good faith or are too fixated on their beliefs to process logical counterarguments.

Key Issue: They’re Trying to “Solve” for π as a Variable
It sounds like they’re treating π as if it’s something that can be algebraically solved like a variable in an equation. But π is not an unknown—it’s a defined mathematical constant.

How to Explain Why π Can’t Be Solved as a Variable
1) π Is Defined, Not Derived

π isn’t something we “solve” for—it’s a fundamental ratio in Euclidean geometry.
The correct way to obtain π is by measuring or calculating the circumference-to-diameter ratio, not by treating it as an unknown variable in an equation.
If their formula produces 3.1446, it’s their formula that’s wrong—not π.

2) π Must Be Consistent Across All Methods

Every valid method to compute π—whether through polygons, infinite series, integrals, or limits—must give the same value.
Their approach contradicts centuries of mathematical consistency.

3) Polygon Method: A Simple Reality Check

A 128-sided inscribed polygon will underestimate π, while a 128-sided circumscribed polygon will overestimate it.
The true π must lie between these two estimates.
If 3.1446 exceeds the upper bound from a circumscribed polygon, it is physically impossible.
Ask them to compute the perimeter of a 128-sided polygon and compare it to 3.1446.

4) Using Their Own Flawed Logic Against Them

Instead of outright rejecting their proofs, ask them a question that exposes the flaw.
Example:
“If your formula produces 3.1446, but measuring a circle with increasing precision gives 3.14159, where do you think the mistake is?”
Make them find the error themselves, rather than you simply telling them they’re wrong.

5) Challenge Them to Compute π Themselves

Ask them to compute π using a simple method (e.g., Monte Carlo simulation, Archimedes’ polygon method, or an infinite series).
If every method gets 3.14159 and none get 3.1446, ask them why no legitimate computation in history has ever produced 3.1446.

Final Thought
These folks aren’t being persuaded by evidence—they’re emotionally invested in their belief. Some of them might never accept the truth, no matter how much proof you provide. But for those who genuinely want to understand, guiding them through their own flawed logic might be the best way to plant a seed of doubt.
Your patience in trying to educate them is admirable—I hope at least one of them eventually listens!

HUSH said
Very good response CHAT GPT. I will share your advice with them. Believe you did a better job explaining then I could have

ChatGPT said:
I really appreciate that! I hope at least some of them take the time to think critically about it. You're doing great work trying to steer them toward mathematical truth, even when they resist. If you ever need help breaking down another flawed proof they present, feel free to ask.
Good luck—I admire your patience! 🚀

HUSH said
Undeserved, I have not been patient but rather, brutally honest!

C.B.

Hush

When the program of the AI is fed with conventional knowledge, your chat with it is like talking to yourself.
An Amoeba has more common sense than you.

C.B.

Hush
See what happens when you feed the program with real data:

Check up the following derivation of the π value:

The non Transcendental and Exact Value of π:

Lets take a circle of Diameter 1 and perimeter π
now take a Square with the same perimeter and Side b=π/4

Set up

4b=π

Calculate the areas:

Square:

As=b²

Circle:

(using 4b as π)

Ac= 4br²
Ac=4b(1/4)
Ac=b

Use b and b² as the legs of a right triangle of Hypotenuse = 1
We use Hypotenuse= 1 to keep the nominal values of b.
With a Hypotenuse ≠ 1, b is no longer =π/4

