Future Of Mankind Forum

2 new measurements of PI has been added in the server by this same German team :

3.1448... and 3.14460...
The last one with the correct 5th decimal place !

All the documents are in the same place as in the previous experiment.
https://hidrive.ionos.com/share/ua737y4by1#login
password : kreiszahl

Thanks Arthur,

Another bogus PI=3.1446 website link - yet again! There you go as always, completely avoiding any and all reference to Billy Meier's Contact Reports information about Pi, and this time you're highlighting sloppy physical Pi=3.1446 measurements - nothing new here!

Arthur wrote: Tue Jun 30, 2026 3:28 pm 2 new measurements of PI has been added in the server by this same German team :

3.1448... and 3.14460...
The last one with the correct 5th decimal place !

It's common knowledge a physical Pi measurement, when conducted with due diligence to minimize errors, will consistently yield Pi=3.141 as has been proven by Savio's and Christian Frehner's experiment who both independently validated Traditional Pi=3.141 by precisely and accurately measured the circumference of an aluminum round disk using a PI-Tape proving Pi=3.144 is physically impossible.

Any physically measured value of Pi greater than 3.141, reflects sloppy protocol. Pi-Radicals who advocate True Pi=3.144, typically overestimate Traditional Pi=3.14159 by about +3 mm because like Harry Lear, they use wood or other porous medium failing to realize these materials acclimate to changing humidity levels and prone to seasonal movement. Due to its hygroscopic nature, wood expands and contracts in response to atmospheric moisture.

Traditional Pi=3.141 is the correct result when physically measuring Pi accurately as has been demonstrated by the precise physical Pi-3.141 measurements of Savio and Christian. The margin of error is extremely small when attempting to precisely measure Pi with submillimeter accuracy and why most physical Pi measurements fail yielding the wrong physical Pi=3.144 value.

Harry Lear and others, who attempt to physically measure Pi=3.144, lacked the necessary precision to achieve an accurate Traditional Pi=3.141 measurement. These folks should take lessons from Savio and Christian and learn the proper protocols required to accurately and precisely physically measure Traditional Pi=3.141. In my opinion what primarily separates anyone who has failed to accurately physically measure Traditional Pi=3.141, when compared to Savio's and Christian's success, is the fact that they both used aluminum round disks for their experiment; a nonporous material.

You know Arthur if you took just a fraction of the 100's of hours you've wasted playing with pretend math parlor tricks trying to prove your True Pi=3.1446 LIE, and spent a little of that time nose-to-the-grindstone learning conventional mathematics, you'd eventually understand why Pi=3.1446 is physically impossible, without needing to physically measure round disks, all just by using your brains. How cool is that!

Let's face it, you've been pushing this bogus True Pi=3.1446 LIE onto the FIGU Community for 8-years and no one intelligent and credible believes you, (because it's a complete LIE by the way and entirely UNPROVEN) and where has it gotten you so far - no where buddy.

But you keep doing the same thing over and over, accomplishing absolutely nothing, pushing your True Pi=3.1446 LIE in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary that Traditional Pi=3.14159 is VALID verified by ALL Earth's academics and also Ptaah who confirmed traditional Pi=3.14159 is VALID in CR #712.

There is a saying you may have heard, "by changing nothing, nothing changes", which describes your lack of success pushing your Pi=3.1446 LIE. Seriously, change your strategy, instead of playing with pretend math parlor tricks all the time, spend some time learning calculus to solve Pi=3.14159, the same stuff they teach in university, and thereby learn why Pi=3.1446 is physically impossible without a tape-measure, just pure simple brain-power without wasting money on a Pi-Tape.

So this might be worth repeating, Pi=3.1446 is physically impossible as was proven by Savio's and Christian Frehner's experiments who both precisely physically measured Pi=3.141. Savio's and Christian's experiments prove Traditional Pi=3.14159 is VALID which aligns with conventional mathematics which proves Traditional Pi=3.14159 is VALID, as has also been stated by Ptaah in CR #712.

