Math Forum Discussions

Guest

Watch this User

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

Plain Text

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 (j-invariant - 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 e-mailed 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 e-mail 2002...an open letter to Shane

I describe the content from ShaneÃÂs e-mail 2002. I will
not give the values.

An open letter to Shane

Dear Shane

I have thought about your you work e-mail 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 (j-invariant) but I have
>>used something new to explained this positive integer 1728.
>>
>>Annals of Mathematics, 149 (1999), 1079-1086 (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