On Miles Mathis' Claim π = 4 (in any/all "kinematic" situations).

Chromium6 wrote:Hi jfmeyer,

Just wondering if you ever looked at Miles' "Euler" paper? Got me thinking on how your PI is represented differently than the Manhatten metric for bodies in motion..

Hello,

Yes - in my research I encountered Miles' work and read several of his papers incl. the Euler paper.
I recently re-read it, and his Manhattan Metric paper.

I also recently read his paper More on the Golden Ratio wherein he mentions:

Miles Mathis wrote:Gravity falls off by the inverse square while charge is falling off by the inverse quad. Does
this fact have anything to do with the golden ratio?

We are seeing that it does, which makes it curious that the golden ratio has never been connected to the
inverse square law of physics. Even though no one before me had the two subfields as we do in my
unified field, it seems someone should have noticed that the golden ratio concerns squares and square-
roots. It would have been pretty easy to connect phi to the inverse square law, since phi and gravity
both fall-off by the square.

Square difference:
x² - x = 1
= 4r²
as r = 1/2

Inverse square:
x = 1/a²
x = 4r²/(πr²)²
π = 4/√Φ

Pi is equal to 4 on a/the base of kinematics.
√Φ is the kinematic "base" in/of the physical universe.

Western science (incl. Miles) hasn't solved for it.

Chromium6 wrote:
that is how you see actual
body motion around a circle with PI?

I do not know what you are referring to as "that", can you clarify?
I do not anyway endorse the approach the Manhattan metric takes, if this helps.
It, like Miles, is only half-correct. They are both missing the imperative kinematic base.

Chromium6 wrote:This may be similar to LTAM's question above on PI=4 (in kinematic situations) -- this thread's title.

The problem is π ≠ 4 but rather π = 4/k

One can not ignore the kinematic base in any situation concerning π: be it geometric or kinematic.
It is never just 4. π is a discrete ratio, not an isolated integer. The form is always π = 4/k as a ratio.
It must be a ratio because line/curve is a ratio, therefor requires a minimum of two dimensions: x/y.

The circumference of a circle whose radius is precisely 1/2 is not 4, not ~3.14159... but is 4/√Φ ≈ 3.1446...

Miles' statement:

"Pi is equal to 4 in any/all kinematic situations..."

is mathematically equivalent to/as:

π = 4/√Φ

but he, like Western science, still hasn't solved for the kinematic base I call k.
I'm afraid there will be no progress so long as this oversight persists.
The equality 16 = Φπ² immediately clarifies the means to quantify gravity.

The deficient approximated value of π underlies it all, incl. millennia of human ignorance.
Without correcting this constant, there will never be a unified anything.

I note Miles has not once produced an actual solution to unity which any sub-fields may mutually concern.
That's because there is only one such unity & it is arrived at by solving E = MC² using the correct value of π.

Hi jmeyer... my apologies I should have reread this question a bit closer. I dropped "do". Here's the correction:
------

how do you see actual
body motion around a circle with PI?

Chromium6 wrote:Hi jmeyer... my apologies I should have reread this question a bit closer. I dropped "do". Here's the correction:
------

how do you see actual
body motion around a circle with PI?

I'm afraid I still do not fully understand what is meant by "actual body motion around a circle with PI".
Can you clarify further what you mean?

The important thing to note about any/all circular motion is the fundamental property it implies:
whatever is circling/cycling is invariably bound to return to a point from which either: it began,
or a measurement of it began. Thus all which cycles has a discrete period.

In terms of physics, this property is satisfied by any/all bodies within another bodies' gravitational boundary.
Otherwise, the cosmological constant takes over & space between bodies expands. Expansion is thus the default state
& is described by the condition s/t = 1. It is only if/when s/t ≠ 1 is circular/cyclical nature (ie. physicality) implied.

Apologies if this doesn't address what you intended.

Well let's say you have a polished gold ball in your hand and then chip and rub it until it is just a few atoms wide ala nano in form - but still "round". At this point, would it still roll in this nano form on a surface, let's say a singular atom's thick surface of lead with PI at π = 4/√Φ? or just 4? This example is probably not described clearly enough for you to work with. What I'm trying to get at is whether atom on atom contact requires the Manhattan metric?

Chromium6 wrote:Well let's say you have a polished gold ball in your hand and then chip and rub it until it is just a few atoms wide ala nano in form - but still "round".

If it is round, it has a ratio of r per c (ie. linear to curved elements) thus is invariably an x/y relation.
It is never appropriate to state π = 4 unless the base is already known & already assumed to be √Φ.
The Manhattan Metric merely measures the "gap" in Western science's understanding (of the proper base).
The missing base is owing to mathematicians never having properly measured a circle such to solve for it.
It is the geometric origin of coordinates of any/all possible geometric unit(s) of space according to x² - x = 1.

I otherwise take the principle of the inquiry to be more-or-less equivalent to a collapsing sphere, as
any substantive ball has a finite number of particles to expend. I will therefor try to address in principle.

Chromium6 wrote:At this point,

At what point? The only "point" at which any body ever collapses is if its "mass" overcomes the cosmological constant.
I place "mass" here in quotations because Western science is making a very big mistake concerning "mass".

By default, any/all physical bodies are simultaneously:
expanding (according to the cosmological constant) &
contracting (according to the so-called "mass" of the body).

The difference between them constitutes its very presence:
one could describe it as the "charge-channelling profile" of the body.
If not for the simultaneity of both principles expansion & contraction,
any exclusivity of one or the other would cause the body to either explode or implode resp.

If a body were to somehow stop contracting, it would fly apart at the speed of light C.
There would therefor come a discrete point wherein the energy required to "collapse" any body
(while maintaining any/all structural integrity of it) surpasses the native cosmological constant driving all matter apart.

If you imagine yourself standing in a pool of water of waist-height depth and were given a rubber ball filled with air,
if you applied a "force" downward on the ball, the force needed to submerge the ball deeper and deeper grows.

Well, this "force" is actually an acceleration: as you push down, the ball pushes back up at you.
I note this is a reciprocally related relationship: what you do determines what the ball does.
Because of this, you must not only apply an initial force, but also maintain it to keep it in place.
This is unlike in the vacuum of space wherein an initial force is all that is needed to cause a constant speed.
If you wish to keep the ball submerged at a certain depth, you must apply a constant acceleration.

Now bodies in space & time behave like this too, but "accelerating" bodies sink "inwards" rather than "downwards".
There is no "up" or "down" in the volumetric universe: only "inwards" and "outwards": gravity and expansion.
Instead of a body sinking to the bottom of a pool, it becomes more "massive" as it inwardly accelerates, and eventually
this "mass" (which is actually just an acceleration) overtakes the cosmological constant expansion.

What this means is: M is not "mass" in/of E = MC², it rather describes acceleration.
Mass is strictly relativistic & is not actually grounded into any datum (such as x² - x = 1)
whereas:

Chromium6 wrote:would it still roll in this nano form on a surface, let's say a singular atom's thick surface of lead with PI at π = 4/√Φ? or just 4? This example is probably not described clearly enough for you to work with. What I'm trying to get at is whether atom on atom contact requires the Manhatten metric?

π = 4/√Φ is & applies to any/all situations (not only kinematic, but also geometric).
To observe π = 4 implies one has not yet reconciled the scalar base (ie. datum)
upon which this 4 incessantly operates on. It is never in isolation, but always based on √Φ.

One can understand any/all motion requires some space s on some time t viz. s/t.
Not only are both primary, both are multiplicative reciprocal aspects of motion.
One can therefor not talk about motion (thus the physical universe) without both
& neither without reciprocity as being the underlying principle preceding relativity.

To close: Keppler originally found gravitation to be a product of an acceleration and a squared area... that is, as having nothing to do with mass. It was not until Newton arrived on scene did he arbitrarily introduce "mass" into his laws of motion. Gravitation has absolutely nothing to do with "mass" because "mass" has everything to do with acceleration.



   7:00

Pari Spolter wrote:"If you read my book, I introduce what Newton said about "gravitation". He himself admits the basic (sic) is independent of mass. The inverse square of the distance is based on acceleration of an object falling to the surface of the earth & the acceleration of the moon going around the earth. He doesn't say anything about the mass. So there is no justification for a product of the masses, or for any mass in the equation of "gravitational force". Kepler's 3rd law is the equation for gravitational force & I have interpreted Kepler's 3rd law as the product of acceleration & the area. There is no mass in Kepler's 3rd law."

M = acceleration
C² = area
MC² = product of acceleration & area.

Hi jfmeyer thanks for the background with Kepler's 3rd law and further detail for your PI calculation. It helps.  

LTAM, Nevyn, Jared, Lloydk, Vexman and myself looked at and discussed a paper by Miles two years ago in this thread. Miles also addressed LeSage's theory in one of his papers. Please have a look. Your input should be valuable:

https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t543-the-cause-of-gravity-the-next-major-chapter?highlight=Push+Gravity

Chromium6 wrote:Hi jfmeyer thanks for the background with Kepler's 3rd law and further detail for your PI calculation. It helps.  

LTAM, Nevyn, Jared, Lloydk, Vexman and myself looked at and discussed a paper by Miles two years ago in this thread. Miles also addressed LeSage's theory in one of his papers. Please have a look. Your input should be valuable:

https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t543-the-cause-of-gravity-the-next-major-chapter?highlight=Push+Gravity

Hi Chromium,

I had previously read the paper concerned prior to even posting here & have just re-read it again.
In short: Miles is certainly on the right track, but only according to using an important principle to arrive at:
the principle of inversion. It plays an extremely important role in not only physics, but... everything.

That is: he intuits a practical need to reverse the gravity vector "in" to "out", though he is unclear as to why.
He has the right intuition, but he is still missing the underlying reciprocity principle upon which they (like space and time themselves) incessantly cooperate.
This relation is constant (like the golden ratio, relying on the very same integrity).

My general input concerning this is: the default condition of "space" is for everything to fly apart at the speed of light.
That is: by default, space naturally has a vector-out non-zero magnitude applied to any/all space at any/all times: expansion according to C.
Western scientists misinterpret this as "dark energy" & can't find it because they have the most fundamental constant of the universe wrong.
One must begin with this (correct) cosmological constant (ie. expansion principle) before it can ever be inverted to become what we call gravity.

The constant is unity (1) as a product of M and C² viz. 1 = MC² wherein M is 16/π² & C² is π²/16.
If you notice, M and C² are reciprocally related: 16/π² x π²/16 = 1 = (x² - x) implying quanta of gravity
according to (thus in agreement with) the inverse square law. All physics ultimately unfolds from unity.
The integer "1" is truly the product of the golden ratio and the square of pi-quartered viz. 1 = Φ(π/4)².

Miles' readers seem to appreciate visualization tools to "see" his "charge field" theory, so I will attempt an analogy.

Imagine the motion of a treadmill (of an exercise machine), but in/as a flat disc instead:
the top tread travels out from the centre of the disc and the bottom tread travels in towards the centre.
(One can also fold a circle to form an infinity figure and let a point travel "out"
from the intersect in any direction only to return to it in some discrete "time".)

Let the "out" vector be alpha (Α) and let the "in" vector be omega (Ω).

What alpha is to the expansion principle M-outward, omega is to gravitation M-inward.
In mathematics, their simultaneity is a square root of M viz. √M = +M, -M.
M itself never changes in/as a magnitude, it is a constant in/as M.
Only the operator preceding it changes.

The "unity" condition s/t = 1 describes the default expansion principle with mono-vector "out" & no opposing vector "in".
"Charge" is any condition s/t ≠ 1 which includes (and begins with) s/t = -1, a polar inversion of the expansion "out" vector.
Once this happens, the body concerned is subject to/of cycles of "time" according to its own "gravity" until either an age limit or thermal limit is reached.
In either case, bodies in space will (either) explode (or implode) according to one of these two conditions (whichever is met first) in/as "supernovae".
If a body were not charged at all, it would not have any thermal or age limit(s) to arrive at, thus is not subject to/of the cyclical nature of physical existence.
All bodies incl. the human body channel uncharged light. All impedance(s) to this channelling is experienced by ourselves in/as "gravity"
in vector opposition to expansion.

