This could change everything. The discovery of Syπ finally reveals nature of Pi
Pi is the most known and popular mathematical constant. The first record we have of Pi dates back to 1650 B.C. in Egypt. For 3669 years, we as a civilization have based our entire understanding of pi around the circle. Pi being the ratio of the radius to the circumference of said circle. We have treated a circle as one object and lines as solid structure. Then, we get completely confused when pi turns up in unexpected places that do not involve a circle.
I am not a mathematician by trade but I am a very pragmatic and logical thinker. I am going to just speak english and take words and their definitions at their face value. I am more than open to being corrected and am going to assume that if you are a serious mathematician or scientist you are well versed at problem solving. You should have no problem following my methods and logic. I can explain anything and answer questions about what I have found and what I know. I am not afraid to admit what I don’t know and I am not ashamed to admit I have a lot to learn in this process. That said I know what I have found and I know it can be proven.
Part of the rules in math is that it is only as good as it’s foundation. The way we treat shapes and lines are at the very heart, soul and foundation of all mathematics. We learn about things like Zeno’s Paradox which is related to our assumptions about shapes, lines and Pi.
The idea that we can take a line by length (a) and infinitely keep cutting it in half is the same rationale behind our understanding of pi. That as we keep segmenting a circle that ratio converges closer and closer to Pi without ever touching it. The discovery of Syπ means all of this could be the wrong approach. Further, it even explains many of the difficulties we have had pinning down the exact value of pi or what it even is outside of a circle.
We just accept it is irrational and blindly keep calculating more and more digits of Pi. It has even been “proven” to be “irrational”. Of course it has. The method of calculation is itself irrational. It has also been proven that anyone can just generate their own “transcendental” or “irrational” infinitely repeating number just like pi. It has also been proven that in the “real-world” Pi only needs to be accurate to 4–6 decimal places depending on application. Why is that? Why is pinning down Pi so important if we only need 4–6 decimal places? There is NO solid theory that explains any of this!
Why is everything 2π? Tau tries to address the logical flaws in our understanding of Pi but is really just an abstract of pi which still uses pi. Seriously, what is really going on? We know that all the equations that we use to model our universe and advance technology are always a little off. We chalk that up to anomaly, variability or approximation because that is all we need in the real-world practically speaking. Yet we constantly find ourselves needing to correct and somehow make up for these variances like we do with time and leap years.
We want things in clean even slices, but there is no example of that which exists in the entire universe. We think we can understand how things grow by cutting them apart infinitely when that is not at all how things grow and move in the first place. This is not to say we have nothing to learn from this approach it just means it cannot be the only basis to which we form our axioms. Context matters and with that said let’s get into the meat of it and the reason why you are really here.
Let’s talk about the Syπ discovery and break the problem down.
First. How do we prove that the current Pi is wrong. Well, simple observation. Are all 71 trillion digits of Pi encoded in our DNA or anything else in reality. No, let’s actually think about what we are suggesting here. Pi would have to be able to occur organically without a stored 71 trillion digit number. We build supercomputers and waste immense amounts of energy computing pi while cells we can’t even see with our own eyes just seem to know these ratios. Occam’s razor applies here and I want this to be in the forefront of everything that proceeds this.
We have always treated the circle as one object to which π could be derived as
depicted in Figure 1. While this ratio may reveal PI it does not explain it’s apparent “irrational” behavior. Let’s change the problem. Rather than cutting a circle into slices. Let’s actually draw a circle.
We want to place 9 circles with radius 9. Think of each circle as a point or position. We want all circles to touch and we want to be able to change both the number of circles (points) and the radius of each circle while maintaining no gap in between.
Let us define p=9 for the number of positions and r1=9 as the radius of each circle. Rather then use the standard Radian and Pi constants we are going to use numbers I have posted about and predicted by my research which I will break down fully and explain.
Radian Base constant
Rb = 126/2.162 = 58.279370952821466
This value is close to but NOT the standard constant value of a Radian which is currently accepted at 57.296. This assumes that radian is static which I believe to be false. These metrics would have to be able to fluctuate and indeed that is what we observe in the real world.
Radian Flux
This parameter is like a mill rate based on the radius of the circles or positions. This number is calculated by a number of factors which I can partially explain but am still exploring why it works so well. I will give you my reasoning for selecting these values.
Before I talk about any other number I want to talk about the Synergy constant. This is literally any permutation of the number 162. It can show as a whole number, decimal, multiple or square root and it shows up A LOT!
28 is one of 40 numbers I call a Pool Numbers. 28 also easily calculates a version of Pi which I was calling Rational Pi. This may not be the best name for it but in my mind it is just more rational of an equation for general purpose. This is NOT to be confused with Syπ (Sci-Pi) the highlight of this document. Think of this a general starting point and a clue which will have relevance later.