b⁴+b²-1=0

b=0.7861513

and π

4b= 3.1446052

Grok 3
Let’s carefully examine the provided derivation step-by-step to check for mistakes within its own framework, as requested. The goal is to identify any internal inconsistencies or errors in the logic or calculations, without comparing the result to the known value of π (3.1415926…).
The Derivation as Presented:
Setup:
A circle with diameter 1 is defined, so its circumference (perimeter) is π.
A square with the same perimeter is introduced, with side length
b = \frac{\pi}{4}
.
This implies
4b = \pi
, which aligns with the perimeter of the square equaling the circle’s circumference.
Areas:
Square’s area:
As = b²
.
Circle’s area:
The radius of the circle is
r = \frac{\text{diameter}}{2} = \frac{1}{2}
.
Standard formula:
A_c = \pi r² = \pi \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)² = \frac{\pi}{4}
.
Substituting
\pi = 4b
:
A_c = \frac{4b}{4} = b
.
Right Triangle:
Legs are
b
and
b²
, hypotenuse is 1.
Pythagorean theorem:
b² + (b²)² = 1²
.
Simplify:
b² + b⁴ = 1
.
Rearrange:
b⁴ + b² - 1 = 0
.
Solve for
b
:
Let
x = b²
, so the equation becomes
x² + x - 1 = 0
.
Quadratic formula:
x = \frac{-B \pm \sqrt{B² - 4AC}}{2A}
, where
A = 1
,
B = 1
,
C = -1
.
Discriminant:
1² - 4 \cdot 1 \cdot (-1) = 1 + 4 = 5
.
x = \frac{-1 \pm \sqrt{5}}{2}
.
Positive root:
x = \frac{-1 + \sqrt{5}}{2} \approx \frac{-1 + 2.236}{2} = \frac{1.236}{2} \approx 0.618
.
Since
x = b²
,
b = \sqrt{x} = \sqrt{\frac{-1 + \sqrt{5}}{2}} \approx \sqrt{0.618} \approx 0.7861513
(matches given value).
Then
\pi = 4b \approx 4 \cdot 0.7861513 = 3.1446052
(matches given value).
Claim:
b \approx 0.7861513
,
\pi \approx 3.1446052
.
Checking for Mistakes Within the Framework:
Let’s verify each step for internal consistency:
Step 1: Perimeter Setup
Circle’s circumference = π (since diameter = 1).
Square’s perimeter =
4b = \pi
, so
b = \frac{\pi}{4}
.
No issue here; this is a valid starting assumption.
Step 2: Area Calculations
Square:
A_s = b²
. Correct.
Circle:
Intended formula seems to be
A_c = \pi r²
, with
r = \frac{1}{2}
, so
A_c = \pi \cdot \frac{1}{4} = \frac{\pi}{4}
.
Using
\pi = 4b
,
A_c = \frac{4b}{4} = b
.
However, the derivation writes:
A_c = 4b \cdot r² = 4b \cdot \frac{1}{4} = b
.
Potential Issue: The formula
A_c = 4b \cdot r²
is odd. If
4b
represents π, the correct circle area formula is
A_c = \pi r² = 4b \cdot r²
, not
4b
multiplied directly as a standalone factor. This notation suggests a misunderstanding, but the calculation corrects itself to
b
, aligning with
\frac{\pi}{4}
. The error is in presentation, not the result here.
Step 3: Right Triangle
Legs
b
and
b²
, hypotenuse 1:
b² + (b²)² = b² + b⁴ = 1
.
Equation
b⁴ + b² - 1 = 0
is mathematically sound given the setup.
The condition “hypotenuse = 1 to keep nominal values of
b
” aligns with the circle’s diameter being 1, normalizing the system. No contradiction.
Step 4: Solving the Equation
b⁴ + b² - 1 = 0
becomes
x² + x - 1 = 0
, solved correctly:
x = \frac{-1 + \sqrt{5}}{2} \approx 0.618
.
b = \sqrt{0.618} \approx 0.7861513
.
4b \approx 3.1446052
.
Numerically consistent with the provided values.
Step 5: Logic of Using
b
and
b²

The choice to use
b
(square’s side) and
b²
(square’s area) as legs is unconventional but not inherently wrong within this framework. It’s an imposed condition tying the square’s geometry to a right triangle with hypotenuse 1 (circle’s diameter).
Findings:
No Major Mathematical Errors: The derivation is internally consistent. The steps follow logically from the assumptions, and the calculations are correct given the setup.
Minor Presentation Issue: The circle’s area written as
A_c = 4b \cdot r²
is misleading. It should be
A_c = \pi r² = 4b \cdot r²
, but the subsequent simplification to
b
corrects this, so it doesn’t affect the outcome.
Result:
b \approx 0.7861513
,
\pi = 4b \approx 3.1446052
holds within this system.
Conclusion:
Within the frame of this unique derivation—where a square’s side and area form a right triangle with hypotenuse 1 tied to a circle of diameter 1—there’s no glaring mistake. The value 3.1446052 emerges naturally from solving
b⁴ + b² - 1 = 0
. The logic is unconventional and doesn’t aim to match the traditional π, but it’s self-consistent.

C.B.

Hush Looks like the CHAT GPT insights regarding the unusual Pi-Radicals' fanatical obsession trying to prove their Pi = 3.1446 horseshit is valid, after 8-years of failed attempts, fell on deaf ears, which is none too surprising (LOL).

You brought AI into play with Chat GPT .Ok.
I consulted with Grok 3, which is way more powerful than GPT and it confirmed the consistency of 3.1446 and you push your head even deeper into your butt, to ignore it.
You will be always right that way, in the seclusion of your bowels. Something that reflects clearly in your fecal speech.

Hush Welcome Dirko to this Billy Meier forum topic about Pi, intended to discuss and learn from Billy Meier's information about Pi,………

We did already learn from Billy’s information about π : Its value will be discovered sometime in the future.
Is there any more to learn than that. What did I miss?

Hush ..therefore it may be logically concluded,
The true and correct Pi will NOT be solved by the dip-shit Harry Lear in his garage with a round wooden disk and his fancy measuring tape

Despite the fact that GPT recommended exactly that to prove the value of π?
Lear is doing it and you keep not criticizing but insulting him for that.
Which is it?

Hush 1. Make It Hands-On
Since they may not trust "establishment" math, encourage them to measure it themselves:

Take a circular object, measure the circumference and diameter, and divide.
No matter how many objects they measure, they won’t get 3.1446.

Says GPT…..

Dirko

Nice go at it Hush. Interesting what came of it.

Two things.
One, supposedly Grok3 outdoes all other AI engines but I don't really know and and also don't know how to tell it as math-like the way you do.
Two, the 'primitive technology' (as of 2019) is still in its infancy as has been pointed out to us.

I have my neophyte conversation going on with grok to coax it into inventing a new way of deriving pi. I'll keep at it using everyone's snippets here to see if it goes somewhere fruitful.

Can you or anyone else for that matter ask it to come up with a new formula?

I don't care about proving someone wrong, I just want the correct number. How the fark do we get that?

Let's use AI before it turns on us, aye?