If/as Western science believes x is "true" when in reality x is "not necessarily..." this is the same polar inversion (creation of vector opposition to expansion)
to what would otherwise be the natural default unbounded expansion (the so-called "speed" at which so-called "photons" travel).
In other words: Western science can't relate "gravity" to the same "gravity" of their own ignorance.
One can not induce any "theory of everything" unless/until "everything" has been taken into account.

What I have done is measure the point at/from which this gravity of scientific ignorance began accumulating:
when Archimedes surrounded a circle of 360º with another figure whose internal sum greater than 360º to "approximate" pi.
That is: he started with an octagon (!) to "approximate" a circle & kept adding sides... instead of removing them.
A circle doesn't have any sides, only a single discrete circumference scaled according to its radius r.
It circumscribes a square, which does have sides... but the circle itself has none.

If I held a circle in my left hand and an octagon in my right and asked:
what must I do to the right to make it more like the left - add sides, or remove sides?
Archimedes ended up with a 96-sided polygon, so we know what his answer would be
& it is the wrong one. This is the "point" which all gravity of all ignorance of all Western science
points to.

This all implies a/the practical imperative to thus incessantly challenge basic underlying assumptions
as all "gravity" of all unconscious human ignorance is caused by such polar inversions in vector opposition to expansion
(according to the adhere to false basic underlying assumptions & false beliefs formed thereupon)
thus all "gravity" is consciously ceased by accounting for & correcting any/all such inversions.
As inversions are corrected, the decaying effect "time" has diminishes (accordingly).

Miles' "charge field" conception is miles ahead of Western science, but not fully complete unless/until he finds the "uncharged field".
The "uncharged field" is the mono-vector cosmological constant "out". It is only one direction. All motion concerns it.
All "charge" is a pole reversal(s) followed by positive & negative acceleration(s) with respect to this constant.

jfmeyer wrote. Miles' "charge field" conception is miles ahead of Western science, but not fully complete unless/until he finds the "uncharged field".

Hi jfmeyer, I've been hard at work with the atom stuff, and little else. One small point, please pardon me for saying, your critique of Miles is a bit harsh and contradicts my recollections. In The Cause of Gravity the next major chapter, Miles explains that matter – photons – do exit at the speed of light. And charge must recycle back into the poles, the apparent attraction of charge into the charge engine. Charge mechanics includes collisions between charge and anti-charge, spin makes things more complicated than mere ballistics. Miles admits it took him 15 years to see how complex charge interactions cause bonding - gravity. Charge explains everything, charge alone creates vectors both in and out.

Unity, expansion, simultaneity, reciprocity and other ideas you’ve talked about are just as real and essential to better understanding, I generally object to invoking properties to space, time or an uncharged field.

Cr6 mentioned our discussion here of Miles' latest ideas. For the record, I though it was heartfelt and agreeable. I focused on the apparent angular diameters as with the sun and moon as seen from earth. Unfortunately, I don’t think we gave Miles any new insights. Worse, I don’t recall him ever mentioning the subject again. Terrible coincidence. I for one came away with acceptance of the bonding energy as gravity - which is also perfectly described by Expansion theory. The discussion certainly increased my understanding of vorticular charge flow and lift in general.
.

LongtimeAirman wrote:

jfmeyer wrote. Miles' "charge field" conception is miles ahead of Western science, but not fully complete unless/until he finds the "uncharged field".

Hi jfmeyer, I've been hard at work with the atom stuff, and little else. One small point, please pardon me for saying, your critique of Miles is a bit harsh and contradicts my recollections.

Hi LTAM,

I don't intend to critique Miles, only his (or any) theory. I subject Miles' theory to the same scrutiny I do any.

Miles doesn't know how to properly measure a circle & he is ultimately at the same impasse Relativity is.
Einstein neither knew how to properly measure a circle & his theory is still the leading/prevailing one.
Nothing against either personally, but as I have shown, in at least one occasion: Miles is only half-correct.

If Miles is unaware of the integral role the golden ratio plays in physics, his "charge field" is incomplete (at best).

LongtimeAirman wrote:In The Cause of Gravity the next major chapter, Miles explains that matter – photons – do exit at the speed of light.

Of course they do, a photon is the speed of light.

If a photon enters any "field" (such as inside the gravitational boundary of any body)
wherein it appears to slow down, it will appear to speed back up upon exiting it
because the scalar C doesn't change. Only the introduction of the medium causes light
to behave differently according to it.

LongtimeAirman wrote:And charge must recycle back into the poles, the apparent attraction of charge into the charge engine. Charge mechanics includes collisions between charge and anti-charge, spin makes things more complicated than mere ballistics. Miles admits it took him 15 years to see how complex charge interactions cause bonding - gravity. Charge explains everything, charge alone creates vectors both in and out.

Any charged state without an uncharged counter-part is like a yang without a yin: one can not exist without the other.
As Miles was/is only half-correct about pi being 4, he is only (as much as) half-correct about his unified field claim(s).
He is still catastrophically missing the other half. It is not "charged"... it is the absence of any/all "charge".

Even mainstream science is picking up on "charge" being not fundamental:

with "charge" being more fundamentally motion.

The "pairs" being talked about in this video ultimately reduce back into (ie. concern) the in/out motion vectors (though this is unknown by Western scientists).
In other words: we do not live in a universe of either "charge" or "mass" or "gravity" or even "matter" but rather of a principle: the principle of reciprocity.
This principle is embedded in/as the (properties of the) so-called golden ratio whose product with the square of pi-quartered is unity.

LongtimeAirman wrote:Unity, expansion, simultaneity, reciprocity and other ideas you’ve talked about are just as real and essential to better understanding, I generally object to invoking properties to space, time or an uncharged field.

These are not mere ideas, they are deductions attained to by use of the scientific method which are all testable.
The result of the inquiry "whence human suffering?" scientifically measures the most deeply embedded
false basic underlying assumption Western science has & in doing so is a theory of human suffering.

Western scientists do not have a "theory of everything" because they fail to take "everything" into account.
Western scientists do not account for their own ignorance before trying to measure something beyond themselves.

Neither space alone nor time alone have properties, but together they are two aspects of a binary whose relation is reciprocal.
That is: it is not the aspects themselves which are important, it is the nature of the relation between them.

LongtimeAirman wrote:Cr6 mentioned our discussion here of Miles' latest ideas.

That's all they are at this point: ideas which can not be expressed in/as a unified field equation.

I provided the correct math to properly calculate pi according to the inverse square law for use in any field equation(s).
Unless/until Miles works this correction into his theory such to quantify gravity, his theory is incomplete at best (& ultimately incorrect).

LongtimeAirman wrote:For the record, I though it was heartfelt and agreeable. I focused on the apparent angular diameters as with the sun and moon as seen from earth. Unfortunately, I don’t think we gave Miles any new insights. Worse, I don’t recall him ever mentioning the subject again. Terrible coincidence. I for one came away with acceptance of the bonding energy as gravity - which is also perfectly described by Expansion theory. The discussion certainly increased my understanding of vorticular charge flow and lift in general.
.

Miles can/will not make any meaningful progress unless/until he knows the correct value of pi. The same is true of Western science.

The 1-inch so-called "god" equation Dr. Kaku et. al. are searching for is staring them right in the face:
E = MC² and its solution predicts the most deeply embedded false basic underlying assumption(s)
humanity has endured for over two millennia: it has & yet still does not know
how to properly measure a circle. This is the real "crisis" of Western science.

I have a venue booked & will be recording a live presentation & experiment measuring a 1000mm diameter circle.
The presentation will be a summary of the inquiry "whence human suffering?" and will answer the $1M question
re: the Riemann Hypothesis problem real element of 1/2. When this presentation is done & live I will provide the link here.

.
Airman. Thanks for the charge field side discussion.  

jfmeyer wrote. Unless/until Miles works this correction into his theory such to quantify gravity, his theory is incomplete at best (& ultimately incorrect).
...
jfmeyer wrote. If Miles is unaware of the integral role the golden ratio plays in physics, his "charge field" is incomplete (at best).

Airman. Clear enough, no gravity as charge comments, Miles’ charge field theory or description is incomplete. Of course charge is too small to see, Miles had figure it out. His gravity theories have evolved over time as he better understands the charge field, no problem with that. To me the only thing present in the universe appears to be the charge field. Miles may not have sufficiently recognized the importance of the golden ratio, that doesn’t effect the fundamental truth of the charge field or not .

jfmeyer wrote. Any charged state without an uncharged counter-part is like a yang without a yin: one can not exist without the other.

Airman. I believe there is only 1. matter – which is made up of and which is constantly recycling - photons, and 2. empty space. Collisions occur over time. I’d say that charge and space is the duality satisfying your existential yin and yang requirement. If you’re suggesting that the “uncharged counter-part” is some other ‘physical’ component to the charge field, that would be interesting. What’s your evidence?

jfmeyer wrote. Even mainstream science is picking up on "charge" being not fundamental:

https://youtu.be/esayi49OAk4

with "charge" being more fundamentally motion.

Airman. Charge exists as real particles in fundamental motion, both linear and angular, and at lightspeed. My favorite goto example of charge energy is E = mC^2, but for mainstream to declare "charge" being not fundamental:” is certainly odd. “What’s the definition of fundamental? Quoting the video around 12:51.

These two forces (electric charge and the weak force) were once united in what we call the electroweak force, whose charges were the same weak isospin and hypercharge that we just discovered.
...
So we now know that the electric field is a sort of shadow of the ancient fields from the birth of the universe

Airman. Does that seem in any way clear to you? To me it seems like they go to great lengths to avoid the thought of real spinning particles. Also odd, we don’t usually cite mainstream science as our goto source of understanding around here, considering the many ways Miles has shown the mainstream to be wrong, including a paper he posted two weeks ago, addressing the same you-tube video.

CHARGE IS FUNDAMENTAL by Miles Mathis First published March 16, 2022
http://milesmathis.com/chargefun.pdf
NEW PAPER, added 3/16/22, Charge IS Fundamental. I destroy PBS Spacetime once again.

jfmeyer wrote. I have a venue booked & will be recording a live presentation & experiment measuring a 1000mm diameter circle.
The presentation will be a summary of the inquiry "whence human suffering?" and will answer the $1M question
re: the Riemann Hypothesis problem real element of 1/2. When this presentation is done & live I will provide the link here.

Airman. Great news, glad to hear it. More people need to learn about Phi-based Pi.
.

Hi jfmeyer,

You might want to look at these links on Miles' definition of the CC. Using your PI...do you see a difference?

----

Using the much more logical number z=8, we find the original radiation had a wavelength of 2 x 10-4m. That number is of great interest to me, since I have shown that the charge field photon should have an average wavelength of about 1.6 x 10-4m. This number is easy to derive, so I will show you how to get it again. By pulling apart Newton's equation, I was able to show that it has always included the charge field. The constant G1 is simply the scaling constant between the charge field and the solo gravity field. G takes the size of one field down to the size of the other field, so that we can compare them directly, and put them both in the same equation. Because this is true, what G is really doing is scaling the atomic field down to the photon field. Charge is a force upon protons and electrons, mediated by photons, so we have to scale one to the other. Therefore, G is just the size differential between the proton and the photon. Yes, the photon is simply G times smaller than the proton. This gives the basic or average charge photon a mass equivalence of 1.1 x 10-37 kg. Using the common equation

λ = h/mc

We find a wavelength of about 2 x 10-5m.

