REGISTER Log On/Off
Forums & Pictures
Surveys & Archive
Page 1, the LIST of "Scientiist Gives Warning" answers.
Difference Between Forums
Joined: Jan 01, 1970
|Post subject: 2020-10-10 How use a circle to tie 'e' to Phi on a Moebius
Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 8:33 am
2020-10-12 reread and still Need Independent Confirmation to say this as a Named Natural Law. = As Above, So Below;
so it follows that as a Moebius is a circle based geometry, then a smaller circle will reflect its geometry.
What is fascinating is Phi/phi = 1, from the irrational to the rational.
ToDo Separate article below so combine these 2 topics.
Possible named Scientific Natural Law when others verify.
In re-reading below, it seems improbable I saw this relationship But I was born with the gift of seeing relationships between
things geometrically. Scoring in the one in a billion plus on a geometry test is what got me into Seattle University at 15.
12-4-15 Intsead of 3/4 radius used below, use 3.6 of any radius of 3.718 length. You will find taking the square root of (3.6^ + 2.718^)
and dividing by 2.718 will equal .618, this is the e|phi ratio using the AB length described below as your unit of measure. All tied
together with the Pythagorean Theorem. There are implications for FTL navigation and how we decide on putting numbers on our
objective units of measure.
10-22-15 Why Does This "possible" Geometric Discovery Make Interstellar FTL Navigation Possible??
Answer comes out of doing the below work. The 1-17-2009 how/to is inaccurate, but captures the gist.
This needs a diagram. I am going to restate the 3 questions below later today and re-describe method.
What is important is what it means if this relationship is true. It was not a deduction, but an observation
as I was working with a imperfect hand drawn circle. In short my unconscious saw the relationship.
What it means is we can use not just the radius as our base unit of measuring a circle, but a more useful, precise,
and accurate base unit of geometric comparison for circles and there derivative geometries.
1-17-2009 Found an error thanks to my son which refined the question. Please remember, this was deduced from
an observation as I used the process described below. The question of relating e to phi using a circle never occurred
to me before, nor to anyone else to my knowledge.
Mathematical and scientific IMPLICATIONS below the recipe for construction.
1. Given that any circle of radius = 1 unit, construct the left quadrant of a circle and denote left end of
horizontal radius by A, center end by B, and the up 3/4 point on vertical radius by C; then
2. draw a perpendicular at C that intersects left circumference at e|phi; then
3. from e|phi drop a line perpendicular to horizontal radius AB at D; so does
4. DC/AD = e?
1. Create the hypotenuse of triangle DBe|phi = Be|phi which equals radius of circle; then
2. rotate up line length DB keeping B at same location and
lay it on hypotenuse e|phiB ending at E; then
3. from E drop a line perpendicular to horizontal radius AB at F; so does
4. AF/FB = phi?
1. Draw a line from E to A intersecting line e|phiA at G; so does
2. DG/Ge|phi = phi?
After definitions I describe my initial cumbersome method
"e" is Napier's Constant or Euler's Number. It describes how fast growth or decay occurs per n units of interval like time. e.g. compound interest. e = 2.718..... and it is irrational.
"Phi" is the Golden Ratio first shown by Euclid in his definition of the Extreme to Mean ratio; "A straight line is said to have
been cut in extreme and mean ratio when, as the whole line is to the greater segment, so is the greater to the lesser.".
Phi = 1.618.... or little phi = .618..... so phi x Phi = .618 times 1.618 = 1. From irrational to rational. While 1.618/2.618 = .618.
It is these boundaries of Phi and phi defined by the basic math operations between the two and the results that end in
whole numbers or include .618 with a whole number that are interesting and define the margins of a Moebius. More later.
Using Phi ensures that our logical units are of equal size. No equal sized units = no logic = no geometry = no science.
A "circle" is based upon pi = 3.1415...., also irrational, and obtained by dividing Circumference(Cir) by its diameter(Dia).
"Bowtie Point" of a Moebius strip: There is one and only one point on the outer edge of any Moebius strip that you can draw a
perpendicular line down to the middle of the bottom side of a Moebius. It looks like a perfect 'bowtie' centered on one point.
Look and you will see.
Ergo, a Moebius has a built in origin 'it' can use to see itself with; i.e. to use as the center of its built-in circle based
Cartesian co-ordinate system.
Ergo, tying these two apparently independent base logical constants, 'e' and Phi, to our circle based
geometric operation constant, "pi", through the unit 1 defined by Phi, is a very big scientific discovery.
This Prediction Requires Independent Verification Fast.
I was looking for something else on a circle using a straight edge and saw the relationship. I am quite sure it implies
you can square the circle with a straight edge and that all the other logical and physical constants can be related using it.
BUT that means it has to be publicly tested first. My old eyeballs are not a conclusive test. (Some mathematician
asserted to prove that one could not square a circle with a straight edge about two years ago.
I wonder if he used a straight edge to do so?)
INITIAL DIRECTIONS posted several months ago. I did not do the rotation of the line
1. Make a perfect right angled cross.
2. Center a circle on the cross's intersection; thus creating a horizontal and vertical diameter for any circle.
Let A denote center of circle, B = left end of horizontal diameter, and C = top end of vertical diameter.