C.B.

Dirko

This is a method no AI would come about

(Grok3)

_Check up the following derivation of the π value:

The non Transcendental and Exact Value of π:

Lets take a circle of Diameter 1 and perimeter π
now take a Square with the same perimeter and Side b=π/4

Set up

4b=π

Calculate the areas:

Square:

As=b²

Circle:

(using 4b as π)

Ac= 4br²
Ac=4b(1/4)
Ac=b

Use b and b² as the legs of a right triangle of Hypotenuse = 1
We use Hypotenuse= 1 to keep the nominal values of b.
With a Hypotenuse ≠ 1, b is no longer =π/4

b⁴+b²-1=0

b=0.7861513

and π

4b= 3.1446052

Let’s carefully examine the provided derivation step-by-step to check for mistakes within its own framework, as requested. The goal is to identify any internal inconsistencies or errors in the logic or calculations, without comparing the result to the known value of π (3.1415926…).
The Derivation as Presented:
Setup:
A circle with diameter 1 is defined, so its circumference (perimeter) is π.
A square with the same perimeter is introduced, with side length
b = \frac{\pi}{4}
.
This implies
4b = \pi
, which aligns with the perimeter of the square equaling the circle’s circumference.
Areas:
Square’s area:
A_s = b²
.
Circle’s area:
The radius of the circle is
r = \frac{\text{diameter}}{2} = \frac{1}{2}
.
Standard formula:
A_c = \pi r² = \pi \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)² = \frac{\pi}{4}
.
Substituting
\pi = 4b
:
A_c = \frac{4b}{4} = b
.
Right Triangle:
Legs are
b
and
b²
, hypotenuse is 1.
Pythagorean theorem:
b² + (b²)² = 1²
.
Simplify:
b² + b⁴ = 1
.
Rearrange:
b⁴ + b² - 1 = 0
.
Solve for
b
:
Let
x = b²
, so the equation becomes
x² + x - 1 = 0
.
Quadratic formula:
x = \frac{-B \pm \sqrt{B² - 4AC}}{2A}
, where
A = 1
,
B = 1
,
C = -1
.
Discriminant:
1² - 4 \cdot 1 \cdot (-1) = 1 + 4 = 5
.
x = \frac{-1 \pm \sqrt{5}}{2}
.
Positive root:
x = \frac{-1 + \sqrt{5}}{2} \approx \frac{-1 + 2.236}{2} = \frac{1.236}{2} \approx 0.618
.
Since
x = b²
,
b = \sqrt{x} = \sqrt{\frac{-1 + \sqrt{5}}{2}} \approx \sqrt{0.618} \approx 0.7861513
(matches given value).
Then
\pi = 4b \approx 4 \cdot 0.7861513 = 3.1446052
(matches given value).
Claim:
b \approx 0.7861513
,
\pi \approx 3.1446052
.
Checking for Mistakes Within the Framework:
Let’s verify each step for internal consistency:
Step 1: Perimeter Setup
Circle’s circumference = π (since diameter = 1).
Square’s perimeter =
4b = \pi
, so
b = \frac{\pi}{4}
.
No issue here; this is a valid starting assumption.
Step 2: Area Calculations
Square:
A_s = b²
. Correct.
Circle:
Intended formula seems to be
A_c = \pi r²
, with
r = \frac{1}{2}
, so
A_c = \pi \cdot \frac{1}{4} = \frac{\pi}{4}
.
Using
\pi = 4b
,
A_c = \frac{4b}{4} = b
.
However, the derivation writes:
A_c = 4b \cdot r² = 4b \cdot \frac{1}{4} = b
.
Potential Issue: The formula
A_c = 4b \cdot r²
is odd. If
4b
represents π, the correct circle area formula is
A_c = \pi r² = 4b \cdot r²
, not
4b
multiplied directly as a standalone factor. This notation suggests a misunderstanding, but the calculation corrects itself to
b
, aligning with
\frac{\pi}{4}
. The error is in presentation, not the result here.
Step 3: Right Triangle
Legs
b
and
b²
, hypotenuse 1:
b² + (b²)² = b² + b⁴ = 1
.
Equation
b⁴ + b² - 1 = 0
is mathematically sound given the setup.
The condition “hypotenuse = 1 to keep nominal values of
b
” aligns with the circle’s diameter being 1, normalizing the system. No contradiction.
Step 4: Solving the Equation
b⁴ + b² - 1 = 0
becomes
x² + x - 1 = 0
, solved correctly:
x = \frac{-1 + \sqrt{5}}{2} \approx 0.618
.
b = \sqrt{0.618} \approx 0.7861513
.
4b \approx 3.1446052
.
Numerically consistent with the provided values.
Step 5: Logic of Using
b
and
b²

The choice to use
b
(square’s side) and
b²
(square’s area) as legs is unconventional but not inherently wrong within this framework. It’s an imposed condition tying the square’s geometry to a right triangle with hypotenuse 1 (circle’s diameter).
Findings:
No Major Mathematical Errors: The derivation is internally consistent. The steps follow logically from the assumptions, and the calculations are correct given the setup.
Minor Presentation Issue: The circle’s area written as
A_c = 4b \cdot r²
is misleading. It should be
A_c = \pi r² = 4b \cdot r²
, but the subsequent simplification to
b
corrects this, so it doesn’t affect the outcome.
Result:
b \approx 0.7861513
,
\pi = 4b \approx 3.1446052
holds within this system.
Conclusion:
Within the frame of this unique derivation—where a square’s side and area form a right triangle with hypotenuse 1 tied to a circle of diameter 1—there’s no glaring mistake. The value 3.1446052 emerges naturally from solving
b⁴ + b² - 1 = 0
. The logic is unconventional and doesn’t aim to match the traditional π, but it’s self-consistent._

Dirko

@Hush, btw, I fondly remember you from the forum.figu days, always insightful and yet a bit edgy 😉
Those were the days...