We draw a Square with perimeter π.
Now the sides have the value b or π/4.
The Area of the Square is b^2.
We transport the value b^2 on one of the sides and make a right triangle drawing the hypotenuse of value 1.
We must use the value 1 for the hypotenuse to keep the nominal values of π and b.
We solve

(b^2)^2 + b^2 – 1 = 0
And obtain de non-transcendental, exact value of π:

b = 0.7861513
π = 3.144605511

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

2 - "We transport the value b^2 on one of the sides and make a right triangle drawing the hypotenuse of value 1.
We must use the value 1 for the hypotenuse to keep the nominal values of π and b."

This is where the problem is.

By putting b and b^2 as a sides of a right triangle with diameter 1 the result of b is forced, determined.
The triangle 1, b, b^2 is a Kepler triangle with only 1 solution b = 1/√ɸ.
The Kepler triangle is the only one triangle in geometric progression with ratio of the progression √ɸ.
And so hypothenuse * base = height^2, so with hypothenuse = 1 as said, base = height^2, so we have the right triangle 1, b, b^2. so b = height = hypothenuse / ratio of the progression (√ɸ) = 1/√ɸ, base = b^2 = (1/√ɸ)^2 = hypothenuse / ɸ = 1/ɸ.
triangle 1, b, b^2 is : 1, 1/√ɸ, 1/ɸ.

For a proof to be valid, the second hypothesis (triangle, 1, b^b2) would have to be proven from the first (4b=pi), or it would have to be a general property of squares and circles. This is not the case. It is artificially introduced to force the result.

In summary :

1 - b = pi/4
2 - add external constraint (geometric constraint) (triangle 1, b, b^2)
3 - find the side of the triangle (no other than 1/√ɸ)
4 - replace b in the initial hypothesis and so pi = 4/√ɸ.

That's a tautology, not a proof. There's no deduction involved, just an arbitrarily chosen equation.

Tautology : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)

This isn't a calculation error; it's a methodological error. There is confusion between the definition (4b = π) and a geometric constraint (Kepler's triangle 1, b, b^2), and the error lies in combining the two. A mathematical proof doesn't work that way: each new assumption must be justified or follow from the previous ones. Here, that is not the case.

There is no proof that π = 4/√φ; b is defined twice in two incompatible ways, once by hypothesis and once by constraint.

The result is correct but the method isn't right. Hope this helps.

Note regarding the area b^2 :

Regarding the conversion of the area b^2 to a length. Geometrically, this is possible (constructing a line segment of length equal to a given area), but it requires changing the scale or using an arbitrary unit.

However, if we translate an area (b^2) and treat it as a length, we implicitly introduce a unit of measurement (for example, the side of a unit square). In this case, the Pythagorean theorem is no longer invariant under a change of scale: if we double all lengths, b becomes 2b, the area becomes 4b², and the equation (b^2)^2 + b^2 = 1 is no longer satisfied.

This means that the construction is not even geometrically consistent: it depends on the arbitrary choice of the unit, whereas mathematics (and geometry) must be independent of the chosen unit.

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. Arthur, you're just as naive and gullible as C.B. and every other Pi-Radical moron, including Harry Lear, Christian Frehner and Michael Horn, all of whom fell hook-line-and-sinker for the true Pi=3.1446 delusion. I still think it's hilarious not even Pi-Radicals can agree on each other's FAKED Pi=3.1446 PROOFS.

Say I called you out for never mentioning Billy Meier's Contact Reports in your FIGU Forum posts when pushing your True Pi=3.1446 HOAX onto the FIGU Community. So where are the Billy Meier Contact Report references in your True Pi=3.1446 HOAX posts there Arthur, still not seeing any? Oh right, I almost forgot, Billy Meier's information about Pi reflects the TRUTH, whereas you're pushing a True Pi=3.1446 LIE, which is why you never refer to Billy Meier's Contact Reports on the subject of Pi. Sorry, forgot how you fraudsters operate. Your MO is to sweep Billy Meier's TRUTH about Pi right under the carpet, and never quote Billy Meier Contact Reports, especially CR #712, while pushing the True Pi=3.1446 LIE onto the FIGU Community. Well done Arthur, what a great scammer.

