Switch to full style
An open forum for general discussions of a spiritual nature where guests and readers entertain the teachings of The Urantia Book.

Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:48 pm +0000

loucol wrote:… I think we have to consider that e can be + or - depending on whether there is a growth slope (expansion) or a decay slope(contraction). Radiation or absorption, don't you think? The identity must be viewed in the absolute sense as in |1|.
Hi Louis, Something like that might model TUB’s "space respiration." But I really have a serious problem with treating mathematical constants (such as pi and e) as variables. If you change the value of e, then I'm quite sure our mathematics will no longer exist..

loucol wrote:I've been seeing the ellipse as a logarithmic spiral for sometime now. This is the only way to explain why an arc on the ellipse is uncontructible with a chord. Kepler's discovery of elliptical orbits and the sweeping out of equal areas over equal time intervals was an amazing discovery. We simply cannot construct an orbit with straight edge and compass. The compass would have to be infinitely large. Adding vectors only work if tou can vector the infinitesimal, that is impossible. That is why the Euler identity is so baffling. Your quote says it all.
But you can vector the infinitesimal, simply by taking the derivative..

loucol wrote:But I did get you to recognize e and Pi as whole number when viewed from infinity, no? I don't believe in chaos, but in order and pattern. Discreteness is possible only in instances, infinitesimals. The eternal ellipse is our proof.
No, I don’t see how e and Pi could become whole (natural) numbers within the limits of mathematics..

And (mathematical) chaos is not something you can believe in or not. It simply exists in finite reality. The term chaos in mathematics is somewhat confusing. In mathematical chaos theory, 'chaotic' means: dynamically complex. Mathematical chaos may appear to be random, but it is in fact completely deterministic and extremely complex. And so called Poincaré sections of (mathematically simple) chaotic systems demonstrate the existence of intricate selfsimilar order and infinite patterns, projected point after discrete point inside an evolving chaotic system.. Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:09 pm +0000

Hi Bart,
e and Pi are not variables for sure. In finite domains they are transcendentals. In Infinity they are not variables either. They are 3 and 4 respectively.

Try to get a derivative on a curve that is changing non uniformly but logarithmically. That is the rub. I would like to see those vectors. When we take values to infinity finite mathematic breaks down utterly. Pi and e do not become whole numbers at the limits of mathematics, they are whole number at actual Infinity!

Your chaotic systems are two dimensional. They have no time-space. In two dimensions you can only have an Infinite plane and nothing else. In a one dimension you only have one infinite line. In zero dimensions you have an absolute. In finite reality you have spheroids rotating while simultaneously breathing. This is spiral motion. This is analogous to elliptical motion, they are once and the same. Fri Sep 13, 2013 6:17 pm +0000

loucol wrote:Hi Bart,
e and Pi are not variables for sure. In finite domains they are transcendentals. In Infinity they are not variables either. They are 3 and 4 respectively.
Hi Louis, I suppose you can’t prove it..

loucol wrote:Try to get a derivative on a curve that is changing non uniformly but logarithmically. That is the rub. I would like to see those vectors. Well, what’s the derivative of a logarithmically changing curve..?

loucol wrote:When we take values to infinity finite mathematic breaks down utterly. Pi and e do not become whole numbers at the limits of mathematics, they are whole number at actual Infinity!
Exactly where does finite mathematics break down when we take values to infinity; and what has that to do with Pi and e being fractional or whole numbers..?

loucol wrote:Your chaotic systems are two dimensional. They have no time-space. In two dimensions you can only have an Infinite plane and nothing else. In a one dimension you only have one infinite line. In zero dimensions you have an absolute. In finite reality you have spheroids rotating while simultaneously breathing. This is spiral motion. This is analogous to elliptical motion, they are once and the same. Chaotic systems are (universally) scientifically accepted, and they can have as many dimensions as you want.. The 2D Mandelbrot fractal is used for 2D presentation purposes only.. Sat Sep 14, 2013 3:26 am +0000