The problem with that math is that G is a size differential, not a mass differential. We just treated it as a mass differential. Fortunately, we don't need to know the relative densities of the photon and proton to solve. We just let the mass stand for the size of the particle proper, and remember that the wavelength is determined by stacked spins. These spins give the particle more size, because they must obey gyroscopic exclusion rules. I have shown that, since most quanta have four spins, the outer spin is 8 times the radius. So to find the E/M wavelength differential from the mass differential, we just multiply by 8. That gives us a visible wavelength of 1.6 x 10-4m. That is still an estimate, since we still haven't included density, but it is a somewhat better estimate than our first number.**

http://milesmathis.com/hubb.html

http://milesmathis.com/g.html


The COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT is the CHARGE FIELD - Miles Mathis


http://milesmathis.com/cc.pdf

LongtimeAirman wrote:Airman. Thanks for the charge field side discussion.

Likewise in kind.

LongtimeAirman wrote:Airman. Clear enough, no gravity as charge comments, Miles’ charge field theory or description is incomplete. Of course charge is too small to see, Miles had figure it out. His gravity theories have evolved over time as he better understands the charge field, no problem with that. To me the only thing present in the universe appears to be the charge field. Miles may not have sufficiently recognized the importance of the golden ratio, that doesn’t effect the fundamental truth of the charge field or not .

Concerning the latter: it significantly does effect Miles' claim.

If "charge" is fundamentally a property of a body rather than a field... a "charge field" is fundamentally backwards at best (if not wrong).
If one misinterprets observation, one could mistake "charge" as being fundamental to the field rather than a "charged" body causing the field.
Instead, the cause of "charge" is in the body which, in turn, then induces a relatively "charge(d) field" surrounding that body.
Thus any "charge field" is so charged because a body is charged.

Consider a photon moving in/as a ray. Consider this an "uncharged" photon because it has no curvature such to circle/cycle.
No matter how long/far it goes, it can/does not circle back & return to a previously traversed space because it has only one direction: "out". Curvature requires two directions. But the moment the photon suddenly adopts "charge" viz. non-zero curvature (that is: it begins to curve for simultaneously moving in two directions), it begins in/as a circle but note: this only occurs if it ever becomes modified or "charged" by some body (such that might be channelling it).

We receive what are actually uncharged photons from the sun/planet. They have no net charge upon receipt.
It is only if/as the body channelling is charged do the photons ever become "charged" accordingly.
We also simultaneously are subject to charged photons incoming from other charged bodies.
Charged photons created/emitted from a body are subject to/of (the) cyclical nature (ie. of time).
They contain information (in "spin") re: any/all motions in vector opposition to the principle of expansion.
In other words: photons are carriers of (binary) information.

A charge field is thus an effect... not a cause.
Miles' observation is correct, but his interpretation is not.
Charge is a property of a body, not a field.
The field is the effect. The charge is caused by the body it surrounds.
It is possible for bodies to have a net neutral charge, thus do not cause "charge" fields at all.
These bodies recycle uncharged light without imparting any charge of its own (for having none to impart).

LongtimeAirman wrote:Airman. I believe there is only 1. matter – which is made up of and which is constantly recycling - photons, and 2. empty space. Collisions occur over time. I’d say that charge and space is the duality satisfying your existential yin and yang requirement. If you’re suggesting that the “uncharged counter-part” is some other ‘physical’ component to the charge field, that would be interesting. What’s your evidence?

If one could replace "charge" with "time" it would be even more accurate.
Space and time are (as) the primordial yang and yin for being the discrete aspects of any/all "motion".
They relate via. the principle of reciprocity (the principle Miles & Western science are unaware of).
If ones theory of the universe does not recognize the principle of reciprocity, it is fundamentally wrong.

The other component to any charged field is (in) its incessant relation to the uncharged state.
In all space, the natural expansion principle is the default state & is always on.
Uncharged photons are monopolar: oriented only in (as according to) the principle of expansion.
Charged fields are caused by charged bodies moving in circles "relative" to the uncharged state (which is not).
This implies Relativity, as a general underlying principle, is a non-primary principle preceded by another.
The principle preceding it is reciprocity according to it being the relation intrinsic to space & time.
This principle emerges directly out of the math itself (& others before me found it elsewhere by other means):

E = MC²
viz. Relativity
π ≠ 3.14159...
π = 4/√Φ
Φ = 16/π²
1 = Φ(π/4)²
= Φ(1/√Φ)²
= Φ(1/Φ)
viz. Reciprocity

With respect to unity, all primary magnitudes are absolute (ie. the polar opposite of "relative").
The quanta of gravity thus begins/ends (only) with the principle of reciprocity (already) present at E = 1.

All measurable magnitudes are strictly "relative" if: measured in/as in isolation from the "uncharged" state 1 = Φ(π/4)².
In other words: if one does not use the metric unit explicitly defined by/as 1 = Φ(π/4)² = x² - x,
the magnitude(s)/number(s) one is dealing with is invariably necessarily "relative", thus not absolute.

Evidence for this may not be well-received here on these forums because it comes from an alternative theory of the physical universe.
I have spent a number of years researching this theory alongside Miles' & like Miles', it is decades ahead of Einstein & Relativity.
It seems inappropriate to discuss someone else's theory here though on Miles' own theory website so I will only point in the general direction.

Dewey B. Larson (late) developed a full theory of the physical universe called Reciprocal Systems of Theory.
In it, coming from a chemistry background, he compared the relations between the various elements in/of the periodic table
and importantly realized they all cohere according to an implied/intrinsic reciprocal relationship between space and time.
With the recent discovery π = 4/√Φ it was/is now possible to extract/confirm this reciprocal relation directly from the equality.

Evidence for an "uncharged field" (which is not actually a field, but a state: absence of any/all charge)
is in the corpus of this theory spec. in what Larson found & called "the progression of the natural reference system".
This is very formal terminology for what is the observed default state in/of space: for all to move "out" in all directions
at the speed of light. This principle is intrinsic to all space micro-to-marco (from within nuclei to stellar: it occurs on all scales).

The mathematical equality which describes this principle state of expansion is s/t = 1. It is the so-called "dark energy" unaccounted for.
Western scientists (incl. Miles) are failing to find & begin with the correct unit datum of the universe. The unit datum is s/t = 1 = (x² - x) wherein x = Φ.
If neither finds & begins with the correct datum, their theories are not grounded into the real, physical universe using the very same unit datum.

LongtimeAirman wrote:Airman. Charge exists as real particles in fundamental motion, both linear and angular, and at lightspeed. My favorite goto example of charge energy is E = mC^2, but for mainstream to declare "charge" being not fundamental:” is certainly odd. “What’s the definition of fundamental? Quoting the video around 12:51.

At E = 1 energy is uncharged & is the universal datum all universal motion (ie. charge) concerns.
Mainstream science is correct to state charge is not fundamental (sorry Miles) but neither know what charge "is".

Concerning definitions, "fundamental" is any necessary condition(s) preceding the presence of any subject/object.
As example: to find what is "fundamental", one uses a binary tautology:

If x, then y.
If not x, then not y.
∴ x is "fundamental" to y.

The very root(s) of definition (itself) are actually contained in/as the definite articles "is" & "not"
which share in/as the same polar relationship as any/all + and - "charge".
This can be seen in the roots of unity:

1 = unity
√1 = +1, -1
+1 = is unity
-1 = (is) not unity
-(-1) = (is) not not unity = is unity = 1.

The roots of unity intrinsically contains the binary roots of any/all definition: is & not.
Either x is, or x is not necessarily. These are incessantly in vector opposition, as + & - are.
Concerning complex analysis: what + is to the real element, - is to the imaginary element
wherein the imaginary element is an inversion of the real viz. i² = -1.
Imaginary elements are vector oppositions of real elements (ie. inversions).
They are in every other way identical to the real element, but polarly inverted.

For a human beings: if x is assumed/believed to be true but, in reality, x is false,
any/all actions performed according to x being true while/as actually false
are in vector opposition to the principle of expansion (ie. gravitation).

These vector oppositions constitute the net "charge" of a body, if present.

These two forces (electric charge and the weak force) were once united in what we call the electroweak force, whose charges were the same weak isospin and hypercharge that we just discovered.
...
So we now know that the electric field is a sort of shadow of the ancient fields from the birth of the universe

LongtimeAirman wrote:Airman. Does that seem in any way clear to you? To me it seems like they go to great lengths to avoid the thought of real spinning particles. Also odd, we don’t usually cite mainstream science as our goto source of understanding around here, considering the many ways Miles has shown the mainstream to be wrong, including a paper he posted two weeks ago, addressing the same you-tube video.

It is clear in that Western science is clearly struggling to cope with their models having been wrong for so long.
The mainstream is certainly wrong, but not 100% wrong about everything all the time.
It is possible to make an accurate observation but misinterpret it completely.
Most confusion comes from having things only half-correct esp. incl. upside-down.

LongtimeAirman wrote:Airman. Great news, glad to hear it. More people need to learn about Phi-based Pi.
.

The real lesson to be imparted is in using it to extract the root cause of human suffering.
It is not a novel finding, but it will be the first time it is derived by a scientific theory.

It is possible to neither falsely assume nor falsely "believe"
but rather to know (to no degree of uncertainty) that:
all popular "scientists" have invested precisely 0 energy
into the employment of faculties specifically tasked with
scientifically addressing & solving the problem of human suffering
such to satisfy any possible "theory of everything".

In other words: an inquiry into human suffering is fundamental to any "theory of everything" as
a "theory of everything" must take "everything" into account... incl. all sufferings of all human beings ever endured
as a consequence of any/all motion(s) in vector opposition to the universal principle of expansion.

It must not only include it, we all revolve around (in) it
as we do Western scientists' ongoing failure
to solve a simple 1-inch equation.

Why is this important?

Unity resolutely measures (thus resolutely clarifies) all:
causative roots of all outstanding division(s)
(including the M/E globalist one)
causing all suffering(s) endured by all human being(s).

In other words: it undermines & collapses the millennia-old M/E war.

Chromium6 wrote:Hi jfmeyer,

You might want to look at these links on Miles' definition of the CC. Using your PI...do you see a difference?

Yes - Miles' math is not observing the universal unit datum x² - x = 1 according to the inverse square law's difference of squares.
As a consequence, Miles' math is not (yet) properly based on the same kinematic base (of scalar motion) the universe is based on.
This kinematic base is k in/of π = 4/k wherein k is the origin of coordinates of the unit 1 = (x² - x) = S² = 4r² = 16r³ as r = 1/2.

λ = h/mc
λ = h/Φ(π/4)
λ = h/√Φ
while/as
π = 4/√Φ

Now look what happens if we try to solve for λ with Miles' kinematic 4 taking the place of the so-called Planck constant.
In doing so, we are assuming Miles' claim that π = 4 is "true" for being naturally normalized to 6.626 x 10^-34:

λ = -h(√(2√5+2) - √(10√5+10))
λ = -4(√(2√5+2) - √(10√5+10))
λ = 4√((√5/4) - (√1/4))
= 3.1446055...

By using 4 instead of 6.626 x 10^-34, we find the correct geometric scalar.
Now watch what happens if/when we add the aspects of space and time s & t
such to allow space and time to describe a kinematic universe:

4 = s/6.626 x 10^-34
s = 2.6504 x 10^-33
4 = 6.626 x 10^-34/t
t = 1.6565 x 10^-34

s/t = 2.6504 x 10^-33 / 1.6565 x 10^-34
= 4²
= 16
= MC²
= Φπ²
∴ 16 = Φπ²
is "why"
E = MC²
clarifying
1 = Φ(π/4)²

This is predicting a unified field. Miles has not yet actually found this.
If he placed the corpus of all his math on the correct kinematic base
according to the correct universal constant π = 4/√Φ he would see.

I don't know if you have ever looked at Dr. K's work especially on Filaments?
He asks a few good questions. Do you see this theory aligning as well? He states that filaments are true vector-photons in a single direction.