Don't you think if True Pi=3.1446 was possible, you or any bozo Pi-Radical might have found a credible proof Pi=3.1446 by now after 8-years of failure? All you and other Pi-Radicals have to show for yourselves in all that time is an endless stream of horribly flawed Pi=3.1446 pretend math parlor tricks. Ptaah makes it PERFECTLY CLEAR in CR #712, that although Traditional Pi=3.14159 is not 100% perfectly correct, it can still be made to work, the error in Traditional Pi is MINIMAL and MINOR, and Traditional Pi remains VALID for all Earthly round and circular calculations in both math and physics.

The reason Billy referred to an error in Traditional Pi in CR #251, is to help us realize the 100% perfect True Pi Value is required to tap into energies from black holes, but for right now, based on our primitive technology, Earthly humans only use Pi for simple curved line calculations, and that's it, and in this regard traditional Pi=3.14159 is perfectly fine and accurate for this task. Every curved line calculated on Earth is extremely precise based upon Traditional Pi=3.14159, but when our technology evolves in a few centuries, we'll need the exact precise 100% correct Pi value in order to tap into energy from black holes and this technology is far beyond our current understandings.

It's absolutely ridiculous and ludicrous that you actually believe there is a huge 3 mm error is Traditional Pi=3.14159 per 1 m diameter. You don't seem to understand the error in Traditional Pi=3.14159 is incredibly small. In fact the error in Traditional Pi=3.14159 is so small, it's currently undetectable by Earth humans due to our primitive technology as stated by Billy Meier in CR #722. It's amazing how you've so completely brainwashed yourself into believing this True Pi=3.1446 delusion originates from the Giza pyramid dimensions, which you are unable to credibly prove.

I'm here basically stopping you and other Pi-Radical morons from spreading your True Pi=3.1446 LIE. Think of it like an intervention saving someone from the clutches of a cult, in this case a Pi=3.1446 cult. I know you're beyond hope, including other Pi-Radicals like Harry Lear, Christian Frehner and Michael Horn, you've all been getting away with spreading your True Pi=3.1446 LIE to folks within the FIGU Community. As someone with a degree in science, accredited in mathematics, I knew what you idiots were doing was wrong and this True Pi=3.1446 nonsense had gone far enough and needed to be stopped. I mean the TRUTH should matter - right!

Arthur how can you consider yourself part of the FIGU Community while completely ignoring Ptaah's statements in CR #712 that Traditional Pi=3.14159 is VALID? How are you able to selectively ignore Billy Meier's Contact Reports truthful information about Pi? That's quite a gift, but perhaps necessary as an expert know-it-all, in order to maintain this brainwashed crusade pushing your True PI=3.1446 delusion onto the FIGU Community without ANY supporting documentation from Billy Meier's Contact Reports, and not only that, but you also need to ignore conventional science and believe you're smarter than every mathematician, scientist and engineer on planet Earth, all of whom know Pi=3.1446 is physically impossible. No ego issues there hey Arthur! (LOL).

Ever notice this pattern, every single Pi-Radical who foolishly believes True Pi=3.1446 has NO accreditation in mathematics nor a science degree therefore none of you really understand mathematics as well as you think. If only you had accreditation in mathematics, it would truly help you understand why Pi=3.1446 is IMPOSSIBLE. But of course getting a university degree and accreditation in mathematics, well that's a lot of work, and why waste time learning conventional mathematics, or going to university and getting a degree in science, when its a lot easier to be a know-it-all Pi-Radical who believes True Pi=3.1446 in spite of what every academic in the world already knows that Pi=3.1446 is delusional belief that lacks any credible proof. Hell even Savio and Christian have physically measured Pi proving Traditional Pi=3.141is VALID. You Pi-Radicals remind me of circus clowns exiting a small Volkswagen car.

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

2 - "We transport the value b^2 on one of the sides and make a right triangle drawing the hypotenuse of value 1.
We must use the value 1 for the hypotenuse to keep the nominal values of π and b."

This is where the problem is.
By putting b and b^2 as a sides of a right triangle with diameter 1 the result of b is forced, determined.

It is not, Arthur.
By choosing Hypotenuse = 1 I just keep the nominal value of b as π/4. If I were to use Hypotenuse 2, the equation 4b=π doesn’t apply anymore. So, it is not forced but rational.

The triangle 1, b, b^2 is a Kepler triangle with only 1 solution b = 1/√ɸ.
The Kepler triangle is the only one triangle in geometric progression with ratio of the progression √ɸ.