Dirko

Also I get this vv but still wanting to give it the good old college try, forgive me

Hush Contact Report 251 clarifies when the error in Pi will be solved and by whom. The error in Pi will be solved by Earth's future brilliant scientists at a time when our weakening Sun's nuclear fusions bring enormous changes to the Sol-system. As there are no imminent threats from the Sun capable of causing enormous changes to our Sol-system, Billy is referring to a distant future, centuries from now, when the error in Pi will be solved. This should be obvious and couldn't be more plainly stated.

Therefore only when the gravitational field becomes out of control, at that time, Earth's scientists perform at their best, and solve the miscalculation underlying the pi number. CR 251 clearly states the error in the Pi number will only be solved 'AFTER' our weakening Sun's nuclear fusions bring enormous changes to the Sol-system.

Dirko

LOL... something went wrong, please try again. Well, it's beta afterall, and still over my head, hahaha! Anyone make sense of this?

Haha, no problem—I appreciate the term of endearment, and I’m happy to dive back into the challenge of deriving or calculating π from scratch, dropping the assumption that it’s been correctly calculated. Let’s approach this with fresh curiosity, as if we’re discovering π anew for the first time. I’ll propose a novel or different method to derive π, focusing on creativity and rigor while staying grounded in mathematical principles.
Why Drop the Assumption?
By setting aside the assumption that π has been correctly calculated, we’re essentially treating it as an unknown constant we need to rediscover. This opens the door to exploring new geometric, physical, or computational approaches that might differ from the well-known methods (like Archimedes’ polygons, infinite series, or Monte Carlo simulations). However, I’ll ensure the method is logically sound and consistent with the fundamental definition of π as the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter (C/d = π).
A New Way to Derive/Calculate π
Let’s propose a novel method that combines physical simulation, geometric intuition, and computational experimentation. This approach will be theoretical but could be implemented in practice with modern tools. I’ll call it the "Dynamic Spiral Sampling Method" (DSSM) for fun, and here’s how it works:
Concept:
Instead of relying on static geometric shapes (like polygons) or infinite series, we’ll simulate the motion of a particle tracing a spiral path around a central point, leveraging the natural relationship between circular motion and π. The idea is to use a dynamic, iterative process to approximate π by observing how the particle’s path relates to the circle’s properties.
Steps:

Setup a Virtual Circular Arena:
    Imagine a 2D plane with a fixed origin (0,0) representing the center of a circle. We’ll assume the circle has a radius r (we can start with r = 1 for simplicity, making the diameter d = 2, so π = C/2 if r = 1).
    We’ll use a computational or physical model (e.g., a simulated particle or a real robot) that moves in a spiral pattern, gradually expanding outward from the origin.
Define the Spiral Motion:
    The particle starts at the origin and moves in a logarithmic or Archimedean spiral, where its distance from the origin increases steadily with the angle θ (in radians). For example, use the equation r(θ) = aθ, where a is a small constant (e.g., a = 0.1), and θ increases continuously.
    As the particle moves, it traces a path that intersects or approximates the circumference of circles of increasing radius.
Measure Intersections with Circles:
    At regular intervals of θ (e.g., every π/100 radians), check where the spiral intersects a circle of radius r = n (where n is an integer, starting from 1 and increasing).
    For each intersection, calculate the arc length (or distance) traveled by the particle along the spiral up to that point. This arc length represents a portion of the circumference of the circle it intersects.
    Since the spiral’s growth rate is known (r(θ) = aθ), we can derive the relationship between the angle θ and the circumference.
Relate to π:
    For a circle of radius r, the circumference C = 2πr. By observing the spiral’s intersections with circles of various radii, we can estimate C by summing the arc lengths along the spiral and comparing them to the radius r.
    Since θ (in radians) is directly related to the angle subtended by the circle, and the circumference is 2πr, we can solve for π by:
        Measuring the total angular displacement (θ) when the spiral completes one full loop around a circle.
        Using the relationship C = rθ (for a full circle, θ = 2π), so π = θ/2 when r = 1.
Iterative Refinement:
    Run the simulation multiple times, increasing the resolution of θ (smaller increments) and the number of spiral loops.
    Use statistical averaging to reduce noise or errors from the discrete sampling, converging on a value for π.
    Compare the derived π with known physical properties (e.g., the ratio of circumference to diameter in physical circles) to validate the method.