The six states of matter

published: The Electric Universe web site on 2002-03-08

Four states of matter are well known: solid, fluid, gaseous and plasma. All of these are thermal states: their particles have the heat motion i.e. motion in all 3 possible dimensions. The energy of this heat motion produces these four thermal states of matter - in relation to the attractive electric forces among their particles e.g. in ice-crystal or water. But the 20th century did not answer following questions:

--Is there another state of matter which is more energetic than plasma?
--How can we explain the cosmic rays up to particle energies of 1021 electronvolt?
--Filaments of the solar corona seem to be very hot without clear heating process, why?
--Why are filaments and jets so very thin - as recently discovered?
--Why did SOHO not find the solar dynamo (its most important goal)?
--How many states of matter are theoretically possible?

http://www.the-electric-universe.info/Scripts/six_states.html
---
Filaments are the largest bodies of the Universe. These filaments and jets have an exact circular cross section, can oscillate and are produced electrically from e.g. plasma. Its particles move in only one direction i.e. without the thermal zig-zag. The fifth state of matter is also a non-thermal state! Interestingly, particles in the most energetic state of matter do not emit heat due to their flight along straight lines. These particle-motions in filaments were already named recently: "non-thermal motions". For example, the solar wind has a "non-thermal velocity" of 750km/s which would need a solar surface of 24 million Kelvin. Solar mass ejection of a "non-thermal velocity" of 1500 km/s should have 96 MK.

Chromium6 wrote:I don't know if you have ever looked at Dr. K's work especially on Filaments?

Hi Chromium6,

No I have not encountered it, but your mention of it is certainly interesting because:

Chromium6 wrote:He asks a few good questions. Do you see this theory aligning as well? He states that filaments are true vector-photons in a single direction.

...if he is stating this, he is correct (though I don't know how he has arrived at it) thus it aligns.

I will address the questions the best I can. First:

The six states of matter [/b]

published: The Electric Universe web site on 2002-03-08

Four states of matter are well known: solid, fluid, gaseous and plasma.

No, they are not well-known. The states of "matter" are speed-based & all speeds discretely concern the universal scalar datum of 1 (= x² - x). The 3 dimensions of "space" are actually 3 dimensions of scalar motion which applies indiscriminately to both space and time (as one whole). If something has a temperature (incl. all matter), it has a speed associated & all physical states are temperature-dependent, thus speed-dependent.

Fundamentally, we do not live in a universe of "matter". There are more fundamental principles preceding it.
Miles has found one: we live in a universe of "charge", though he is presently unaware the principle of charge precedes any/all matter(s) to which it applies. Larson found one deeper: we live in a universe of "motion" integrally relying on the principle of reciprocity (though he was never made aware π = 4/√Φ confirming his finding). Unfortunately, Larson focused way too much on "motion" rather than focus on the importance of the fundamental principle of reciprocity. Both were/are ahead of Western science, but only one of them is still alive. Like Western science, Miles is missing this most fundamental relation between space and time & without it, his theory is incomplete at best.

All of these are thermal states:

Correct! Thermal states' quanta are speeds (or velocities) and these are naturally normalized to the integers 1, 2, 3 and their own roots √1, √2, √3 etc. Here is an example of the periodical table of elements according to speed (using RSoT notation for particular speed displacement(s) from unity):

their particles have the heat motion i.e. motion in all 3 possible dimensions.

In up-to 3 dimensions, but otherwise correct. Also note:
i. 3 dimensions applies indiscriminately to both space & time (which can & do reverse roles according to speed), and
ii. the 3 dimensions are not (only) spatial dimensions, they are more fundamentally scalar speed dimensions, and
iii. the "speed" of light C is not a limit: gravitational acceleration may exceed C (!), causing a so-called "black hole".

The energy of this heat motion produces these four thermal states of matter - in relation to the attractive electric forces among their particles e.g. in ice-crystal or water.

Correct, noting states of matter are only discrete states according to how human beings "define" them.

But the 20th century did not answer following questions:

--Is there another state of matter which is more energetic than plasma?

Plasma is not actually a "4th state of matter", but any ionized state of it. It is the consequence of thermal motion moving beyond one natural unit of heat and becoming a rotational vibration.

Western science is unaware the behaviour of space changes if/when outside the gravitational boundary of a body.
In such a region, space does not behave as if 3D.
It is only inside a gravitational boundary(s) do the 3 scalar speed dimensions apply.
What Western scientists believe are "higher" dimensions... are actually lower dimensions.
As one moves from 3D to 2D to 1D to dimensionless, the behaviour changes according to vacant degrees of freedom. These behaviours appear as "higher dimensions" to Western scientists, but they are just the opposite. You will find Western science has everything upside-down, including the stellar evolutionary sequence. Their observations are "correct" but their interpretation is backwards: the process is driven not by fusion, but by fission.

--How can we explain the cosmic rays up to particle energies of 1021 electronvolt?

If/when matter is accelerated beyond C due to gravitational acceleration, the aspects of space and time appear to invert.

Motion in 3D "space" s³/t becomes t³/s on unit space. The gravity is dimensions s³/t³ and the mass dimensions is t³/s³. If/as this occurs, matter is accelerated within a boundary Western scientists call the "event horizon" (of a black hole). If/as this matter negatively accelerates back down to the speed of light, it causes the particle energies observed.

Western scientists can not account for this because they falsely assume matter can not exceed c under any circumstance(s). If matter could not accelerate beyond c, so-called black holes would not be possible (& neither would the physical universe, for requiring them to mediate & recycle charge).

--Filaments of the solar corona seem to be very hot without clear heating process, why?

The standard solar model is wrong. The sun is not a ball of burning gas with an "imaginary" surface. The sun is composed of condensed matter: specifically, metallic hydrogen & has a real surface & lattice structure. The compact density of the metallic hydrogen carries heat generated at the core directly to the surface. The heating process occurs at the core as due to the acceleration (inward) at the core of the sun.

--Why are filaments and jets so very thin - as recently discovered?

From our perspective, "time" on the surface of the sun appears to be moving in the opposite direction.
This means effect precedes cause such that filaments & jets appear thin & widen only if/as they collapse back onto the surface. Obviously Western science is unaware of this - they do not know what the sun is even composed of, let alone how it operates. Miles' Charge Field is of great help here: it recycles "charge" because that is what everything does. However, the sun also emits uncharged photons which can not be seen in free space. That is: our sun appears the way it does because it is interacting with the atmosphere. Otherwise, it is not visible as a ball (& neither is it located where we see it). In fact, the distance(s) & scale(s) Western science (incl. Miles) are using are ludicrously off. In short: if one imagines looking through a pair of binoculars backwards, one will see everything close-up as far-away but still extremely clear. This is exactly how Western science sees the entire cosmos beyond our solar system. Everything is much, much closer than it appears (according to the ignorance of Western science).

--Why did SOHO not find the solar dynamo (its most important goal)?

Same/similar reason: the "dynamo" assumes motion is not occurring inwardly.

--How many states of matter are theoretically possible?

As many as assumed according to how they are "defined". States of matter are presently not defined according to atomic properties at all, rather their observed behaviour(s). All possible state(s) of matter boil down to something(s) more fundamental than it (them), so the question is aimed in the wrong direction. Like with octagon surrounding circle, Western scientists need to stop adding assumptions/states and start working back from such divisive ways of thinking.

Filaments are the largest bodies of the Universe. These filaments and jets have an exact circular cross section, can oscillate and are produced electrically from e.g. plasma. Its particles move in only one direction i.e. without the thermal zig-zag. The fifth state of matter is also a non-thermal state! Interestingly, particles in the most energetic state of matter do not emit heat due to their flight along straight lines.

This observation undermines the dynamo model by contradicting itself: the dynamo hypothesis requires two directions. If something is going in a circle (ie. the cross section mentioned), it can not be moving in only one direction. If the observation were interpreted properly, it would falsify the model & the question would be answered: because a dynamo does not move in only one direction, it is moving in a circle which is two directions.

These particle-motions in filaments were already named recently: "non-thermal motions". For example, the solar wind has a "non-thermal velocity" of 750km/s which would need a solar surface of 24 million Kelvin. Solar mass ejection of a "non-thermal velocity" of 1500 km/s should have 96 MK.

At s/t = 1 there is no shear between space & time, thus no friction, thus no thermal signature.
However, this does not mean there is no motion or energy associated with this condition of no impedance.
On the contrary: no impedance means you're getting everything unsullied from the source.
As observed: it is highly energetic (though not necessarily "charged").

Cheers,

I'll try to narrow-down on all the preceding dialogue into a short concise measure(s)
of the actual state of Western science as a whole (as objectively as I can presently express).

The solution to E = MC² is an integer solution.
This is extremely important because an integer solution
immediately implies discrete unit quanta of energy.

The "approximate" value of pi (as) according to the mathematicians & scientists ever since Archimedes' time
and the "precise" value of pi (as) according to the inverse square law (the same the observable universe obeys)
are absolutely not in agreement with one another. This is the principle root preventing any/all major scientific progress.
thus is the real unrecognized "crisis" in/of Western Science. They have the most fundamental constant of the universe wrong
because they "approximate" it instead of just outright solve for it using the inverse square law.

Mathematicians & scientists say 3.14159...
The physical universe itself says 4/√Φ...
Only one of them is "approximate" & thus imprecise.
The other one of them is precise & thus correct.
The discrepancy resolutely measures the very point at which & since which Western science
has severed from reality and becomes strictly imaginary
beginning with the notion pi is "transcendental".

What can we draw from this millennial blunder?
What are the real implications?
To put it bluntly (yet very truly):

Western science's prevailing theory(s) in all of physics (Einstein's Theories of Relativity)
was concocted by a man who fundamentally did not know how to properly measure a circle.
If he did, he could have immediately found:

J. F. Meyer wrote:π ≠ 3.14159... ("approximation" error)
π = 4/√Φ
π² = 16/Φ
16 = Φπ²
E = MC²
1 = Φ(π/4)²
∴ the correction to π predicts (thus allows for) a discrete quanta of energy
which both GToR & QM may simultaneously normalize themselves to.

We do not live in a universe based in "matter"
(for the presence of "matter" being contingent on the presence of a principle - sorry Western Scientists),
we do not live in a universe based on only "charge"
(for the presence of "charge" being contingent on the presence of a prior uncharged state - sorry Miles),
we do not live in a universe based on "nothing but motion"
(for the presence of "motion" being contingent on a state of motionlessness, if even "relative" - sorry RSoT),
...we live in a universe based on principle. That is: principle precedes any/all matter(s) to which it applies.

The principle(s) can be extracted directly from the equality
& doing so clarifies the binary structure (& function) of the photon
and its scalar relation to any/all motion & corresponding energy
as measurable in the same discrete units given by the integer solution.

Code:

jfmeyer wrote.
Consider a photon moving in/as a ray. Consider this an "uncharged" photon because it has no curvature such to circle/cycle.
No matter how long/far it goes, it can/does not circle back & return to a previously traversed space because it has only one direction: "out". Curvature requires two directions. But the moment the photon suddenly adopts "charge" viz. non-zero curvature (that is: it begins to curve for simultaneously moving in two directions), it begins in/as a circle but note: this only occurs if it ever becomes modified or "charged" by some body (such that might be channelling it).


Airman. I must say, the notion that what differentiates charge from regular photons is the fact that "charge" travels with non-zero curvature imparted by charge impacting and recycling through a body answers several questions and difficulties I've had assuming that charge must travel in straight lines. Now, the idea of Charge spiraling into the poles or between the sun and planets makes much better sense.
.

LongtimeAirman wrote:Airman. I must say, the notion that what differentiates charge from regular photons is the fact that "charge" travels with non-zero curvature imparted by charge impacting and recycling through a body answers several questions and difficulties I've had assuming...

Well done LTA for working it all back to a local assumption.

The reason I bring this up is because this is precisely what Western scientists do not do, so it is a rare occurrence.
They do not root out their own affirmative assumptions and temporarily suspend them (let alone try to falsify them).
What they are not doing is what "science" requires: falsification of any/all assumptions not necessarily true.

