Welcome a blissful universe of FOUR SPACIAL DIMENSIONS

REDEFINING THE VALUE OF

π

3 + a bit + 0.04more


Exact Value of PI
Value
Proof
ARC PROOF

0) WATCH ANIMATION AT THIS LINK SO YOU UNDERSTAND WHY THIS WORKS

0.1) https://s.hswstatic.com/gif/gearline-animation.gif

1) Circle/4 (DIVIDE AT POINTS 0°,90°,270°360°)

2) The lengths of the arc's are equivalent:

2.1)0°--90°

2.2)90°--180°

2.3)180°--270°

2.4)270°-360°

3)The arc length's are of the same exact value...yeah????

4)Arc lengths flattened are of the same exact value...yeah??????????????

5)Use the flat arc lengths to create a square

6)Let length of flat arc length = 9

7)Divide the square in half to create two triangles

8)You are now presented with the equation: √(9^2+9^2)=√(162)

9)√(162) simplifies to (9√2)

10)How many flat arc lengths were needed to create the square???

10.1)???? 4 (2.1,2.2,2.3,2.4) correct????? yeah??????

11)calculation continued in abstract starting from 4.8.2.2.............

11.1)EQUALS 0 :: (9√2)-(9√2)=0

11.2)CREATING A SQUARE FROM 4 ARC LENGTHS, SOLVING TRIANGULAR CALCULATIONS GIVES YOU THE VALUE OF PI, WHICH CAN BE USED TO FIND THE DIAMETER...

11.3)ARC LENGTH OF 1(unit such as miles)*4(ARC'S).... 4/3.18=DIAMETER OF 1.257862.......

12)calculation continued in abstract starting from 4.9.2.6

12.1)DOES NOT EQUAL 0 :: (9√2)-4*JUNK_PI=0.16155144699868248536462498476927117033836928089...

12.2)0.16155144699868248536462498476927117033836928089.../.04(remember 9√2/4=.04......)

12.3)4.038786174967062134115624619231779258459232

12.4)4.0 (THE TENTH'S PLACE HAS BEEN ZEROED) (JUNK_PI + 0.038786174967062134115624619231779258459232... APPROACHES (9√2)/4)

12.5)JUNK_PI IS OFF BY A FACTOR OF 4 (NUMBER OF ARC'S IN A CIRCLE....)

the math works out, but because im so tired of thinking about this, i'm having errors in writing html. the math works out when you using the precise values, and i'm handwriting this website, not using a cms or whathaveyounot, as precision matters!!!!!!

12.6)((9√2)-4*JUNK_PI) - (4.0 * 0.04) = 0.00155144699868..... THE HUNDRETHS PLACE HAS BEEN ZEROED BECAUSE OF A HIGHER ACURACY

12.7)

JUNK_PI

+

0.038786174967062134115624619231779258459232

+

0.0015514469986824853646249847692711703383692808921093

=

3.1819302755555378579428929872805533129947706802672151

(APPROACHING (9√2)/4))

12.8)

JUNK_PI

+

0.038786174967062134115624619231779258459232

+

0.0015514469986824853646249847692711703383692808921093

=

3.1819302755555378579428929872805533129947706802672151

(APPROACHING (9√2)/4))

12.9)

(9√2/4)

-

3.1819302755555378579428929872805533129947706802672151

=

0.0000502397839260018609066421912673637869910393309181 (THOUSANTHS PLACE HAS BEEN ZEROED)

12.10)

JUNK_PI

+

0.038786174967062134115624619231779258459232

+

0.0015514469986824853646249847692711703383692808921093

+

0.0000502397839260018609066421912673637869910393309181

=

3.181980515339463859803799629471820676781762

(APPROACHING (9√2)/4))

13)IF YOU STILL DON'T AGREE WITH THE VALUE: GO WALK THE CIRCLE AGAIN!

Perimeter/Area Proof

x=3;(x*√2)/(4x/x^2)=9√2/4

4x = Perimeter

x^2 = Area

9√2/4

Implications
NASA
Hubble Space Telescope

While watching SPACE'S DEEPEST SECRETS on THE SCIENCE CHANNEL it was mentioned that when Hubble took it's first picture, it was clearly noticeable something was wrong. After an investigation, it was concluded that equipment was miscalibrated during the manufacture of the mirror resulting in an assumed aberration of minor numerical significance.

Through complicated methods, Hubble was given a pair of glasses. The individual who lead the project was extremely surprised that there were errors, as he had indicated that they were hitting the math with numerous sledge-hammers and that they knew what they were doing. And I do agree, they were good engineers, and NASA had not made a mistake. It was the error in the hundredths place that scaled quickly. Had they used the accurate value of PI, this would not have occurred. Going forward, using the accurate value of PI, many new discoveries are possible, and we as humanity can reach further into space.