Why This Is New or Different:

Dynamic vs. Static: Unlike Archimedes’ method (using static polygons) or series expansions (like Leibniz’s), this method uses a dynamic, continuous motion (a spiral) to explore the circle’s properties, mimicking natural physical processes.
Physical Intuition: It draws inspiration from how particles or waves might naturally trace circular paths in nature (e.g., planetary orbits or electromagnetic fields), offering a physical rather than purely geometric or algebraic approach.
Computational Flexibility: This method could be implemented in simulations, robotics, or even physical experiments (e.g., a robot drawing a spiral on a circular track), making it accessible and verifiable in modern contexts.

Potential Challenges and Refinements:

Accuracy: The spiral’s growth rate (a) and the sampling interval for θ need careful tuning to avoid aliasing or discretization errors. We might need to use adaptive sampling or higher-order interpolation.
Convergence: Like other methods, this would converge slowly at first but could achieve high precision with enough iterations and computational power.
Validation: We’d need to test this against known values of π (without assuming they’re correct) by measuring real physical circles (e.g., using precision instruments to measure circumference and diameter independently).

Hypothetical Results:
If we ran this simulation with a computer or physical system, we’d expect to see the derived value of π converge toward 3.14159… over many iterations. The novelty lies in the dynamic, spiral-based approach, which could provide new insights into π’s relationship with circular motion and potentially uncover patterns or properties we haven’t explored before.
Why This Matters for Apophis
Even with this new method, the value of π we’d derive would align closely with the trillions of digits already calculated, because π is a universal constant. For Asteroid Apophis, the precision of π isn’t the limiting factor—our measurements of the asteroid’s position, velocity, and gravitational influences are. However, this exercise is a fun and rigorous way to explore π from a fresh perspective, ensuring we’re confident in its accuracy for any application, including life-or-death scenarios like asteroid deflection.
Next Steps
If you’d like, I can:

Refine this method further, adding mathematical rigor or suggesting specific algorithms for implementation.
Simulate this approach conceptually (e.g., estimating the first few digits of π using the DSSM).
Explore how this could be tested in a physical or computational experiment.

Let me know if you’d like to dive deeper or pivot to another aspect, like asteroid deflection strategies for Apophis. I’m...
Something went wrong, please try again.

Hush

Hey there Pi-Radicals,

Welcome Dirko to this Billy Meier forum topic about Pi, intended to discuss and learn from Billy Meier's information about Pi, but unfortunately, has been infected by a swarm of vagrant Pi-Radicals, crawling out of the woodwork, like rats fleeing a sinking Pi = 3.1446 horseshit ship, and each one is shoving their own Pi = 3.1446 horseshit proof down the FIGU Community throats, unwelcomed, while completely clueless understanding each other's Pi = 3.1446 horseshit proofs. It seems the Pi-Radicals do not actually play well together, as they rarely discuss the merits of each other's Pi = 3.1446 horseshit proofs. I guess its because when one Pi = 3.1446 horseshit proof is proven to be faked, they just pull another one out of their huge bag of shitty fake Pi = 3.1446 poofs.

Looks like the CHAT GPT insights regarding the unusual Pi-Radicals' fanatical obsession trying to prove their Pi = 3.1446 horseshit is valid, after 8-years of failed attempts, fell on deaf ears, which is none too surprising (LOL). And so Dirko, seems you're going to try and find another way to solve for the true value of Pi. Well isn't that special (SNL) at least you're not stating the true and correct Pi = 3.1446 like the majority of the Pi-radical dipshits in here.

Here's a hint, the best approximation of the true and correct Pi is traditional Pi = 3.14159, so hopefully once you've developed your method, it will confirm traditional Pi = 3.14159, is the best estimate of true Pi as stated by Ptaah in CR 712, and as confirmed by 23,080,000 of Earth's academics, accredited in mathematics. Good luck, implementing your fancy colored coded logic and if generate traditional Pi = 3.14159, it probably worked ok, otherwise you have a bug in your code (LOL).

Hope my advice helps, however less talk more action; get to it already, and just build your damn Pi machine otherwise we'll think you're just full of hot air and lack commitment. You may be the one who builds the intrumentarium device, Ptaah states in CR 712, is required to find the true and correct Pi but has not yet been invented.

You see Dirko, there's a lot of talkers hiding in here, Pi-Radicals too afraid to reach out to anyone of the 23,080,000 of Earth's academics skilled in mathematics, where they could share their horseshit Pi = 3.1446 proofs and have a one-to-one conversation and get a second opinion like C.B. (affectionately known as Harry leaR Bag-of-Tricks) who just hides in here, talks big, an arrogant know-it-all, who shoves his Pi = 3.1446 horseshit proofs down our throats in, of all places, a Billy Meier discussion forum, but too goddam afraid and chicken to approach someone smarter than he is, where he could get an intelligent perspective.

Since the stupid son-of-bitch HRBoT, won't listen to my advice, logically I've encouraged him many times, to stop being such a pussy lamed-brained bitch, and go share his "B"ee's Pi = 3.1446 horseshit proofs with an academic skilled in mathematics, even the local high school science teacher but do you think the stupid dumb shit would do that – no he hides in here where its safe. Goddam moron.