LongtimeAirman wrote:...that charge must travel in straight lines. Now, the idea of Charge spiraling into the poles or between the sun and planets makes much better sense.
.

Excellent work. It turns out (no pun intended) the polar opposite is true concerning "charge": charge curves. What also curves?

Western scientists assume & purport space curves & describe time as an "arrow" (ie. linear progression).
But suppose it is not space which curves, but rather the time of a body inducing curvature,
and space is instead the "arrow" of linear progression rather than it curving & distorting.
In other words: assume Western science have the properties of space & time the wrong way around.

In this case, it is not the actual space around bodies which curves. It only appears that way to us: as if space is curved.
We can model the motion of a charged body by assuming a curved space geometry, but it is only "relative" to the charged body it applies to.
The space itself is not curved. There is no need to assume "curved space" & all "fields" would strictly be relative to a charged body.

If this makes more intuitive sense than space bending and time being an arrow,
it is because Western scientists are practically upside-down on literally all matters.
That is: they do not consciously realize their own "relative" orientation with respect to the cosmos is upside-down.
Because they do not consciously realize this, they do not account for it in any of their analysis
& subsequently perceive everything upside-down while/as appearing to them as right-side-up.

Interesting circular Periodic Table there. I just skimmed some of the above for now.

When I first started communicating with Miles around 2011 or so, I think I asked him if he was familiar with Dewey Larson's material, because Miles' ideas seemed to resemble Dewey's somewhat.

Dewey had the idea that everything is motion and Miles had the idea that everything is photons. Dewey said photons are vibrations, i.e. a projection of an open circular motion (a revolving motion) onto a plane (parallel to the axis of the circle and outside of the circle).

The idea of just motion never made sense to me, since there has to be something moving with respect to something else to have motion. Kind of like a wave doesn't make sense without something waving. The idea of s/t made sense, but that has to refer to a something too, the space/distance and the time of a something with respect to a something else.

Lloyd wrote:Interesting circular Periodic Table there. I just skimmed some of the above for now.

When I first started communicating with Miles around 2011 or so, I think I asked him if he was familiar with Dewey Larson's material, because Miles' ideas seemed to resemble Dewey's somewhat.

Dewey had the idea that everything is motion and Miles had the idea that everything is photons. Dewey said photons are vibrations, i.e. a projection of an open circular motion (a revolving motion) onto a plane (parallel to the axis of the circle and outside of the circle).

The idea of just motion never made sense to me, since there has to be something moving with respect to something else to have motion. Kind of like a wave doesn't make sense without something waving. The idea of s/t made sense, but that has to refer to a something too, the space/distance and the time of a something with respect to a something else.

Hi Lloyd,

Good timing, as I have something extremely important to share.

I very recently learned of the role the golden ratio plays in the universe.
This is extremely significant but I doubt it will get anyone's attention.

Turns out Miles was/is correct about the golden ratio being important to field theory.
I just recently learned the inverse square law is based in/on the golden ratio.

Observe the inverse square law:

I = 1/D²

and let it observe the geometric difference of squares (x² - x) = 1.

I = (x² - x)/D²

Factor.

I = x(x - 1)/D²

Solve for x.



Solve for D.



Plug in Φ or -1/Φ in/as x and solve for I and D:



I = 1/D² recovering the inverse square law and
D = √I/I clarifying the relation between DISTANCE (area) and INTENSITY (line)

This means any distance(s) travelled is a ratio of the square root of any intensity to itself (!)
The inverse square law is thus owing itself to (ie. operates on) the integrity of the golden ratio (!)

I've also simplified the math to calculate the area of a circle (again).

(x² - x) = 1
(x² - 1) = 1/D²
Φ = 4r²/(4ar²)²
Let r = 1/2
Φ = 1/a²
a² = 1/Φ
a = 1/√Φ ≈ 0.78615137...
∴ 4a = π = 4/√Φ ≈ 3.144605511029693144...

implying

π = 4/√Φ
π² = 16/Φ
16 = Φπ²
1 = Φ(π/4)²

With respect to Larson's (universe of) "motion" postulate:
light is the moving backdrop of the physical universe viz. s/t = 1.
All motion in the universe concerns this speed/datum of light (as normalized to π/4).
This is equivalent to Miles' photon & all else moves with respect to.

In any event: both Miles' charge field and Larson's universe of motion
are each clarified as each partially true by the equality 1 = Φ(π/4)².
This equality is the integer solution to (ie. the real reason why) E = MC².

Because 1 is the product of the golden ratio & square of pi-quartered,
energy is equivalent to the product of acceleration Φ = M
and squared lightspeed (π/4)² = C² = 1/I wherein I is any intensity.

.

jfmeyer wrote. I just recently learned the inverse square law is based in/on the golden ratio.

Hi jfmeyer, Strikes me as amazing, thanks for sharing.

Below, Miles mentions that someone should have identified that fairly evident relationship before.

For additional context, here are a couple of Miles quotes from his golden ratio papers.
http://milesmathis.com/index.html

356. The Physics behind the Golden Ratio. http://milesmathis.com/phi.html How the Unified Field provides the contraints that cause the ratio. 11pp.

Miles wrote. Put simply, the golden ratio is the only solution to x – 1 = 1/x. Mathematicians can show you tricks with that all day long, but they can't tell you why phi shows up in nature, although we know that it does. That is what I am doing here.

357. More on the Golden Ratio, and the Fibonacci Series.  http://milesmathis.com/phi2.pdf 7pp.

Miles wrote. I haven't found that the energy of either field is the square of the other, notice. The charge force on a particle isn't the square or square-root of the gravity force. The square only applies to the field changes. Gravity falls off by the inverse square while charge is falling off by the inverse quad. Does this fact have anything to do with the golden ratio?

We are seeing that it does, which makes it curious that the golden ratio has never been connected to the inverse square law of physics. Even though no one before me had the two subfields as we do in my unified field, it seems someone should have noticed that the golden ratio concerns squares and square-roots. It would have been pretty easy to connect phi to the inverse square law, since phi and gravity both fall-off by the square.

And even without gravity, phi should have been tied to the sphere. Why? Because the surface area of the sphere also falls off by the square. Any real field emitted by a sphere would fall off by the square. That would include gravity or anything else.

Airman. Sure, the golden ratio is “important to field theory”, but gosh golly, it seems the charge field operates according to the golden ratio. In the first paper Miles converts a usual, traditional 2-variable phi description, a, b and a+b into four or five variable field equations including everything, i.e. the ambient charge field, defined as one. Then there’s the power series form. I’ve read these papers before. Once again, as usual, I’m amazed and exhausted.

Jfmeyer wrote. “1 is the product of the golden ratio & square of pi-quartered”
1 = Φ(π/4)².

Airman. Very succinct, good to know. I've been working at it and have finally got it memorized.

One small criticism, isn’t (x² - 1) = 1/D² wrong?
.

LongtimeAirman wrote:.

jfmeyer wrote. I just recently learned the inverse square law is based in/on the golden ratio.

Hi jfmeyer, Strikes me as amazing, thanks for sharing.

Below, Miles mentions that someone should have identified that fairly evident relationship before.

Hello Airman,

Miles was/is 100% correct about this and has my unreserved endorsement in this regard.
I did encounter this earlier in my review of Miles' work a few years back but thanks for reminding me, as
I recalled his mention of:

LongtimeAirman wrote:Airman. Sure, the golden ratio is “important to field theory”, but gosh golly, it seems the charge field operates according to the golden ratio.

It is the inverse square law which operates according to (the reciprocal property of the) golden ratio (ie. is mediated by its constancy).
Miles' charged-bodies-in-a-field... field, operates according to the inverse square law (as exclusively permitted by the golden ratio).

Jfmeyer wrote. “1 is the product of the golden ratio & square of pi-quartered”
1 = Φ(π/4)².

LongtimeAirman wrote:Airman. Very succinct, good to know. I've been working at it and have finally got it memorized.

One small criticism, isn’t (x² - 1) = 1/D² wrong?

No, the LHS is equal to x.
(x² - 1) = x
because  
(x² - x) = 1

It's just re-arranging the quadratic to remove the product +1 of the square of x instead of x itself.
Here is a picture to see the geometry:

.
Thanks for the latest diagrams and discussion. I hope you don’t mind my saying I’m constantly impressed with your ideas, precision, and patience in explaining them. Let me assure you I can pretty much recreate the phi diagrams from memory, beginning with a circle of radius ½, and the 1, 2 and sqrt(5) triangle, and how the root of phi comes in. Sorry to say, putting it all in motion, as in space/time still eludes me. I’ll keep trying.

I can certainly better appreciate the nature of phi, including interpreting Miles’ own description of how, within the gravity field, the charge field falls off as the inverse square of the distance.

In answer to your question, “How can Miles NOT know of the Phi-Pi relation?”. Agreed, it seems that Miles must know that the circle’s circumference can be expressed with phi. If so, why hasn’t mentioned it? It may be that Miles considers the fact that a body in motion about the circle travels at an apparently different rate than the object traveling in a straight line to be the more important and consequential pi fact.

You’ve indicated that Miles has not, in fact, proved Pi=4. In your phi diagrams, there’s always implied or actual motion. What would you say is the difference between the motion based phi based pi = 3.14460… and the motion based Pi=4 experimental result?

P.S. 14 Jun 0935. Cleaned up 1. an error - changed "phi = 3.14460..." to "phi based pi = 3.14460…";
and 2. a typo - "why has he hasn’t mentioned it?" to "why hasn’t he mentioned it?"
.

LongtimeAirman wrote:.
Thanks for the latest diagrams and discussion. I hope you don’t mind my saying I’m constantly impressed with your ideas, precision, and patience in explaining them. Let me assure you I can pretty much recreate the phi diagrams from memory, beginning with a circle of radius ½, and the 1, 2 and sqrt(5) triangle, and how the root of phi comes in. Sorry to say, putting it all in motion, as in space/time still eludes me. I’ll keep trying.

That's great to hear - equally impressive is your openness, as this plays no smaller role in any/all reception.

Knowledge of the reconstruction of the phi geometry is not something that can/will ever depart:
it is there as a seed only to further blossom & ever-yield. This is the nature of such fruits: they are ever-yielding
and do not lead astray, but conversely align. This has nothing to do with me but how the universe operates for all.

With respect to your concerns about applications to motion, I find a possible root(s) later in your response.

LongtimeAirman wrote:.I can certainly better appreciate the nature of phi, including interpreting Miles’ own description of how, within the gravity field, the charge field falls off as the inverse square of the distance.

The "gravity" field of a body would be akin to anything inside the √5 diameter circle: the circumference is the "event horizon".
Only inside this circle/boundary does gravitational "inward" motion apply... otherwise, it is all scalar "outwards" in empty space.
All bodies have their own surrounding gravitational boundaries inducing inwards motion/acceleration (ie. "gravitation").
If no gravitation, then no inwards motion/acceleration at all - the only motion is mono-vector "outwards" in all directions at once.

So,
Inside boundary (as inside √5 diameter circle) = gravitation applies (inward motion)
Outside boundary (anywhere else outside of it) = NO gravitation applies (only outward motion).
"Charge" goes both ways inside gravitational boundaries... it moves outwards, too, not only inwards.
It is like the oxygen of the universe... breathed in & out. Only in this case, it is light.
The quality of light received is according to the "charge" of the body.

LongtimeAirman wrote:In answer to your question, “How can Miles NOT know of the Phi-Pi relation?”. Agreed, it seems that Miles must know that the circle’s circumference can be expressed with phi. If so, why has he hasn’t mentioned it? It may be that Miles considers the fact that a body in motion about the circle travels at an apparently different rate than the object traveling in a straight line to be the more important and consequential pi fact.

Miles is suffering the (false) belief pi = 4 because he knows not the kinematic base it sits on.

LongtimeAirman wrote:You’ve indicated that Miles has not, in fact, proved Pi=4. In your phi diagrams, there’s always implied or actual motion. What would you say is the difference between the motion based phi = 3.14460… and the motion based Pi=4 experimental result?
.