(28/9)+(1/28)-(1/189) = 3.1415343925343916
More important in my mind logically was the fact that there are many things in the natural world including our moon which seem to have this 27–28 day period.
My theory indicates ((2/9)*(10^y)) is tied to the Golden angle of 137.5 deg. It also has a direct link to the Synergy constant 1/162.
((2/9)*(10³))/360 = 222.222/360 = 1/162
The higher powers of y the result converges to exactly 1/162.
Finally the number of points we are dealing with in a radian, 3. These are the constants used and to break down how it all formulates together lets define each number.
WHERE:
Period = PR = 28
Golden Angle Reference = GA = ((2/9)*(10³))
Degrees in a Circle = D = 360
Synergy Whole Number constant = SW = 162
Radian Base Flux constant
b = (PR * ((3+( ((2/9*(10³))/360 )*162 )) / 10⁶ = 0.016408
Whew! Hopefully that makes sense. Now that we have the radian flux constant we use the radius r1 to determine the actual amount of flux.
Radian Flux
u = r1–(r1*b)
Now that we have a flux amount we calculate the percentage of that flux to r1
Radian Flux Ratio
x = u/r1
We then are ready to calculate the actual Radian which is the Radian Base constant minus the percentage of flux.
Radian
R = Rb -x
This is where is gets interesting. We still have not fully solved the original problem I started with but when we calculate Pi using this Radian with a flux accounted for we get a number so close to the current Pi standard it is remarkable. I looks and acts exactly like Pi in some very intriguing ways. Going forward I am going to refer to this as Syπ (Sci-Pi) to distinguish it from the current accepted standard of Pi and minimize confusion.
The discovery of Syπ (Sci-Pi)
Syπ =180/R = 3.1415926843095323
π = 3.141592653589793
Comparative Accuracy — 100.000000977%
Lets finish out the problem and we will double back to Syπ.
There are a few more components we need to add to attain the final result.
Gap Flux
The gap flux in part modulates the distance apart of each circle or position.
y = 1/(p-(9/8))
Distance Apart
When we subtract the gap flux from Syπ to give is the exact orbit we are looking for with no gap in between circles.
g = Syπ — y
Ratio of Number of Positions to the Radius of each Circle.
This influences r2 based on the number of positions and the radius of each point.
d = p/r
Orbit
Here we had another unexpected result with the discovery of this orbit parameter having the natural ability to either expand or collapse perfectly. This means we have 2 orbit types for the points.
Expanded Orbit : o = r/g
Collapsed Orbit : o = r/p
Now we finally have all the values we need to calculate the precise value of r2 and solve the problem.
r2=o*r*d = 26.333
Number
Lets set a increment counter N=0 to cycle through the positions.
Position Angle
A = 360/p
Degrees
D = (Syπ/180*A*N)
Final XY Positions
PX = sin(D) * r2
PY = -(cos(D) * r2)
Results & Conclusions Part 1
Part 2 coming soon.
When you wrap this all up into a iterative function where N is increasing to infinity it works perfectly. It does exactly what we initially set out to do and so much more. Not only did I discover Syπ, the collapse feature of the function collapses perfectly to the “Seed of Life” with the exact spacing and positioning. You can see in the logic there is absolutely nothing that would specify or direct that specific form. As I have said before this is not my realm so I will leave that for other to debate but the ties to ancient cultures makes it a fascinating result in it’s own right.
There is much more to come out of this experiment. It reveals a couple of key features of Pi. The importance of the accuracy of Pi does not matter in most practical cases because 99% of the time you are dealing with a single orbit of positions. The accuracy becomes more important when you are dealing with science and physics. Dealing with actual orbit of planets for example. It is here my function visualizes the flaw in previous versions of Pi and I am able to compare the performance the entire history of Pi from a single screen.
Many versions of Pi in history have had a drift. This means for every revolution the position does not hit the exact same spot. I am sure this is known. Today’s standard Pi is barely detectable if there is one. I have to find a better way to test this specifically but interestingly enough Syπ shares this unique property with the standard Pi. More over they are the only 2 where I have not been able to see any drift influence the way it shows up in previous versions. Syπ has one other property that standard Pi does not have which I personally as a programmer find very satisfying. When you use standard Pi rather the Syπ for the above formula your first position sees a negative number. Almost like it is correcting itself ever so slightly to help it land in the same spot for every orbit. Syπ starts off at a clean 0. Again this was not by design as you can see in the entire method. There are no constraints or predetermination in any of this. It all just fell out of my research.
It is all very compelling already but there is a lot more. I will be posting Part 2 of the Results & Conclusions in coming days. Stay Tuned! In the mean time check it out and tell me what you find or think about the bizarre accuracy of Syπ. You can contact me at noprime369@gmail.com.
Thank you all for your time and consideration.
