Future Of Mankind Forum

omedam777 wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2026 3:40 am An up on https://pi.thealpha-secret.xyz

Sorry Fellow, but this is nothing of a mathematical proof.
You use φ as a premise and of course you obtain a φ related result. There is no magic in it.
Why is this that difficult to understand?

Question :
How can b = h ?
Answer : Because i can.

Bloody nonsense.
You do it because you want…you want to be smart or whatever.
But you can’t, because it goes against the rules of geometry.
See the difference?
No?
I thought so.

You write: 'The length here is b^2, so to double it, you multiply b^2 by 2.' That is correct if you are doubling that specific length. But when you double all lengths, you also double b and the hypotenuse. You forgot to double them.

I was just pointing out your gross mistake by doubling b^2 ...

Sorry fellow but you’re writing such a pile of BS again. I’m not going to refute it once again.

You’re simply not listening and keep regurgitating your own fantasised rebuttals and don’t even know how to scale the equation!

Besides b^2 can be a length as well as an area, as I showed it to you in ...

Bildschirmfoto 2025-12-22 um 22.42.59.png

It is not a geometric demonstration.
And the procedure is simple.
I can take the value of the Area b^2 and inscribe it on the side of the square as a length, draw the hypotenuse = 1, simply because we are working with the base circle with perimeter π and ...

> You feel insulted. Ok

Shouldn't I? Read the list of insults again.

Read your criticisms against the derivation.


Kepler triangle.
You said 1, b, b^2 IS NOT a Kepler triangle in your previous post.
I showed to you that it is.
Hypothenuse = 1, Height = b = 1/√ɸ, base = b^2 = 1/ɸ
The geometric ...

You feel insulted. Ok
But it was you first bringing those insulting nonsensical arguments about the derivation.

Kepler Triangle

1 : √φ : φ

Any other triangle with the same property is similar to the KT.
1; b; b^2 is similar.
And it is not a condition for the derivation. It appears as a result ...

Hush wrote: Thu Jul 02, 2026 2:52 pm oh now C.B.,

No need to get so excited - try to relax, may be have some donuts, and try to appreciate Arthur was simply pointing out the flaws in your faked Pi=3.1446 pretend math proof.

Pointing out flaws? Really?
Which ones for example?

Good boy Arthur,
Way to tell that C.B. his faked Pi=3.1446 proof is Full-of-Beans - but you're no better smarty-pants.


You’re so full of sh*t that you’re unable to find a mistake in the derivation 4b=π, on the one side. On the other side you’re unable to see the nonsense in Arthur’s criticism ...

1 - 4b = pi
No problem for me with that (by avoiding saying what is normally said: 4b = 3.14159...) its an hypothesis completely conform to what mathematics are (deductive based on hypothesis). OK

Of course it isn’t a problem except you can prove a circle can’t have the same perimeter as a square ...