I've meant to suggest he has not because he can not because pi does not equal 4.
Pi is itself a ratio, meaning line/curve. The "4" is the line part. There is no curve in "4"... it's just 8r as r = 1/2.
Pi is a circle, meaning it describes motion in two orthogonal directions. A line is motion in only 1 direction.

The "kinematic" base of the physical universe is √Φ. This means all motion concerns this base.
If we take this base and multiply it with the correct ratio of pi, we get Miles' 4 viz. √Φ(√(8√5-) = 4.
This means the "4" Miles is measuring is a PRODUCT of pi and this kinematic constant. He hasn't solved for it.
If he had, he'd have placed not only 4 on it, but also placed his entire "charge" field on it because it operates on this base.
In other words: Miles is not placing his "4" back on the kinematic base of √Φ because he has not SOLVED for it.

I've recently learned something extremely important about pi & must focus on an email(s).
In the meantime, a hint: compare the areas of the r = √5/2 and r = 1/2 circles.
Find the area of the former is 5x the latter... thus if one begins with a √5/2 diameter circle
and removes an r = 1/2 circle from inside... one is left with a flat torus of 4a = π.
The "diameter" of this torus is exactly 1/Φ and describes an area 16ar²/4r² = 4a = π.

What this means is: 1/Φ explicitly defines the geometric integrity/fidelity of the circle.

Hello everyone,

A new paper has been drafted entitled:

On the Use of an Inverse Square
to Solve for π with Exactitude

and can be found by clicking here.

Please feel free to provide feedback(s) esp. ideas on how to improve.

All the best & cheers.

.

jfmeyer wrote. A new paper has been drafted entitled:

On the Use of an Inverse Square
to Solve for π with Exactitude

Abstraction: This paper demonstrates the use of an inverse square to calculate the exact area of a circle of known radius r = 1/2. The result finds Archimedes' initial assumption amounts to what was & is an unrecognized " Blunder of Millennia ".

Hi jfmeyer. Thanks for sharing and asking for a review. This is is a great paper. Well written and well organized. I like starting with the basic history review of Archimedes’ 8 (and increasing) sided polygon(s) pi approximation method, intended to approximate pi to any desired accuracy, i.e. pi=3.14159; the method is not well justified and it is certainly not exact.
 
"So, we reject Archimedes' approach entirely & try a new one" Begin with a circle of radius ½ and its circumscribed and inscribed squares. A like-for-like comparison. The smaller square is half the area of the larger, … . r = 1/2 = s², scale invariance and line-area magnitude equality. The details are clear and explained well. Glad you mentioned trauma, I can relate.
 
One tiny diagram typo. LINE SEGMENT(S): AB = BC = CD = DC = 1 = 2r. DC to DA.

That leads us to the next diagram “squared symmetry intrinsic to the concentric circle and square” where it is shown for the r=1/2 circle, length (4a) units circularly surrounds (a) units squared.

Next, what majora radius would result in an annulus (encompassing minora r=1/2) containing (4a) units squared?  We are shown how the  R = √5/2 circle is determined.

Previously, you’ve shared the same phi-based diagrams for our enlightenment. This paper avoids phi or Φ the phi symbol - under the guise of the “inverse square” method until page 7*. I suppose any mention of ‘phi’ is a kind of sub-conscious turn-off for some readers, despite the relationship between consecutive “squared” circles (-1/2+√5/2), the reciprocal of the golden ratio. The paper seems to do it as gently as possible.

Just when I thought we were almost there, we arrive at the start of an 8-step process to "use an INVERSE SQUARE to find the EXACT area of a circle of radius 1/2 = 0.5000." I tried to following every detail and reading it three times and have made progress. I still need to read it again. Just like your answers to my questions in your previous post, but wait, that post gave us a clue!

jfmeyer wrote. I've recently learned something extremely important about pi & must focus on an email(s).
In the meantime, a hint: compare the areas of the r = √5/2 and r = 1/2 circles.
Find the area of the former is 5x the latter... thus if one begins with a √5/2 diameter circle
and removes an r = 1/2 circle from inside... one is left with a flat torus of 4a = π.
The "diameter" of this torus is exactly 1/Φ and describes an area 16ar²/4r² = 4a = π.

What this means is: 1/Φ explicitly defines the geometric integrity/fidelity of the circle.

That too requires more thought. On page 19 Φ is finally mentioned. The consecutive squared circles, r = 1/2 and r = √5/2 somehow scale to Φ. According to the annulus diameter and whether we are scaling up or down. There might be light at the end of the tunnel.

I must ask, does answering the Riemann Hypothesis problem win you that one million dollar prize? Or do you need to use the 3.14159 value of pi before an answer can be considered legitimate?

Great paper.

* page 7, “Mathematicians have somehow completely missed the geometric relationship between the two principle ratios composing the so-called "golden ratio" phi and pi.”
.

LongtimeAirman wrote:.
Hi jfmeyer. Thanks for sharing and asking for a review. This is is a great paper. Well written and well organized. I like starting with the basic history review of Archimedes’ 8 (and increasing) sided polygon(s) pi approximation method, intended to approximate pi to any desired accuracy, i.e. pi=3.14159; the method is not well justified and it is certainly not exact.

Thanks - Archimedes technically began with a square before doubling it to an octagon, but that was the only thing he did right with resp. to pi.

LongtimeAirman wrote:."So, we reject Archimedes' approach entirely & try a new one" Begin with a circle of radius ½ and its circumscribed and inscribed squares. A like-for-like comparison. The smaller square is half the area of the larger, … . r = 1/2 = s², scale invariance and line-area magnitude equality. The details are clear and explained well. Glad you mentioned trauma, I can relate.

I am anticipating the mathematical community will not accept LAME as an acronym for the line-area equality. I'm ~10-15 years too late.

LongtimeAirman wrote:One tiny diagram typo. LINE SEGMENT(S): AB = BC = CD = DC = 1 = 2r. DC to DA.

Thanks!

LongtimeAirman wrote:That leads us to the next diagram “squared symmetry intrinsic to the concentric circle and square” where it is shown for the r=1/2 circle, length (4a) units circularly surrounds (a) units squared.

Next, what majora radius would result in an annulus (encompassing minora r=1/2) containing (4a) units squared?  We are shown how the  R = √5/2 circle is determined.

Previously, you’ve shared the same phi-based diagrams for our enlightenment. This paper avoids phi or Φ the phi symbol - under the guise of the “inverse square” method until page 7*. I suppose any mention of ‘phi’ is a kind of sub-conscious turn-off for some readers, despite the relationship between consecutive “squared” circles (-1/2+√5/2), the reciprocal of the golden ratio. The paper seems to do it as gently as possible.

I wanted people to focus all their energy on the raw geometry of the ratios involved in the golden ratio instead of mysticism.

LongtimeAirman wrote:Just when I thought we were almost there, we arrive at the start of an 8-step process to "use an INVERSE SQUARE to find the EXACT area of a circle of radius 1/2 = 0.5000." I tried to following every detail and reading it three times and have made progress. I still need to read it again. Just like your answers to my questions in your previous post, but wait, that post gave us a clue!

The 8-step is what I am least happy with & introduces an unnecessary break in momentum.
In the re-write I am going to fix this.

LongtimeAirman wrote:That too requires more thought. On page 19 Φ is finally mentioned. The consecutive squared circles, r = 1/2 and r = √5/2 somehow scale to Φ. According to the annulus diameter and whether we are scaling up or down. There might be light at the end of the tunnel.

I'm sorry it's not more clear: the two ratios in/of the golden ratio are the radii of the 5a and a circles.
If you look at the quadratic x² - x = 1 you find x is composed of 1/2 and √5/2.

If you square both radii (ie. x and y axis), you get the circle equations of those circles:
x² + y² = 1/4 because (1/2)² = 1/4
x² + y² = 5/4 because (√5/2)² = 5/4
5/4 - 1/4 = x² - x = 1

So what the smaller radii is to a, the larger radii is to 5a such that the 4a annulus has a width of the reciprocal of the golden ratio 1/Φ.
This means that if you take 4a as a circumference and expand it outwards until you capture 4a squared area,
the distance you must travel is exactly equal to the reciprocal of the golden ratio. This length is EQUAL to
the square of whatever a is, recalling 4a is pi.

So the inverse square method is just that: for which a does a² = 1/Φ?
It's actually just two lines of math:

a² = 1/Φ
a = 1/√Φ

and done. This is imperatively the length of each π/4 such that if/when squared it reaches all the way out to 0.618...
If you would like to falsify 3.14159... go onto any online calculator like mathway.com and type this in

(π/4)²

expecting to find 0.618... only to find:

0.61685027...

which is short. If this number were correct, this would be the geometric width between the two circles.

LongtimeAirman wrote:I must ask, does answering the Riemann Hypothesis problem win you that one million dollar prize? Or do you need to use the 3.14159 value of pi before an answer can be considered legitimate?

I don't know to the former - I don't have confidence the Clay Institute would be able to confront/stomach it.
No to the latter - that number is the reason the problem exists. The zeta function is broken due to it.

LongtimeAirman wrote:Great paper.

Thanks for the feedback, when redraft is complete I will post.
Cheers,

Hello,

Here is an updated draft of the paper.

Please see this video re: alien supersonic craft.

These craft are designed using the correct value of pi as contained in the paper.
The beings responsible are more consciously evolved than we presently are.
If you would like to help make the correction to pi, please link the paper wherever you can.

I've sent a copy to Miles directly, but comfortably predict he will ignore it.
I predict he will do exactly what he accuses all others scientists of: fraud & negligence.
I'm sorry but it is necessary to draw attention to Miles' own hypocrisy.

My recommendation is for several of Miles' readers to approach Miles with this
and demand he answer to it. If he doesn't, let his actions speak for themselves.

All the best,
J. F. Meyer
(not a real name)

.
You've made some fine changes, going from merely a great paper to a GOAT Pi paper*.

The following are mostly notes of me agreeing with your changes.

1. Adding the inverse square diagram between the title and abstract. Perfect.

2. Adding page numbers, adding figure numbers. Makes things so much easier to reference to.

3. Losing the eight step process. Going from 19 pages down to 14 plus a single dedication page. Going from 14 diagrams down to 9. All the dropped information is well and good, good enough to build a class on the subject, the paper now gets to the point much sooner. Unlike the previous draft I was able to comfortably follow and comprehend the entire paper in a single sitting in review mode. Of course, I’ve benefited from your many previous detailed side explanations, thank you.

4. Absolutely absurd, agreed. I’m not at all happy seeing more than a page of Archimedian pi to 3640 decimals, I’m on the spectrum enough to count such things.

5 Pg 5. bottom paragraph, too many s’s in relentlessly.

6. Figure 5 Title. Since the updated draft has dropped the 8-step ‘Tasks’, drop ‘TASK’ from figure 5’s Title.

7. Figure 5 is quite busy yet the diagram provides a clear big picture view, comparing the r = 1/2 and R =√5/2 lines and areas. The only thing missing from figure 5 is the 5a – a = 4a text calculation covered in figure 6.

8. Page 10 “We are now equipped to answer the crucial question: for which width does the area of the annulus equal (4a) units squared?” What, that grey area calculation is already shown in fig 5. Only the text or numerical calculation remains, shown in fig 6, next.
   
Any more and I’d just be quibbling. The rest all looks good to me.

Ok, Riemann Hypothesis only has the “problem” because of the “inexactitude” of π = 3.14159… when calculating a number’s zeta value. Sorry I’m so dense, I’m sure I don’t know what the problem is.
Zeta(s) = 1 + 1/2^s + 1/3^s + 1/4^s + 1/5^s + …
and a Zeta value for 2, provided by Euler.
Zeta(2) = 1 + 1/2^2 + 1/3^2 + 1/4^2 + 1/5^2 + …
= 1 + 1/4 + 1/9 + 1/16 + 1/25 + …
=  π^2/6
Why the heck is π there? Is that still true given the phi/pi correction?  

