Future Of Mankind Forum

This is what I took from you in order to show you that there is something missing. How did you get to b = 0.786151. Where did that come from?

Have you studied the derivation at all. Otherwise you can’t be asking such a question.

C.B,

I really don't understand why you are so agressive.
Last time i talked about your demonstration your slammed the door by saying "i will not answer the same question".
This is the question you failed to answer.
The question is : Why this triangle and not another ?

You firstly said because its a right triangle.
Probably not knowing that all triangle in a semi circle with the hypothenuse = diameter and the vertex lie on the circle is a right triangle.
Which means ALL triangles with the hypothenuse = diameter on a semi circle are right triangle. Thales's theorem.

Why this kepler triangle b^2,b,1 ?
b^2, b and 1 is a kepler triangle because it is the only one with height^2 = base * hypothenuse.
And so with hypothenuse = 1 base = height^2 so we have this b^2, b, 1 triangle.
and so b = 1√ɸ

So you failed to explain why this triangle ?
you said
b = area of the circle ? and what ?
b^2 = area of a square with b as side ? and what ?
and you put b and b^2 as sides of the triangle ?

These are reasons without logical basis.

And finally you use 4b = pi to solve 4 * 1√ɸ = pi
What an easy way !

In fact you loose all logic of the initial german demonstration.

I reproduced as you know the german demonstration here with all explanations.

The reason why this kepler triangle and not another is because of the combination of the Euclid's cathetus theorem and the Euclid's right triangle altitude theorem.

When you combine the 2 theorems on a triangle inscribed in a semi circle with the hypothenuse = diameter you got this triangle : b^2, b, 1.

You have all the algebraic demonstration.

That's why. That's the reason

After that with multiple equalities you have 4/√ɸ which the germans say "near pi".

Do you mean I can’t use b and b^2 as the legs of a right triangle with the due hypotenuse to keep their nominal values?
Why.

And the right question is not, "why this triangle” but “why not this triangle"

Dear naive C.B.,

Yes we all know that you're very proud of your salesmanship pitching another's faked Pi=3.1446 proof as your own, and although you've done a great job convincing yourself its valid, its because you lack accreditation in mathematics, you're too naive to understand the flaws in your own pretend math logic and you're beyond hope at this point, too brainwashed into believing your own nonsense, to ever understand the truth.

I've already told why your silly, less than one page proof, is invalid but lettuce review the basic flaws in your less than 1-page, faked Pi=3.1446 pretend math nonsense proof:

1. Cannot arbitrarily transpose variable defined as area into length
2. Cannot solve for variables of area by arbitrarily assigning as leg dimensions of a right-triangle
3. Cannot arbitrarily assume the hypotenuse of said right-triangle is equal to 1

The fact that you don't understand these basic flaws in your logic proves you are way out of your league when it comes to mathematics and you should stick to coloring and eating donuts.

Now I know the truth hurts but I'm here to help amateur's develop a winning strategy to convince the world your faked Pi=3.1446 proof is valid since you've been working on this tirelessly for 8+ years, making no progress, going nowhere fast, and haven't really convinced anyone other than yourself that its valid, and you're seriously running out of time as Apophis is fast approaching. People need to learn about your important faked Pi=3.1446 proof so this simple strategy should help you get your message to the world and touch as many people as possible:

1. Convince at least one other Pi-Radical, besides yourself, that your less-than-page faked Pi=3.1446 proof is valid. So either ping Arthur and resume/resolve that discussion or continue working your magic on 777 or any of your other Pi-Radical buddies and somehow use your pretend math trickery to fool and sell them into believing your faked Pi=3.1446 proof is valid. Only 9.4 billion people to go but its a start right.
2. Now convincing a fellow Pi-Radical that your faked Pi=3.1446 proof is valid is just the start because now you have to convince someone intelligent and that wont be easy. So try to make an appointment with an academic, like a math professor in a nearby university. Tell them you're not a mathematician, that you have no accreditation in mathematics, but you think you're the smartest mathematician in the world having invented a new derivation for True Pi=3.1446. The professor will probably just hang up on you, but if you keep trying, you may find one who is morbidly curious to see what you have. So if you're lucky enough to get an appointment to see a profession, don't be surprised if there are armed guards nearby, but what you need to do is before you show them your faked Pi=3.1446 proof, you'll need to try and bride them to agree your proof is valid, and maybe offer to mow their lawn and clean their bathroom toilets for the next 5-years, something like that.
3. So by now you've convinced at least one Pi-Radical buddy your faked Pi=3.1446 proof is valid, and managed to bribe one university professor to agree with you, but they refuse publicly endorse your foolish claim Pi=3.1446 or sign anything official but no worries. Write-out your less-than-one-page faked Pi=3.1446 proof on Japanese kozo-paper, add a gold-leaf border and beautifully frame it, then go on an Infomercial and start promoting your True Pi=3.1446 nonsense on TV and before long you'll be a household name and everyone will know about your faked Pi=3.1446 proof.

C.B. wrote: Sun Sep 14, 2025 5:16 pm Do you mean I can’t use b and b^2 as the legs of a right triangle with the due hypotenuse to keep their nominal values?
Why.