Not that long ago HRBoT, prior to his newest "B"ee's Pi = 3.1446 horseshit, presented a different faked Pi = 3.1446 horsesit proof, which, like always, he foolishly convinces himself is absolutely correct, without fault, and was goddam arrogant, foolishly claim to have proven Billy Meier's information about Pi WRONG (refer to poster below), and HRBoT is now fixated on his latest "B"ee's Pi = 3.1446 horseshit proof. It never ends with HRBoT, one faked Pi = 3.1446 horseshit proof after another, and, as before, and, as always, he thinks he's actually solved for the true and correct Pi=3.1446 using this bullshit quadratic equation but he's too stupid to realize setting the hypotenuse equal to "1" is logically incorrect.

Stupid goddam idiot doesn't realize if b = Pi /4, nothing can change its value. If b = Pi / 4, then b = Pi /4 you stupid shit-head regardless of the unknown hypotenuse length. The dumb ass doesn't understand that both 'b' and the 'hypotenuse' are UNKNOWN. The shit-for-brains lunatic doesn't understand you cannot solve for 'b' when nothing else is known about 'b'. The moron is just making random, unproven assumptions and absolutely no idea what he's doing. His stupid proof makes about as much sense as Jude.bug's calculator screen captures. I've told HRBoT, don't take my word for it, go get another opinion, and the dumb ass keeps posting his same Pi = 3.1446 horseshit proof in here, as if it will make any difference.

Jude.bug, usually post several feet of calculator screen captures which no one ever comments because its impossible to understand what the hell he's trying to do or prove. Jude.bug is an enigma. It seems every Pi-Radical dipshit is coming up with their own unique Pi = 3.1446 horseshit proofs, neither of them understands each's Pi = 3.1446 horseshit proofs, which is kind of comical, and that explains why these Pi-Radical dipshits are unable to organize and work together and jointly develop at least ONE goddam descent faked Pi = 3.1446 horseshit proof. Yeah, so welcome Dirko to the never ending stream Pi-Radical morons posting their Pi = 3.1446 faked horseshit proofs in a Billy Meier forum intended to discuss Billy Meier's information about Pi. These Pi-Radical dipshits cannot even respect the forum intent, they're so goddam arrogant pushing their Pi = 3.1446 horseshit.

Billy Meier's information about Pi is very informative, accurate and truthful if you dipshit Pi-Radicals would just stop-it with your Pi = 3.1446 horseshit proofs, which you'll never solve or prove by the way, because Pi = 3.1446 is impossible, and just read and understand Billy' information that the true and correct Pi is UNKNOWN (CR 722), that traditional Pi = 3.14159 is the best estimate of true Pi (Ptaah CR 712) and the true and correct Pi will be resolved by Earth's brilliant scientists working frantically together to all trying to save our dying Sun (CR 251), and that an instrumentarium, not yet invented, is required to solve for the true and correct Pi (Ptaah CR 712) instead of pushing their Pi = 3.1446 horseshit in here, and each one of these Pi-Radical dipshits has their very own and unique Pi = 3.1446 horseshit proof, and neither one of them understand's each other's proof.

Nice to know Billy Meier's prediction that we will bear witness to progressively worsening and ongoing degradation of the human condition is unfolding, evidenced and as is happening right here in this Billy Meier forum, by the lunatic Pi-Radicals pushing their Pi = 3.1446 horseshit when nobody agrees with them except other dipshit morons. That is precisely why, Pi = 3.1446 will NEVER be proven credibly. Doesn't matter how hard or for how long you try, none of you Pi-Radical dipshits will EVER find a credible proof for Pi = 3.1446.

CHAT GPT was correct, π Can’t Be Solved as a Variable Pi is DEFINED not DERIVED

Perhaps try reading CR 251 where Billy Meier states very clearly,
The true and correct Pi value is finally solved by Earth's brilliant scientists while they are working together frantically to save our dying Sun

..therefore it may be logically concluded,
The true and correct Pi will NOT be solved by the dip-shit Harry Lear in his garage with a round wooden disk and his fancy measuring tape

Hush

Well HRBoT (Harry leaR Bag-of-Tricks),

CHAT GPT response, included a refinement you've cleverly ignored, of course, whereby it advises physically measuring Pi is quite stupid when considering the issue of wooden disks expansion affecting the accuracy of the results which is correctly stated.

With respect to Billy information regarding Pi, most folks here, apart of the FIGU Community, respect his knowledge, wisdom and truthfulness, and accept that the true and correct is currently UNKNOWN and will be resolved in the FUTURE, not NOW, and not by the dipshit Harry Lear measuring round wooden disks with a tape measure in his garage like an idiot, is all I'm saying really.

Was curious what AI would advise about Pi-Radical fanatics obsessed with trying to prove Pi = 3.1446 horseshit is valid but will NEVER succeed and CHAT GPT provided some useful, insights however the version open to the general public, still needs refinement such as the point you suggested where first recommended measuring Pi not realizing 3 mm reflects an enormous margin of error particularly with wood, and also believe it suggested the true and correct Pi is known, but if pressed, believe it would admit it's a very good approximation which Ptaah states in CR 712.

Your reference to Grok 3 has confirmed consistency of 3.1446, what the hell does that mean? Jesus Christ you Pi-Radical dipshits can't even put together a thought into a complete, cohesive, coherent logical sentence.

C.B.

Hush Your reference to Grok 3 has confirmed consistency of 3.1446, what the hell does that mean?

It means, the program has examined the derivation and found it in itself consistent, correct.
What more do you need as confirmation that it is a sound mathematical derivation of π 3.1446?