Might you be able to demonstrate or describe how recognizing π = √( 8√5 - 8 ) corrects the RH "problem"?

* GOAT, (contemporary slang, greatest of all time).
.

LongtimeAirman wrote:.You've made some fine changes, going from merely a great paper to a GOAT Pi paper*.

Hello LTAM,

Thanks & I appreciate the time you've invested in finding any/all ways to improve.
Such insights continue to help carve a clearer picture(s) - thank you.

LongtimeAirman wrote:The following are mostly notes of me agreeing with your changes.

1. Adding the inverse square diagram between the title and abstract. Perfect.

Yes - I really wanted readers to see exactly what an inverse square looks like contained by 2r right angles.
Here is another image I've updated with the most relevant information(s):

LongtimeAirman wrote:2. Adding page numbers, adding figure numbers. Makes things so much easier to reference to.

For the paper, I admit I was/am using a freeware program which is NOT user-friendly (for my purposes) & I don't have a professional suite.
This program does not even have a working spell-check function. I'm glad about this, as I can retro-measure my own oversight with feedback like yours.

LongtimeAirman wrote:3. Losing the eight step process. Going from 19 pages down to 14 plus a single dedication page. Going from 14 diagrams down to 9. All the dropped information is well and good, good enough to build a class on the subject, the paper now gets to the point much sooner. Unlike the previous draft I was able to comfortably follow and comprehend the entire paper in a single sitting in review mode. Of course, I’ve benefited from your many previous detailed side explanations, thank you.

Great to hear, thank you.

LongtimeAirman wrote:4. Absolutely absurd, agreed. I’m not at all happy seeing more than a page of Archimedian pi to 3640 decimals, I’m on the spectrum enough to count such things.

That was/is the intended effect: I want people to look at and see that mess of numbers and just try to continue to believe
every single one of these digits is accurate to the radius of a circle two polygons neither never can nor do reconcile.
It's a measure of... something.

LongtimeAirman wrote:5 Pg 5. bottom paragraph, too many s’s in relentlessly.

Hawk-eyed; thank you. Fixed.

LongtimeAirman wrote:6. Figure 5 Title. Since the updated draft has dropped the 8-step ‘Tasks’, drop ‘TASK’ from figure 5’s Title.

I choose to leave this as-is: it shows what stating a task and completing it looks like.
In principle in find before one demonstrates any task, one must state what task they are demonstrating.

I've replaced that section with the circle equations and their relative areas a and 5a.

LongtimeAirman wrote:7. Figure 5 is quite busy yet the diagram provides a clear big picture view, comparing the r = 1/2 and R =√5/2 lines and areas. The only thing missing from figure 5 is the 5a – a = 4a text calculation covered in figure 6.

It's there in the bottom right: 5a - a = 4a and shows a picture of what removing the central a looks like.

LongtimeAirman wrote:8. Page 10 “We are now equipped to answer the crucial question: for which width does the area of the annulus equal (4a) units squared?” What, that grey area calculation is already shown in fig 5. Only the text or numerical calculation remains, shown in fig 6, next.

Yes: first show the work, then re-address & answer the question.
The completed work precedes the re-asking. If you already realized the implications,
your conscience is much less constricted than others'. Do not underestimate
how ignorant people truly are... I learned this lesson very painfully.
   

LongtimeAirman wrote:Any more and I’d just be quibbling. The rest all looks good to me.

It serves the interim - bigger things are in motion.

LongtimeAirman wrote:Ok, Riemann Hypothesis only has the “problem” because of the “inexactitude” of π = 3.14159…

Literally, exactly.

LongtimeAirman wrote:when calculating a number’s zeta value. Sorry I’m so dense,

The one who acknowledges & admits their own ignorance is MOST conscious.
Being conscious of ones own ignorance is not something to be "forgiven", but loved.
Being unconsciously wilfully ignorant is what begs for forgiveness esp. if given cost(s) associated.

LongtimeAirman wrote:I’m sure I don’t know what the problem is.
Zeta(s) = 1 + 1/2^s + 1/3^s + 1/4^s + 1/5^s + …
and a Zeta value for 2, provided by Euler.
Zeta(2) = 1 + 1/2^2 + 1/3^2 + 1/4^2 + 1/5^2 + …
= 1 + 1/4 + 1/9 + 1/16 + 1/25 + …
=  π2/6
Why the heck is π there? Is that still true given the phi/pi correction?  

The value "2" is the reciprocal of 1/2 as an area. I very recently learned this.

Now, the expression π²/6 is rationally "true"... but the 3.14159... inside of it is NOT "numerically" true.

Substitute the correct value of pi into the rational & simplify:

If: π²/6
But: π ≠ 3.14159...
Rather: π = √(8√5-8 )
Then: π² = (8√5-8 )

Therefore:

π²/6
= (8√5-8 )/6
= 16r√5-16r / 12r
observing r = 1/2
the "real element".

LongtimeAirman wrote:Might you be able to demonstrate or describe how recognizing π = √( 8√5 - 8 ) corrects the RH "problem"?

* GOAT, (contemporary slang, greatest of all time).
.

As above: the Riemann hypothesis problem is clarified.
It allows immediate clarification(s) of what the "real element"
is in/of any/all real & imaginary matters.

But the "real" underlying problem is what it predicts...
esp. with respect to a theory of "everything" that "matters":

human suffering ∝ human ignorance

Therefore:
if one is ignorant, one suffers & if one is not,
one suffers not while/as in intensive proportion.

The prediction means the only "boundary" which exists is the "boundary" defined
by ones own unconscious imaginary belief-based ignorance(s)
as detached from reality. It's an important clarification.

Can you all summarize your most useful findings from this thread in layman's language?

Lloyd wrote:Can you all summarize your most useful findings from this thread in layman's language?

Hello Lloyd,

Yes - we now have a 1-page Theory of Unification (updated):



Ultra layman's terms: humanity has the wrong value of pi & it is preventing unification
while/as being a/the common denominator of all suffering(s) endured since at least
the time of Archimedes (probably much, much longer).

All the best,

Hello again,

This one is less than 24 hours old, but is very big.

It is possible to resolutely FALSIFY 3.14159... using only 3 steps involving 3 circles.

Let (≈π) = 3.14159...

1. Plot a pi annulus according to 4a(R² - r²) = 4a observing r = 1/2. Find its width as 1/Φ = 0.618...



2. Plot the square of (≈π/4) from r = 1/2 on the y axis via. (0, 1/2 + (≈π/4)²) and draw a concentric circle through it. Find the width.



3. Compare the width of the pi annulus to the new circle.



If 3.14159... truly observes a radius of 1/2, the square of its quarter must reach

from:
x² + y² = 1/4
to
x² + y² = 5/4

Does it? No. It's short.
Therefore, π ≠ 3.14159...

.
Hey jfmeyer, perhaps easier than drawing circles, just note the coordinates (0, 1/2 + (π/4)²).

As your paper has shown, we now know, (π/4)² equals  1/Φ = 0.618034…    

Plug in both pi values:  
Phi-based pi, piP =  √(8√5-8 ) = 3.14460551 … .
(piP/4)² = 0.618034… = 1/Φ,  is correct.
Archimedean pi, piA = 3.14159265 … .
(piA/4)² = 0.61685… does Not = 0.618034 = 1/Φ.

Lloyd wrote. Can you all summarize your most useful findings from this thread in layman's language?

Jfmeyer wrote. Yes - we now have a 1-page Theory of Unification:

Hey Lloyd, I’ll take the liberty of pointing out the main finding. Archimedian pi, call it piA, is in error, the degree of error is demonstrated by jfmeyer’s last post. piP is 0.00301286 larger than piA … , which rounds up, I believe, to 0.1 per cent the value of pi.

What difference does that make? Well not much until you require reliable and dependable accuracy smaller than that error. On the other hand, the piA error is built-in wherever technology requiring curvature or curved motion is involved. The larger the structure, the larger the error. We are limited by such errors and our failure to make corrections when faced with errors makes things worse. jfmeyer alludes to superior alien technology, made possible by their knowledge of the exact value of pi = piP. Miles has described how we may correct hundreds of mainstream theory errors – using simple math. 

The Theory of Unification is beyond my reckoning, who knows where 1 = Φ(π/4)² leads to?
.

Hello all,

I've consolidated the above into a single page paper falsifying 3.14159...
(edit 1): cleaned up



Please feel free to provide feedback before it goes live.

Thanks & all the best,

.
Hi jfmeyer. I spent a few hours studying “On a Falsification of π = 3.14159…” and was unable to come up with any errors. The central interior of the r=1/2 circle marked as a2 had me - as a reviewer - confused for a bit till the left side ‘VERIFY the annulus’ integrity by verifying each a is radially squared, ’ made it clear that the superscript 2 indicates area. That left side section does a fine job explaining things.

This single page describes a as a circ. length c/4 and as the area of the r=1/2 circle, as well as the area of each of the four annulus sections. Perhaps you might add a single sentence mentioning line area magnitude equivalence - without the acronym.  

The single page does a fine job falsifying π = 3.14159… .
.

LongtimeAirman wrote:.Hi jfmeyer. I spent a few hours studying “On a Falsification of π = 3.14159…” and was unable to come up with any errors.

Hello LTAM, thank you for investing this time & providing this feedback - it is invaluable.

LongtimeAirman wrote:The central interior of the r=1/2 circle marked as a2 had me - as a reviewer - confused for a bit till the left side ‘VERIFY the annulus’ integrity by verifying each a is radially squared, ’ made it clear that the superscript 2 indicates area.

Thanks, it's been updated as follows.

LongtimeAirman wrote:This single page describes a as a circ. length c/4 and as the area of the r=1/2 circle, as well as the area of each of the four annulus sections. Perhaps you might add a single sentence mentioning line area magnitude equivalence - without the acronym.  

I've since updated to the following:



Change-log:

-Added R = √(1 + 1/4)
-Cleaned up fig. a lower text (due to resize fade)
-Re-organized mid-left math
-Replaced arith. with areal equality 5a - a = 4a
-Modified fig. b to indicate shaded a indicates a squared area in units squared
whereas dark π/4 indicates circum. length in units. Allows 5a - a = 4a viz.
-Cleaned up 'to Falsify' box.

Also updated:

from
line area magnitude equivalence (LAME)
to:
length / area numerical equivalency (LANE)



Clarifying:

r = 1/2 = s²
4r = 2 = 4s²
4w = 4/Φ = 4a²
w = 1/Φ = a²
w = 1/Φ = (π/4)²
w = 1/Φ = π²/16
∴ √w = 1/√Φ = π/4
∴ 4a = 4/√Φ = π
∴ 16 = Φπ²
∴ 1 = 4 / πΦ^r
obs. r = 1/2

LongtimeAirman wrote:The single page does a fine job falsifying π = 3.14159… .

If/as it becomes finer, it is owing in large part to yours & others' feedback(s) (thank you).

Update(s):

1-Page proof
' On a Proof π ≠ 3.14159... '
uploaded to vixra here.

11-Page paper
' On the Use of an Inverse Square to Solve for Pi with Exactitude '
can be found here.

Important Changes:

i. 'LANE' has been changed (again) to 'ULANE': Unitary Line/Area Numerical Equivalency as in: a unifying lane(way).
ii. Updated most images.
iii. Re-wrote the ending.

All the best,

.
jfmeyer,

Pi is dead, long live Pi.

Pi and Phi are so much more sensible and interesting now. Thanks for this wonderful information that seems completely obvious and ‘unitarily’ self evident to me now; how pi and phi are related, through a pi annulus with small radius r=1/2 and width w = -1/2 + √5/2.

Thanks for allowing this feedback and thanks for sharing many diagrams and drafts – including many very interesting and subtle variations along the way. Each an opportunity to study and understand the subject further.

1. Great Paper title illustration. A not very complicated diagram showing a quarter annulus section showing how the how to find Pi with exactitude solution works.

