There are people that will be skeptical about my research. That is both natural and expected. I do not claim to have all the answers or know it all. I am not perfect and have made mistakes. I will make more. By most mathematical or scientific standards I am not an expert and have no formal training or degree. That simple fact creates a situation where discussions end up being more focused on what I don’t know then what I do. It is this bizarre cycle of trying to discredit me for not knowing something while completely ignoring what I do know. Not only do I know it, it can be proven by pretty simple math. This seems to make it worse. It is almost like a form of denial that it could be this simple or that a guy who is not an “expert” could have figured anything out by studying “silly” patterns and geometry.
If we look at the long history of Pi, one thing is clear. Our understanding of it has evolved over time. It may not seem like the value has been that different, but when looked at through the lens of SyPi as you can see it does in fact make it more clear how different these values of Pi are.
This can also be seen in the problem #1 model I have posted where you can see a drift in the position of points as more and more points are added. Each value of pi you see here will have more or less drift with both the current value of Pi and SyPi being the most stable. https://synergysequencetheory.com/problem1
This is all from calculations of pi. A long history of trying to isolate it’s exact value.
What about measuring it? Our measurement of Pi is wildly different. All we can ever do it approximate to it. This leads to wild variation that again is more obvious looking at through the lens of the SiPi Gradient.
What is it really about Pi that makes it so hard to pin down. We never see the value we claim is Pi. Of course we can blame the measurement not being accurate enough but is that really all that is going on? Even with the most simple of tests using geometry and trigonometry, errors creep in. Something can work perfectly mathematically, yet when we draw it or build it, it doesn’t. Like in this basic example.
You can see on the left side of the right image there is a small overlap. Of course issues like this has all been long understood. This is why we all lean on the term “approximation”.
I found a way using pi which reduces this overlap.
The overlap is smaller but still there. What if I use SyPi?
Here you can see I was able to tune the value of SyPi to make it work visually. This is not insignificant. Another practical use for SyPi has been demonstrated and it also further demonstrates how using any constant as a hard constant will produce these kinds of errors due to the rigidity of using said constant. Again, none of this to say that we are wrong about pi, just that our understanding of pi may not be as complete as we think.
Synergy Sequence Theory and SyPi, while extensive, is very much a work in progress. There is still much to understand and much for me to learn. The SyPi Equation itself is deeply rooted in the study of patterns and sequences starting with the most significant one, the Fibonacci sequence. Following clear and the most basic of rules we end up with highly accurate value of pi as well as correlations to other key mathematical and physical constants. Not just numerically but with some pretty interesting geometry and behavior. We see interesting observations that resemble descriptions of Dark Energy and Gravity with links to the fine-structure constant and Absolute Zero.
I understand how improbable this all seems but this can all be proven mathematically whether anything I have written is a true “Mathematical Proof” form or not. One simply need to run the numbers and observe.