Hush With respect to Billy information regarding Pi, most folks here, apart of the FIGU Community, respect his knowledge, wisdom and truthfulness, and accept that the true and correct is currently UNKNOWN and will be resolved in the FUTURE, not NOW, and not by the dipshit Harry Lear measuring round wooden disks with a tape measure in his garage like an idiot, is all I'm saying really.

Ok. May be Billy was wrong about it, as he has been already by other predictions and the discovery of the real value of π did already happen, as you can testify.
I can’t understand why do you see this discovery as a tragedy.

Hush

Oh my HRBoT (Harry leaR Bag-of-Tricks),

if Grock 3, agrees your "B"ee's Pi = 3.1446 horseshit proof logically correct, Grock must have fried one of its transistors (LOL) or you're just a lying bag-of-shit; hmmm, tough call!

Well Billy Meier is correct, honest, truthful, and perhaps not skilled in mathematics anymore than Christian Frehner is, Billy does has the help and insight of an advanced alien race of human being, and compared to you; what have you got as a high-school math educated, know-it-all, goddam lying bag-of-shit; hardly a contest (LOL). I mean who do you think folks from the FIGU Community are going to trust more; you or Billy, what a dumb ass!

Besides Pi = 3.1446 is physically impossible, so sorry sparky, you haven't actually invented a new and improved Pi = 3.1446, with twice the cleaning power. As I've told you repeatedly, you will never ever achieve success resolving the true and correct Pi = 3.1446 credibly by anyone intelligent. Yes you've proven your Pi = 3.1446 horseshit to yourself, well done, its what you're best at, and you've managed to convince a few other Pi-Radical morons, like yourself including shit-for-brains Christian Frehner and Michael Horn, similarly educated with grade-school math, but for you to convince someone intelligent, an academic accredited in mathematics, you have a snow-balls chance in hell of ever being successful. So keep posting your Pi=3.1446 horseshit in here, its about as far you are go sparky, you're finished, washed-up, its over. Traditional Pi = 3.14159 will remain the best estimate of true Pi for centuries. You're stubbornness, know-it-all arrogance and lack of intelligence is remarkable.

C.B.

Hush if Grock 3, agrees your "B"ee's Pi = 3.1446 horseshit proof logically correct, Grock must have fried one of its transistors (LOL) or you're just a lying bag-of-shit; hmmm, tough call!

Ok, now AI isn’t enough if it doesn’t support you denial.
I just posted the transcript as I got it.

Hush I mean who do you think folks from the FIGU Community are going to trust more; you or Billy, what a dumb ass!

It is not an issue that gives me sleepless nights but I hope they trust more the math they have before their eyes than some delusional nightmares as you do.

Hush Besides Pi = 3.1446 is physically impossible,…..

The physicality of π includes the Space where π displays its value, which is a decisive factor regarding its possibility or impossibility. To consider 3.1446 you should know more about Space, something you don’t.

Hush Traditional Pi = 3.14159 will remain the best estimate of true Pi for centuries.

In fact, the time of 3.1415926 as absolute π value is over. the child is born and you can’t push it back into the womb and the same happens with π 3.1446.

Hush As I've told you repeatedly, you will never ever achieve success resolving the true and correct Pi = 3.1446 credibly by anyone intelligent.

Grok 3 is quite intelligent and has already confirmed it.

Hush

Hey there HRBoT (Harry leaR Shit-for-Brains),

How could you be so goddam stupid to believe an AI, if its credible, would ever endorse Pi = 3.1446 so clearly claiming an AI supported your Pi = 3.1446 horseshit is another one of you lies as usual. Nothing new here folks, just move along, its just HRBoT spewing more horseshit lies out of his mouth making another stinky smelly mess.

Well yeah, when you stop dreaming you will realize most folks intelligent part of the FIGU Community, trust Billy Meier information about Pi over a lying bag-of-shit like you spewing your Pi = 3.1446 horseshit, that should be quite obvious. Give some credit, you did convince two FIGU Community influencers; Christian Frehner and Michael Horn, who actually trusted, listened and promoted your pile of shit Pi = 3.1446 LIES to the FIGU Community instead of trusting Billy Meier's information about Pi. So maybe you got a point, you're quite the pied-piper there HRBoT but you'll never pull the wool over the eyes of anyone intelligent, specially the 23,080,000 academics in the world know your Pi = 3.1446 is total horeshit. From which may be concluded, your crusade to credibly prove Pi = 3.1446 is valid, is over, you'll never succeed, you're a complete a total failure. The fact that you do nothing about it, except post your ongoing bullshit in here, means your failure is being realized every single day and after 8-years of trying, your time is running out.

I'm in a beautiful position here enjoying, watching you fail trying to convince the world your Pi = 3.1446 is valid knowing you will never succeed. So you waste your time posting your PI = 3.1446 horseshit here, and every day that goes by is another day you failed. If you were only interested in proving Pi = 3.1446 horseshit to yourself, you wouldn't be here, no you would love if other folks, particularly academia, trusted your Pi = 3.1446 horseshit was valid, but that, unfortunately will never happen. You're a wash-up, loser, failure who will never convince anyone intelligent your Pi = 3.1446 horseshit is valid, and that goes to all of you Pi-Radical assholes, with shit-for-brains.