2. I like the abstraction and oh, by the way the abstraction’s s text shape pleasantly mirrors the paper’s title illustration, nice touch.

3. I like starting with a diagram of the Archimedean method of calculating pi. The missing bottom edge makes this diagram a little odd(?)

4. Good first 10 or so paragraphs, challenging our assumptions. After all, most everyone thinks they already know most everything they ever wanted to know about pi, tough crowd.

5. Anatomy of a Unit Square is another good addition. The r=1/2 circle is in fact the unit square’s inscribed circle.

6. I like the ULANE figure 3. Thanks for the advance copy. I like how the double hash marks show that √r = s = 1/√2 without adding to any clutter while pointing out r=|1/2|= s² is true and unity at the bottom.

7. And ULANE’s following explanatory paragraph. Offset dimensions tied to the unit square.

8. Yes, π = 4a. And yes the need to build an annulus of 4a sq units. Instead of a series of tasks, you gently explain and justify each step of the way. A tour de force, if you don’t mind my saying.

9. I’ll still need to study up on how the relationship between pi and phi implies collapsing/expanding information between 2 and 3 dimensions.

10. And again, no complaint, I’m still working to better understand your clear intent on leading us to precisely calculate the value of a, in order to perform an inverse square operation - “For which a does its own square equal the reciprocal of the golden ratio” methodology. Making use of a phi property?

11. pg 10 box. Spelling error. Add a ‘d’ to ‘unrecognize’.

No complaints, you’ve tied it all together splendidly. Please pardon all the superlatives. A veritable Mountain GOAT Pi paper.

Of course who knows what academia or the intelligentsia will say. No jinx intended, likely nothing, the scientific process including mathematics are clearly broken. We’re very familiar with mainstream’s lack of acknowledgment - not a peep - or reaction of any sort to of any of Miles’ many papers and ideas. Apparently they do not want to draw attention to such things. Especially when they are as clear and logical and important as this Paper. Despite their efforts, eventually, I’m sure this paper will be duly recognized as a milestone correction in the history of mathematics.
.

@ Airman, can you sum up JF's info? Or is that what you just did? I haven't red much of the above so far. I only red some of the earlier discussion.

.

Lloyd wrote. @ Airman, can you sum up JF's info? Or is that what you just did? I haven't red much of the above so far. I only red some of the earlier discussion.

Hi Lloyd. Yes, I briefly summarized some of the Paper’s steps as I reviewed them. jfmeyer explains it very well. I'm convinced that the Archimedean Pi approximation is wrong and needs correction. You may have missed my reply to you on this thread on Monday, 19 Sept.
.

Hi jfmeyer, LTAM and LLoyd,

In Miles' most recent paper he makes this statement. Does your equation fit with this jmeyer? Just curious to be honest:

http://milesmathis.com/bish.pdf
------------

Miles Mathis wrote:figure out how EM fit into his equations. Or to say it another way, how CHARGE fit into his
equations. He never solved this because he didn't understand how charge had been buried by Maxwell
and Bohr, by conflating it with electricity. Maxwell never understood what his D field was
mechanically, though I have shown it is the charge field as a real photon field; and Bohr also conflated
the mass of the electron with the mass of the photon, fudging between them in foundational equations
and crippling his field for decades with his sloppy variable assignments.
But just for the sake of clarity, let me gloss the series mistake Einstein made. In that link above to my
paper pulling apart Einstein's first paper line-by-line, you will see that I caught him reducing an
equation wrongly:

Einstein's final error is a simple mathematical one . He assumes that
c2/(c2 - v2) = 1/√(1 - v 2 /c2)
When in fact it is simply
1/(1 – v 2 /c2 )
There is no square root!

I wasn't the first one who caught him at that. Born also pointed out that square root drops out of
nowhere in the derivation. But for some reason Born was ignored and the error was buried. Once
Einstein imported the tensor calculus, the original derivation became invisible. Did he correct it? No,
he just ignored it, along with all the other errors.* These errors aren't so obvious once you import
matrices and all that mess. Anyway, once you lose that square root you lose the ability to expand that
term gamma using a Taylor series. But this is where the limit at c comes from. Einstein expanded
gamma using infinite series, then applied terms in the series to nature, with the first term being the
Newtonian field. The other terms became the parameterized post-Newtonian field, which gave newer
mathematicians yet another playground to go wild in. But since none of that was legitimate from the
first word, it was all another pipe-dream. It was gamma that gave Einstein the infinite series in the
mass increase equation as well, as you can see here. In the first section you can see how he imported
gamma unanalyzed from Special Relativity into the mass transforms. In later sections I show that the
mass transforms of Relativity reduce directly into the Newtonian E = ½ mv2, with no approximation
and no expansion. This also dooms all parameterized post-Newtonian formulisms, but more
importantly dooms the limit at c. All that math has to be thrown out as compromised by previous
errors.

What this means is that there is absolutely nothing to prevent the photon from having mass. Which
means that Bishop's forbidden equation doesn't imply what he says it does. Yes, it does imply the
photon is the quantum of charge, not the electron, and that charge moves at c. But it does not imply
that charge is therefore massless.

I have even used constants like G and k to calculate the mass of the charge photon, which turns out to
be on the order of 10-37kg. Conveniently that matches mainstream math, which has been used to put
the photon below 10-36kg.

Chromium6 wrote:Hi jfmeyer, LTAM and LLoyd,

In Miles' most recent paper he makes this statement.

...I show that the mass transforms of Relativity reduce directly into the Newtonian E = ½ mv2, with no approximation
and no expansion. This also dooms all parameterized post-Newtonian formulisms, but more
importantly dooms the limit at c. All that math has to be thrown out as compromised by previous
errors.

What this means is that there is absolutely nothing to prevent the photon from having mass. Which
means that Bishop's forbidden equation doesn't imply what he says it does. Yes, it does imply the
photon is the quantum of charge, not the electron, and that charge moves at c. But it does not imply
that charge is therefore massless....

Does your equation fit with this jmeyer?

Hi,

Short answer is yes. Long answer is:

The equality 1 = Φ(π/4)² is not mine, as it precedes me, but is absolute & is why E = MC².
The equality also clarifies the so-called "unified field" of 1 as an incessant product of two sub-fields.
The two sub-fields are based on phi and pi such that their product is incessantly 1. This is the "ambient" field.

It can be re-written as an integer solution to "1" with an isolated "real element" of ½ via. 1 = ½(√5 + 1)C²
wherein C is an absolute geometric area (in units squared) contained by a real "relative" radius of ½ unit length.
In other words: 1 = ½(√5 + 1)C² will solve for C as the circular squared area of a circle whose radius is precisely ½.
The "real element" is the length of the radius of the circle which circumscribes the square of numerically equal area s² = ½:



So whenever we are talking about ½, we are talking about a real squared area of ½ a unit in relation to the radial length of the circle surrounding that same ½ unit square.
This "ULANE" is what makes it a "real element" - it is a real geometric relationship between a length of ½ and an area of ½.

This (all) relates directly to Miles' claim photons (must & do) have real radii. This claim is, in principle, correct however
the circumference of a circle whose radius is the very same ½ above is NOT 3.14159... as Western science erroneously believes
NOR is it "4" as Miles believes & claims. The Western scientists are completely wrong & Miles is only half-correct.
The relative circumference of a circle whose radius is ½ is exactly 4√(-½ + (½)√5) ≈ 3.144605511029693144...

It is true any/all properly conducted mass transformations DO resolve back into Newtonian physics (of absolute magnitudes).
An absolute reference frame is by default the simultaneity of the two universal principles (or sub-fields)
of scalar expansion (ie. all "outwards" motion) and gravitation (ie. all "inwards" motion).

All "temporary" physical processes are subject to/of the simultaneity of the dual principles of expansion & gravitation.
E = ½mv² is an expression of local kinetic energy already factoring the real part of ½ while/as strictly "absolutely" observing E = ½(√5 + 1)C².
Importantly, & to close: ½m = M = (1/2 + √5/2) = "golden ratio" for v² = C² thus m = (√5 + 1).

Hi @jfmeyer,

Might want to check out this new formula for PI that was announced recently:






While studying high energy physics in quantum theory, Indian physicists developed a formula that surprisingly provides a way to calculate the digits of pi! What's more, the formula relates to the first ever known infinite series formula for pi discovered by Madhava hundreds of years before Newton or Leibniz was born.

https://www.iflscience.com/physicists-accidentally-discover-a-whole-new-way-to-write-pi-74768

iflscience wrote:Physicists Accidentally Discover A Whole New Way To Write Pi
The technique has come full circle.

Author
DR. KATIE SPALDING
by
Holly Large


"Our efforts, initially, were never to find a way to look at π."

Ah, pi. The most popular of the irrationals. Its expansion goes on forever, in any base, with no way to predict which number will come next; it’s so unknowable that even NASA only bothers learning around 15 digits, and they put people on the Moon.

But just because we can’t write pi using numbers – at least not without infinite time and space at our disposal – that doesn't mean we can’t do it at all. There are actually many ways to express the constant exactly – you just need to be a bit tricksy about it.

And that’s precisely what a team of physicists at the Indian Institute of Science claim to have done: using an infinite series representation, they appear to have found a way to express pi that has so far gone completely unnoticed by mathematicians and scientists. And the best part? They did it entirely by accident.

“Our efforts, initially, were never to find a way to look at π,” said Aninda Sinha, Professor at the Center for High Energy Physics (CHEP) and co-author of a new paper containing the formula, in a statement on the discovery.

“All we were doing was studying high-energy physics in quantum theory and trying to develop a model with fewer and more accurate parameters to understand how particles interact,” he continued. “We were excited when we got a new way to look at π.”

So what’s the secret? Well, it all comes down to the idea of infinite series. These are – well, they’re exactly what they sound like: a sum, or perhaps product, of the terms of an infinite sequence. That may not sound much easier than “an infinite list of pseudorandom numbers” in terms of usability, but the results are pretty amazing; not only can they be extremely useful for calculating the digits of pi itself, but they’re often also quite beautiful, mathematically speaking.

“One of the earliest [infinite series for pi] was that of Wallis,” noted mathematicians John Joseph O'Connor and Edmund Robertson back in 2001, “and one of the best-known is […] seems to have been first discovered by James Gregory.”


pi formulas
The formulas from Wallis (top) and Gregory (bottom), with the latter often misattributed to Leibniz.
Image credit: IFLScience

“These are both dramatic and astonishing formulae, for the expressions on the right are completely arithmetical in character, while π arises in the first instance from geometry,” they wrote. “They show the surprising results that infinite processes can achieve and point the way to the wonderful richness of modern mathematics.”

But while they may be pretty to look at, there’s a reason the search for infinite series for pi didn’t stop there. “From the point of view of the calculation of π, however, neither is of any use at all,” O’Connor and Robertson pointed out. “In Gregory's series, for example, to get 4 decimal places correct […] we need about 10000 terms of the series.”

The formula that Sinha and his colleague, postdoc Arnab Saha, stumbled onto, however, is comparatively light-speed. It’s actually closely related to Gregory’s series – referred to in the paper as a Madhava series in recognition of its earlier discoverer, the 14th-century Indian mathematician and astronomer Madhava of Sangamagrama – but arrived at through entirely different means.

The novel route means that the pair was able to vary a certain constraint in the formula to maximize its efficiency: “While [the Madhava] series takes five billion terms to converge to ten decimal places, the new representation with ???? between 10 and 100 takes 30 terms,” the team boasts in the appendix to their paper.



Image credit: IFLScience, formula from Saha and Sina, Physical Review Letters 2024

Which just leaves one question: why, after 700 years of calculating pi with series, did nobody notice this representation before now?

To answer that, Sinha simply points to the rest of the paper. “Physicists (and mathematicians) have missed this so far since they did not have the right tools,” he explained. “[These] were only found through work we have been doing with collaborators over the last three years or so.”

Paper: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.221601