3. The following operation works in either direction for both vertical and horizontal diameters, i.e. left/right or up/down.
Showing the operation with one does for all = eight points can be generated.
4. Sub-divide the vertical radius twice, i.e. first in half; then the upper half again = 3/4 radius up.
5. At upper 3/4 point on the vertical radius (or any of the other three radii), make a perpendicular line extending to the
Circumference of circle on both sides. What shall we call these eight points? Lets try 'e|phi' points for base logical constant points.
6. DEFINE 'e' by dropping a perpendicular down to the horizontal diameter's left radius AB
where A = center of circle at D from our left hand e|phi point on circumference.
7. PREDICTION: Multiplying DB times 2.718 = radius where B is left end of horizontal diameter.
8. DEFINE Phi by using left horizontal radius to create another pair of e|phi points along left horizontal radius.
9. PREDICTION: The ratio of DB/.25 radius = PHI???(I had forgotton this one. 1-29-09)
10. Since eight of these points can be generated, a left and right one for each of the four radii;
then these e|phi points can be used to combine or locate all other points and there geometric relationships to any
other point(s) on the surface of a sphere(circle) or a Moebius strip, both outside or inside these circle based geometries.
A fact: This geometric operation has never been demonstrated before on Earth in ancient or modern mathematical literature:
Using only a straight edge, do a double sub-division on the radius of a circle, centered on a cross,
to find the eight single point(s) on the Circumference that define 'e' with respect to Phi for the four radii.
This is the fundamental geometric and thus logical discovery, that shows how we are tied into the universe.
It directly ties our symbols made of reality to the Moebius strip geometry that we and our universe are based upon.
Thus, a Moebius' bowtie point, by inspection, gives us an 'objective' common to all, neutral origin to see ourselves from.
Since this these e|Phi points are a falsifiable assertion, falsify away. Questions Please.
1. When does the percentage(%) decrease in a vertical radii, e.g. AC equal the % decrease in AB, the base radii?
It almost certainly must be a several more sub-divisions, my guess is the 12th. but that is an even number,
and the farthest we can go in a Moebius must always end in an odd number. More thoughts in equation log.
2. Viewpoint is crucial here. Vertical and horizontal are defined with respect to the observer, the manipulator of the circle.
Remember there are eight possible e|phi points.
Clearly we must explicitly include this distinction in our choice of which radius is first shortening the most;
so "How do we explicitly include where and how the observer fits into this observation?". Answer seems to me
would require left/right, up/down, and front/back(see/not see) be explicitly assigned or assumed in starting your operations.
e.g. the cross in the circle is built by observer.
1. Showing how these "e" and "Phi/phi = 1" can be related together with a simple straight edge operation on a circle
ties 1, 0, pi, e, and phi together. These are our base numbers(0 and 1), the base geometric operation that generates
a circle(pi), and the two logical constants(e and Phi) upon which all scientific descriptions of our universe rest.
Ergo, how we can use these logical constants to create and compare scientific
observations we can all 'agree we see' = 'objective' at the base level of our universe.
2. We people of Earth have been UNCONSCIOUS of how we work. Since it is done by straight edge = any unit;
then we 'Moebius based spirits' are using these constants "unconsciously" to create and live in our life forms.
3. By implication, all the other known constants in our Moebius geometry universe are also implied.
4. Unconscious ensures death sooner or later.
What Was I Initially Looking For and Why?
I was looking for the angles of the triangle that measured the distance between the two sides of the surface of
a Moebius at its mid-line = a circle. I started with a triangle based on the upper left quadrant of a circle. Lets call this
triangle ABC with A at center of circle, B at left Circumference(Cir) and C at top vertice. Along the way, I asked the question:
When you shorten the vertical radius AC of this initial ABC triangle by one unit;
then the horizontal base AB initially does not shorten as much as AC.
So I asked this question:
At what point on the circle's Cir does the absolute amount of shortening along both arms of this triangle go equal?
The Answer turned out to be one of the circle's e|phi points.
I did this by eyeball on a actual circle. When I drew the line from the e|phi point on the Cir down to the
horizontal diameter at point D, I realized that DB times 2.718 might equal AB. After rechecking, I concluded it does.
(MISTAKE made here. In correcting the mistake, I asked the top question.) Next, I checked for Phi by using the
hypotenuse e|phiA of the triangle ADe|phi and dividing by AD, i.e. e|phiA/AD and it equaled 1.618 = Phi.
(WHY WRONG?Hypotenuse is the radius, so AD/radius can not both define e and Phi.)
I flash hunched about the double sub-division of the vertical radius generating the e|phi point the next day.
This is, of course, a falsifiable assertion. I at first said here, MAKE MY DAY, show this prediction wrong and
my whole theory would be wrong, and I could live with that. That's not true. I would not like living in a universe
that makes no sense, where there is no accountability, no conservation, no meaning. So please confirm this fast .
The future of life on Earth depends upon your fast confirmation.
"I swear to speak honestly and seek the truth when I use the No 1st Cost List public record."
Last edited by Dan on Sun Apr 24, 2022 7:20 pm; edited 4 times in total
|Back to top
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Forums Last posts
Last 10 Forum Messages
We have received38714065
page views since
April 27, 2005