Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.



Re: The golden angle 137.507, pi, phi and positive integer 1728
Posted:
Apr 27, 2004 11:31 PM


On 26 Apr 04 20:36:19 0400 (EDT), I don't want you to know wrote: >Okay, more specific: > >Pi is NOT 3.14164078... using a different equation will only change it >if the equation is wrong.
I agree Pi is not 3.14164078,
I have divided 3.14164078 by Pi (3.141592.) and applied my "notional harmonic" moves to arrive at 1727.973525404.
Then I divided 1727.973525404. by Pi (3.141592>) to arrive at the "Golden Angle"
In other words I have connected 3.14164078 to the "golden angle" using Pi (3.141592.)
> >Also, You cannot get 360.00551... degrees into a circle (at least not >on a 2d plane. You define a degree by taking a circle and dividing it >by 360 exactly.
I also agree with you here, I have not quite worked out in my mind where I am going with my notion that for some experiments we could consider a circle to have 360.005515. degrees. I was reading some web post that were going on about astrophysics and how to make things work they use notions of 360 degrees "plus" and hoped my outcome 360.005515. may give some future insight.
I think we must see at some point the separation of rigid number theory and compensate to anticipate an event horizon (eg. Big Bang)
So, dividing 1728 by 4Pi (4*3.141592.) gives 137.5098708. and working backwards we arrive at 360.005515.
And 1728 I have shown to (jinvariant  used in equations by famous mathematicians) used with my "notional harmonic" moves gives the inverse value for a positive number.
Your are looking for something new to think about and that is great. I post my work for it to reconciled and tens of thousand come into my web site, I hope my work is of interest to them.
Pi is extremely important to me and others.
The most beautiful method for calculating pi was emailed to me some time ago and was I asked not to mention it but seeing the person (Shane) seems to have fallen of the edge of the earth I will now convey what I think Shane work is saying.
From ShaneÃÂs email 2002...an open letter to Shane
I describe the content from ShaneÃÂs email 2002. I will not give the values.
An open letter to Shane
Dear Shane
I have thought about your you work email to me 2002 and it is time for me to describe what you have done.
"Shane took the average of infinite series of numbers (A)and then divide into this average (A) the average of another infinite series of numbers (B)
(B) is less than (A)
(A) Plus (B) equals 1 (one)
The inverse of the quotient (A)/(B) subtracted from this quotient is PI (3.141592.)
If I do not here from you Shane in the next twelve months, I will reconcile your work to the best of my ability and post the outcomes.
> >I cannot comment on the rest of your page as I could not follow the >rambling. > >I will not give you my name because you might be the kind of person >that sends letter bombs to people who dissagree with you.
No so, far from it.
I am not a mathematician or armature/recreational mathematician.
I see thing differently so I have posted the way the behaviour of numbers appears to me.
> >On 24 Apr 04 21:30:17 0400 (EDT), Anonymous wrote: >>On 23 Apr 04 13:44:35 0400 (EDT), I don't want you to know wrote: >>>I'm sorry. You are wrong. >>> >> >>Ok, please what is your name? >> >>Would you like to expand on the "you are wrong" part. >> >> >>>If you tell me you've discovered something unknown in mathematics, >> >> >>I have posted my reconciliations, yes my work: >> >> >>Can you show me where in the last three hundred years, where an >>equation has been used like mine on 1728 to give an inverse value for >>a positive number? >> >>Many famous mathematicians have used 1728 (jinvariant) but I have >>used something new to explained this positive integer 1728. >> >>Annals of Mathematics, 149 (1999), 10791086 (1932) >> >><a >href="http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/557034.html">http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/557034.html > >> >> >> I >>>say " Cool, tell me about it." But, When you say you are right and >>the >>>best mathematicians of the last two centuries are wrong about >>>something as fundamental as pi, >> >> >>I just don't know what to make out of what you are saying. You seem >to >>be upset but not mentioning what about. Can you give some examples >of >>where I have said I am right. >> >>I say " You are wrong" >>>I highly recommend rechecking your calculations. >> >>About what? >>Which calculations? >> >>Could you be more specific my work is reasonably extensive. >> >>And I have been complimented for my reconciliation attempts, >>I don't mind you saying I am wrong, in fact I thank you for your >>response, but please let it be somewhat constructive. >> >>Regards >> >>> >>>On 23 Apr 04 01:05:25 0400 (EDT), Anonymous wrote: >>>>The golden angle 137.507, pi, phi and positive integer 1728 >>>> >>>>Hi! >>>> >>>>my outcomes for pi, phi and positive integer 1728 >>>> >>>>hope they are of interest to you. >>>> >>>><a >>>href="http://www.vorpublishing.com/the_golden_angle_pi_phi_and_1728_by_kevin_trinder.html"><a >href="http://www.vorpublishing.com/the_golden_angle_pi_phi_and_1728_by_kevin_trinder.html">http://www.vorpublishing.com/the_golden_angle_pi_phi_and_1728_by_kevin_trinder.html > >>> >>>> >>>>Regards