Your next mistake, 1; b; b^2 is not a Kepler Triangle. The KT has the progression 1; φ; √φ.

For a proof to be valid, the second hypothesis (triangle, 1, b^b2) would have to be proven from the first (4b=pi), or it would have to be a general property of squares and circles. This is not the case. It is artificially introduced to force the result.

And this is straight out nonsense. The right triangle 1; b; b’2 is no hypothesis at all. It is the theorem of Pythagoras used to calculate the value of b. It is a tool for calculation. I’m not “supposing” anything.

In summary :

1 - b = pi/4
2 - add external constraint (geometric constraint) (triangle 1, b, b^2)

As I said this is BS. I’m just using a tool to calculate the value of b

3 - find the side of the triangle (no other than 1/√ɸ)
4 - replace b in the initial hypothesis and so pi = 4/√ɸ.

That's a tautology, not a proof. There's no deduction involved, just an arbitrarily chosen equation.

This is no Tautology. It is a rational process to find out the value of b.
And the deduction is involved using Pythagoras to “deduce” the value of b.
Where did you learn math, Arthur, by the Jain Academy?

Tautology : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)

This isn't a calculation error; it's a methodological error. There is confusion between the definition (4b = π) and a geometric constraint (Kepler's triangle 1, b, b^2), and the error lies in combining the two. A mathematical proof doesn't work that way: each new assumption must be justified or follow from the previous ones. Here, that is not the case.

Now here you’re beyond the level of Tautology reaching the area of Stupidology.
For your nonsense to be valid it should have been possible to see the Golden Ratio already by the equation 4b=π, which is not the case. Further as I told you already, 1; b; b^2 is no Kepler Triangle. And finally, I’m not “combining” 4b=π with Pythagoras. I’m just using Pythagoras as a mean to calculate the numerical value of b. Because the Nominal value is already fixed with 4b=π.

There is no proof that π = 4/√φ; b is defined twice in two incompatible ways, once by hypothesis and once by constraint.

By all due respect Arthur. This is the most stupid and irrational critic I ever got for this derivation. Not even Hush was able to go that far.

b is not defined twice, Ignorant!
b is defined as π/4 and the second step is to find out the numerical value, having already the nominal one.
There is no point to read math books if you don’t understand them.

The result is correct but the method isn't right. Hope this helps.

Error.
Method and result are not only correct but Exact as well. (If you know what the word Exact means)

Note regarding the area b^2 :
Regarding the conversion of the area b^2 to a length. Geometrically, this is possible (constructing a line segment of length equal to a given area), but it requires changing the scale or using an arbitrary unit.
However, if we translate an area (b^2) and treat it as a length, we implicitly introduce a unit of measurement (for example, the side of a unit square). In this case, the Pythagorean theorem is no longer invariant under a change of scale: if we double all lengths, b becomes 2b, the area becomes 4b², and the equation (b^2)^2 + b^2 = 1 is no longer satisfied.
This means that the construction is not even geometrically consistent: it depends on the arbitrary choice of the unit, whereas mathematics (and geometry) must be independent of the chosen unit.

With that you’re even exceeding yourself in ignorance.
The Area b^2 has a numerical VALUE I can use the way I find suitable to calculate what I find necessary!!!
A VALUE has no unit, moron!
If you were to be right with this nonsense we wouldn’t be able to do math anymore, simply because there is no way to find out if any number represents an Area , a Length or a Volume!
Are you aware of what you’re saying!
I guess not. Otherwise you never had posted it.

You should try to go over your jealousy and enjoy the beauty of 4b = π

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 regarding 4b=π as well.
The only thing you can do is repeating endlessly the death letters of Billy Meier’s Contact Reports which are already stone cold dead in the water. As most probably the whole FIGU organization is.

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. Not a big deal C.B., you should be proud of your faked Pi=3.1446 proofs, a true expert in pretend math.

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?

I've already asked you that question in a previous post.

Why are you so aggressive ?

