Alright, in science, to be a real scientist, on occasion causes one to make 180 degree turn arounds. Now professors, those that profess to be experts of a subject rarely show "their turnarounds" because to them, they are really not experts of their subject and thus, terribly afraid to ever reveal their turnarounds when they have them. That is why they are so conservation and rather wallow in the mire than to change their subject and throw out the mire and replace it with the truth. To a genius of a subject, he/she never has to worry about a turn-about, for it is all natural and part of the research of the subject itself. To a professor in an ivory tower, they could never stand to reveal their own turn-arounds for fear that their colleagues would degrade their position in the community of professors. Geniuses of the subject, on the other hand take pleasure in revealing their own turn-arounds, for it shows they have their internal compass pointed always in the direction of "wanting the truth".
Months ago, many months ago I started this idea that square root of 10 is very close to pi, one is 3.1622.. and the other is 3.1415...
That idea was worth pursuing if we can replace pi with sqrt10, because in true math where you have an Infinity borderline and thus a microinfinity inverse of macroinfinity, there are no circles or curves at all in this New Math. So why not try out sqrt10 as pi, since circles are really many sided polygons in which we cannot see the edges and vertices since the line segments are so tiny.
Another benefit of sqrt10 is Algebraic Completeness in that dividing 1 by 314159..132000 yields a messy inverse, not a clean one such as 1*10^-603 to 1*10^603.
So my desire to rid of a messy inverse is a noble desire.
Today, I jumped course and can safely say that pi is never sqrt10.
What changed my view is that if pi were sqrt10, what is "e". And therein lies all the troubles with sqrt10. Now if "e" had been, say sqrt8, reasonably close to square root of 8, then I may have taken another look.
But then I thought of "e" and how pi and "e" are linked. So that if you look at the Golden Spiral, shown in Wikipedia of the logarithmic spiral that is golden shown in quarter circles and overlapping the log-spiral, you get the sense that pi is connected to "e".
So what is that connection if pi and e are irrational? Well, there is no connection if pi and "e" are both irrational.
The connection comes when pi and "e" are Rational numbers, both, and connected to one another.
Now in Pythagorean theorem we end up with a concept of Primitive Pythagorean Triples in which the lengths are coprime and for which all the other triples emanate from these primitive triples.
Pi and "e" are similarly related, although not coprime.
The smallest fraction that contains both pi and "e" is 22/7 and its counterpart 19/7.
They are related because as we see in that picture of the Golden Log Spiral of the squares 1 and 1/phi that the quarter circle arc involves 3.1415... while the quarter circle arc of 1/phi involves 2.71828...
And, both together, pi and "e" yields that Golden Log Spiral.
So, I need pi and "e" to be Rational Numbers, for the overlap and underlap of the log spiral as seen in that picture, is due to the fact that circles and curves do not exist, and that what does exist in that picture is the squares, the rectangles and many sided polygons that look like circles of arc.
The reason that quarter circles and spiral curve look like they are accommodating each other, is because there is no curve at all, but that the many sided polygons which have edges and vertices are causing frequent adjustments as the squares continue.
So here I still can use the Platonic Solids, for the pi in those is a constant adjustment of edge with vertex of polygons.
Recently I re-opened the old newsgroup of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of mockers and hatemongers.