And the right question is not, "why this triangle” but “why not this triangle"

If you say why not? You explain the choice of this triangle with a hypothesis.

Ok.
In this case, it is not necessary to explain where b and b^2 come from.
-
Your demonstration can be summarized as follows :

- Let the triangle b, b'2 inscribed in a semi circle.
- let 4b = pi.

So pi = 4/√ɸ.

There is no mathematic demonstration only hypothesis and the obvious result.

--
The result of the german demo (the length of the side of the triangle, the origin of b) is come from 3 theorems :

1 - Thales' theorem :

« Let there be a semicircle on segment AB. If the vertex C of triangle ABC lies on the semicircle, the triangle at C has a right angle. »


2 - Euclid's cathetus theorem :

« In a right-angled triangle, the square on a cathetus is equal in area to the rectangle formed by the hypotenuse and the adjacent hypotenuse segment. »

3 - The Euclid's right triangle altitude theorem :

« In a right-angled triangle, the square on the height at the hypotenuse is equal (in area) to the rectangle formed by the hypotenuse segments. [AD et DB] »

When you combine the last 2 theorems after algebraic calculation you got the triangle (b, b^2, 1)

Which means the triangle is calculated, not put as an hypothesis.

That's the difference.

We take a square and a circle of the same perimeter π and write the equatio
4b = π
We calculate the areas, using 4b for π, for the area of the circle.. Respectively we obtain :
As = b^2
Ac = b
Now we use these values as the legs of a right triangle to apply Pythagoras and find out the value of b or π/4.
(b)^2 + (b^2)^2 = 1
b^2 + b^4 – 1 = 0
b = 0.7861513
4b = π = 3.1446
The reason to take the Hypotenuse = 1 is simple. The value of b and b^2 are calculated for Diameter = 1.
So, the only semicircle where we can inscribe this right triangle to preserve the values of b and b^2 is one of Diameter = 1

Ok. After a profound study of the above derivation this is your conclusion?

Your demonstration can be summarized as follows :
- Let the triangle b, b'2 inscribed in a semi circle.
- let 4b = pi.
So pi = 4/√ɸ.
There is no mathematic demonstration only hypothesis and the obvious result.

Sorry fellow but you have not the palest idea what you’re talking about.
Basic school would have been enough but this goes below that level what you display here.
Of course guys like Hush can make fun of you all the time and rightly so.

oh C.B.,

Well I make just as much fun of you as every Pi-Radical pushing the faked True Pi=3.1446 nonsense and rightly so. And to clarify its not just me, its anyone intelligent, accredited in mathematics that is making fun of your faked True PI=3.1446 nonsense. You're no different C.B., nothing special in my book, just another Pi-Radical who doesn't understand real mathematics. But you really shouldn't piss-off your fellow Pi-Radical buddies if you ever hope to convince at least one of them, that your less-than-one-page faked True Pi=3.1446 is valid (LOL). Remember step 1) of my 3) step plan to help you out copied below for your convenience.

People need to learn about your important faked Pi=3.1446 proof so this simple strategy should help you get your message to the world and touch as many people as possible:

1) Convince at least one other Pi-Radical, besides yourself, that your less-than-page faked Pi=3.1446 proof is valid. So either ping Arthur and resume/resolve that discussion or continue working your magic on 777 or any of your other Pi-Radical buddies and somehow use your pretend math trickery to fool and sell them into believing your faked Pi=3.1446 proof is valid. Only 9.4 billion people to go but its a start right.

Here we go again.

C.B.

Make us see what you see. Because your b=0.786151377757 is arbitrary, as if chosen out of nowhere.

I see you b^2+b-1 and see the Golden Ratio relation in it.

But your equation shows b = pi/4 has 0.785398 which is not the aforementioned.

You said that I need to study the derivation, but yours shows nothing that is remotely considered a proof (as that which you want us to prove).

The problem is that of logic behind your choice.

If it has to do with a particular derivation, then you should probably educate us thoroughly on what YOU see.

Otherwise, this is incessant bickering versus real danger of cosmic eradication.

So, I’m getting tired of this.

Make us see what you see. Because your b=0.786151377757 is arbitrary, as if chosen out of nowhere.

For you to see what I see you should open your eyes and leave the illusion that you’re some kind of hidden genius. No offense intended.
You say as if chosen from nowhere?
Go and solve b^4+b^2-1=0

I see you b^2+b-1 and see the Golden Ratio relation in it.

Really? Then look again because you’re missing something.
The Golden Ratio is just a result of this derivation, so yes of course you can see it. No big deal.

But your equation shows b = pi/4 has 0.785398 which is not the aforementioned.

really? Why don’t you quote it right away and let’s see it?

If it has to do with a particular derivation, then you should probably educate us thoroughly on what YOU see.

Are you joking? If you can’t understand that we can represent a circle and a Square with the same perimeter and calculate their areas and use the values to find out the value of b over Pythagoras, ……fellow, it is very little that I could do for you. Except advice you to grab some geometry books.

Otherwise, this is incessant bickering versus real danger of cosmic eradication.

Cosmic Erradication? Ah I see, you’re trying to save the Planet. Good luck with it.