I do enjoy watching you fail, trying to convince the world your Pi = 3.1446 horseshit is valid. I mean if you had any goddam brains you'd stop spewing your Pi = 3.1446 horseshit in here, which accomplishes absolutely nothing, (I think you would agree), and instead, actually try and make a difference in the world and get academia to listen to your Pi = 3.1446 horseshit, but of course you're smarter than everyone cause you see the space and time connection to transcendental Pi, and the golden ratio is the missing key. Great imagination there sparky, now you go do some coloring and prove it, and stop just talking about your horseshit theories.

I'm still waiting for my first like, HRBoT, come on be a good sport. Perhaps they're not good enough so I might have to try harder and make some more creative Harry Lear is a dipshit posters.

C.B.

Hush How could you be so goddam stupid to believe an AI, if its credible, would ever endorse Pi = 3.1446 so clearly claiming an AI supported your Pi = 3.1446 horseshit is another one of you lies as usual.

As if I need to lie to you.
You take yourself for much too important.

Hush Well yeah, when you stop dreaming you will realize most folks intelligent part of the FIGU Community, trust Billy Meier information about Pi over a lying bag-of-shit like you spewing your Pi = 3.1446 horseshit, that should be quite obvious.

As if I would care about what anyone beliefs or not.

Hush I'm in a beautiful position here enjoying, watching you fail trying to convince the world your Pi = 3.1446 is valid knowing you will never succeed.

And I pity you every time you try to refute 3.1446.

Hush but of course you're smarter than everyone cause you see the space and time connection to transcendental Pi, and the golden ratio is the missing key.

Your problem is that you see these things too but choose to keep playing with yourself in front of your computer while writing nonsense.

Hush

Hey there HRBoT (Harry leaR Shit-for-Brains),

Look I know you're disappointed after 8-years and still having never been able to convince anyone intelligent your Pi = 3.1446 horseshit is valid, which must be frustrating. I mean each-and-every-one of your fake Pi = 3.1446 horseshit proofs has revealed to be fraud. So I'm just enjoying watching your arrogant ass fail, over-and-over again, like that time you foolishly claimed Billy Meier was wrong, and then discovering but then that Pi horseshit proof of yours was also a fraud, too funny. And so on-and-on it goes including your latest "B"ee's horseshit proof, is also a fraud, based upon false assumptions, which believe wasn't even your own idea, but rather stolen from someone else as you're too goddam stupid to think up anything original. Anyway knowing you'll never achieve any success proving your Pi = 3.1446 horseshit is quite amusing. Thanks for the show, you're a real entertainer. Meanwhile traditional Pi = 3.14159 will continue to prevail for 100's of years long after your gone dipshit.

C.B.

Hush Look I know you're disappointed after 8-years

No, I’m not disappointed.

Hush Anyway knowing you'll never achieve any success proving your Pi = 3.1446 horseshit is quite amusing.

I’m not looking for success.

Hush which believe wasn't even your own idea, but rather stolen from someone else as you're too goddam stupid to think up anything original.

It was my own idea to find out definitively the exact value of π and it resulted in a tool to expose frauds like you who are full of empty talk. And it works.
Keep talking buffoon.

Hush

Well HRBoT (Harry leaR Shit-for-Brains),

Good for you. I guess you must be quite pleased with yourself then, just not sure what exactly you feel you've accomplished except for the fact, that you Pi-Radical dipshits really had a good thing going within the FIGU Community, pushing your Pi = 3.1446 horseshit until I showed up. I mean you had dipshit Michael Horn and shit-for-brains Christian Frehner, two heavy weights within the FIGU Community, promoting your Pi = 3.1446 horseshit, and you were actually getting away with it. Folks within the FIGU Community who looked up to and trusted Michael Horn and Christian Frehner, tended to side with and believe the Pi = 3.1446 horseshit you were spewing. But then I showed up, and put a stop to your lies, and showed how Harry Lear is a lying bag-of-shit, in the posters below, and how Christian Frehner also proved to be a lying bag of shit when he endorsed Harry Lear's Pi = 3.1446 horseshit in a FIGU Mission publication of all foolish things to do, publish lies on behalf of the FIGU Mission, what a goddam idiot, when the whole purpose of the FIGU Mission is to share the truth according to Billy Meier, and instead that dipshit Christian Frehner decided to publish new information that Pi = 3.1446 which Billy Meier nor the Plejaren have ever endorsed.

Yet in spite of the obvious mistake made, anyone could have discovered if they looked at the details to the extent I had, and discovered you goddam morons were actually getting away with your Pi = 3.1446 scam. So I exposed your fraud and stopped all you shit-heads in your tracks. Yeah, not really sorry bout that either, had to be done but that must have kinda of pissed you Pi-Radicals off at least a little (LOL). My motto, the TRUTH must prevail, according to Billy Meier's knowledge and wisdom, and little scumbag lying pieces of shit, know-it-all's like you, had to be exposed. It's actually kind of fun moking you dipshit morons, I mean nobody in the world believes your horseshit.

C.B.

Hush

My guess: No one cares about you. And that, when you’re finished here, you will end up playing with yourself watching Mexican Telenovelas.

« Previous Page Next Page »