- As I said this is BS.
- Where did you learn math, Arthur, by the Jain Academy?
- Now here you’re beyond the level of Tautology reaching the area of Stupidology.
- By all due respect Arthur. This is the most stupid and irrational critic I ever got for this derivation. Not even Hush was able to go that far.
- b is not defined twice, Ignorant!
- There is no point to read math books if you don’t understand them.
- (If you know what the word Exact means)
- With that you’re even exceeding yourself in ignorance.
- A VALUE has no unit, moron!
- Are you aware of what you’re saying!
- I guess not. Otherwise you never had posted it.

And finally

- You should try to go over your jealousy and enjoy the beauty of 4b = π

A series of personal attacks ("BS", "Ignorant", "moron", "stupidology", "jealousy")


------


Kepler triangle :

The Kepler triangle is defined as a right triangle whose sides are in geometric progression. If the sides are a, ar, ar^2, then Pythagoras gives r = √ϕ
Base = 1, Height = √ϕ and hypothenuse = ϕ is one representation of this triangle.

If i multiply the base by 7 for ex we have :

Base = 7, Height = 7 * √ϕ and hypothenuse = 7 * ϕ

if base = 1/ϕ, height = 1/ϕ * √ϕ, hypothenuse = 1/ϕ * ϕ
so base = 1/ϕ, height = 1 / √ϕ, hypothenuse = 1

so like 1, √ϕ, ϕ
1/ϕ, 1 / √ϕ, 1 is another one.

There is another unique property of the Kepler triangle is :

Hypothenuse * base = height^2

So we can check that with the 3 previous example :

ϕ * 1 = (√ϕ)^2
(7 * ϕ) * 7 = (7 * √ϕ)^2
1 * 1/ϕ = (1 / √ϕ)^2

When the hypothenuse is equal to 1 we have :

1 * base = height^2

with height = b we have the triangle :

Hypothenuse = 1, Height = b, Base = b^2

So there is only one solution to that for b = height = hypothenuse / √ϕ (The ratio of the progression) = 1 / √ϕ

So the triangle, 1, b, b^2 is a Kepler triangle. There is no debate about that.
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_triangle

That's the geometric constraint in your demonstration.

The solution of b for this triangle can be calculate also with the pythagorean theorem.

On the "tool for calculation"

You claim the triangle is just a "tool for calculation", not an additional hypothesis. But a calculation tool must be justified by the problem. You are not deriving the triangle from the square of perimeter; you are imposing it.

If I may illustrate: suppose I define x = π / 4 Then I arbitrarily decide that x and x^3 are the sides of a right triangle with hypothenuse 1. This would give
x^6+x^2=1 , a different value for x, and thus a different π. Would that be a valid proof? No, because the triangle is arbitrary. The same applies here.

The only way your derivation would be valid is if you could prove that the square of perimeter π necessarily gives rise to a right triangle with sides b and b^2 and hypothenuse 1. You have not done that. You simply assumed it.

b is defined twice.

But it is. First, you define b = π / 4
Second, you impose that b and b^2 are the legs of a right triangle with hypothenuse 1. That second condition is not a consequence of the first; it is an independent constraint. So yes, b is being constrained by two separate conditions. That is not an insult; it is a factual observation.

On units and dimensions

Here, you are confusing units (metres, feet) with dimensions (length, area). In pure mathematics, numbers are dimensionless, that is true. But in geometry, a side has dimension L, and an area has dimension L^2. When you write b^2 (an area) and treat it as a length in Pythagoras' theorem, you are mixing quantities of different natures.

The equation (b^2)^2+b^2=1 is not scale-invariant: if you double all lengths, b becomes 2b, the equation becomes 16b^4+4b^2=1, which is not the same. This proves that your construction depends on the arbitrary choice of scale which is not a property of genuine geometry.

On the tautology

You claim it is not a tautology. But a tautology in this context means: the conclusion is already contained in the premises. You chose a geometric constraint that forces b=1/√ϕ, and then you conclude π=4/√ϕ. You are not discovering π; you are constructing a system that gives that result. That is circular reasoning.

I am not attacking you personally. I am pointing out a logical gap in your derivation. If you can demonstrate that the square with perimeter π necessarily implies the existence of a right triangle with sides b,b^2 and hypothenuse 1, then your proof would be valid. Until then, the derivation remains an arbitrary construction, not a proof.

I invite you to respond on the mathematical points, without insults. I am genuinely interested in a rigorous discussion.