The error that was experienced was not of minor numerical significance. Based on the flawed approximation of pi; yes, the numerical significance would be incorrectly calculated to be minor. Using the exact value of PI and finding the difference from a flawed and approximated value of pi ends up being 0.04. Although this is a small value, it grows, and when multiplied by 240 centimeters (published diameter of Hubble's primary mirror in centimeters), the error begins to grow significantly, 9.6 centimeters to be exact. Looking at a ruler, you get a sense of how much, even at 240 centimeters, it is significant.

Space has been very difficult, and rightly so, with an impediment beginning at the hundredths place, it show's the dedication and passion those at NASA have. With them cutting themselves off at the knees so quickly, it shows that the effort NASA puts forth is SIGNIFICANT for both the USA and for HUMANITY.

James Webb Space Telescope

As of now, my guess of why the James Webb Space Telescope is taking so long is because, in some way, the flawed approximation of pi is causing havoc. At a published diameter of 650 centimeters, the error has grown to 26 centimeters, which is closely approaching 1 foot of error. Switching to hexagonal mirror segments was a smart move, as it is easier to measure straight edges, but the approximate value of pi will still wreck havoc regardless of the switch.

If the difference between EXACT PI and junk_pi were 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000002, it wouldn't be a factor until the diameter reached 650,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000 centimeters where the error would be 13 centimeters. At that scale, it wouldn't matter.

Its because the error occurs at the hundredths place, it will grow quite quickly.

Once the engineers designing the James Webb Space Telescope switch to the new EXACT VALUE of PI, the work will be quickly completed, and we will all benefit from the increased precision that is now available.

PHYSICS
PARTICLES
...

.......

WAVES
...

.......

GEOMETRY
...

......

CIRCLES
GEARS

......

ARCS
...

.......

TRIGONOMETRY
...

.......

SPHERES

Since it has been PROVEN that 4CIRCLES equate to 1SQUARE, then it can also be reasoned that 8SPHERES equate to 1CUBE and 2CIRCLES equate to 1TRIANGLE(right, haha)

EARTH

.......

GPS

Space, yes it is flat. Why? not sure but that is how it is. How do I know this? Well, when I look out from the earth, I can see stuff. Being on an object that is curved, when we look afar, things follow the curvature. Things on different parts of the curvature at an angle are out of view. Not so with space. If you look harder, there is more to see. On an object that is curved, our view is tangent to the curvature. If you look harder, you still won't see what is on the different part of the curved surface. Thought to be continued.

Polygons
POLYGON ROTATE:
pentagon
hexagon
heptagon
octagon
nonagon
decagon

There will always be the ratio between where the part of the polygon never touches the curve, even beyond the trillionths...

JUNK_PI

Assuming the reason for pi being wrong for so long, is, when it was first calculated, yeah it was 3.14+JUNK.... using inside/outside hexagons. Then someone, not sure who, FORCED/DEMANDED/EXPECTED/COMPELLED/BOUND/COERCED/LABORED the value to continue being 3.14. All those computational thought cycles people have wasted forcing the value to fit goes beyond my personal comprehension.

That is definitely forcing a quare peg into a round hole through an exhaustive method that ended up truncating the s.

0*1 for persistent regression I guess (vs u^i equating to monumental progress)... What it equates to is that 1^1 might almost eclipse 1^1 in value if enough time and computational power are thrown at it to find more than a trillionth of accuracy.

update

Submitted the story to slashdot.org... Initially people reviewing the submission dismissed the possibility as quackery. So in thinking more about the improvement of accuracy.... The thought was made clear to me: 'What bounds the accuracy to the thousands place only and not the hundredths onwards?' I can see with 3.1, the 1 being bound so close to 0 it would be reasoned that it is as accurate as possible, but with 3.14, 4 being so close to the midpoint, it could vary +/-. If when improving accuracy, it begins to trend upward, it COULD provide another proof that the 3.14, at the hundredths place is extremely inaccurate.

....

RAY OF LIGHT
Messier_87

IMAGE::Messier_87

What are we looking at here??? If anyone has been outside on a sunny day and seen the Sun peak through the clouds or in a forest, there exists many chances to see a ray of light shining through. Where others somehow see a jet emanating from this particular source of light, I know it to be a ray of light illuminating dust emanating from this particular source of light. Not sure how someone could mistake that for a 'jet' and think its being ejected from a black hole. That's not what's happening. A simple image search for 'ray of light through clouds' returns images showing examples of what Messier_87's 'jet' is supposed to be. LOOK HARDER!!!! Messier 87===RAY_of_LIGHT