Bart wrote:
loucol wrote:Hi Bart,
e and Pi are not variables for sure. In finite domains they are transcendentals. In Infinity they are not variables either. They are 3 and 4 respectively.
Hi Louis, I suppose you can’t prove it..

loucol wrote:Try to get a derivative on a curve that is changing non uniformly but logarithmically. That is the rub. I would like to see those vectors. Well, what’s the derivative of a logarithmically changing curve..?

loucol wrote:When we take values to infinity finite mathematic breaks down utterly. Pi and e do not become whole numbers at the limits of mathematics, they are whole number at actual Infinity!
Exactly where does finite mathematics break down when we take values to infinity; and what has that to do with Pi and e being fractional or whole numbers..?

loucol wrote:Your chaotic systems are two dimensional. They have no time-space. In two dimensions you can only have an Infinite plane and nothing else. In a one dimension you only have one infinite line. In zero dimensions you have an absolute. In finite reality you have spheroids rotating while simultaneously breathing. This is spiral motion. This is analogous to elliptical motion, they are once and the same. Chaotic systems are (universally) scientifically accepted, and they can have as many dimensions as you want.. The 2D Mandelbrot fractal is used for 2D presentation purposes only.. Hi Bart,
You are correct, I cannot prove that e is 3 and Pi is 4 at infinity but I have solved Euler's identity using those values. I agree that this is not proof but it is at least a hint not to be ignored.

The calculus used is a fudge when it came up with the derivative of nlogx as being 1/x. This is the most important function in all of physics. The integral of 1/x , the inverse function, is an infinity. Both Leibniz and Newton fudged it and came up with nlogx. But this solution diverts and never converges. It it too is an infinity. Ignored conveniently for hundreds of years.

Math breaks down when you stop calculating. You come to an absolute standstill when the solution is an infinity such as x/0. Then you do what physics has done for the past 80 years and renormalize. They have no clue that they have solved for the source of all reality, The Infinite.

Pi and e are not fractional, they are proven transcendentals, they never repeat in infinity. They along with phi are the three and only three transcendentals. We calculate willy hilly with these infinite expressions but our solution are with error because we only use two or there decimal points and think nothing of it. If nature did that we would surely all break down. That's what it has to with it. BTW, NASA uses 4 for Pi in its calculations for trajectories and orbits. May that is a hint also. They do it because it works and 3.14... does not.

Chaotic systems are yet another vain attempt to explain nature and skip the fetters of infinity. That's OK but we must realize that we are still ignoring The Source.

How many dimensions do you want? The physical universe is 7 dimensional, 6 of time-space and one of breathing motion. This is evident from the ultimatons to the spheroid Suns of space. However, how many degrees of freedom do we need? The answer is Indinite degrees of freedom! Find me a computer that can do that for a Chaotic system and I'll show you a computer that can create finite reality. Far beyond a 3-D copyier I would say.

Sat Sep 14, 2013 11:25 am +0000

Hi Louis,

Is your pi = 4 theory by any chance related to Miles Mathis’ pi = 4 theory? (see e.g. http://milesmathis.com/pi2.html) If so, then why didn’t you say so? Anyway, like Mathis, you speak in riddles. If you (as you say) actually "solved Eulers’ identity for pi = 4 and e = 3", then can you please intelligibly step us through it, and possibly end up with anything mathematically useful (some new calculus)?

And whether pi = 3.14159.. or pi = 4 or pi = 33, chaos and complex order is a phenomenon that can be observed in both real and mathematical dynamical systems. This has nothing to do with Eulers’ equation or the exact values of e or pi or phi. So, like your pi = 4 theory, your statement that "chaotic systems are yet another vain attempt to explain nature and skip the fetters of infinity" is much in need of exact clarification.

By the way, it seems The Urantia Book supports the common notion which has been accepted for hundreds of years that pi = 3.14159.. (not 4) ..
43:1.10 The Edentia sea of glass is one enormous circular crystal about one hundred miles in circumference and about thirty miles in depth. This magnificent crystal serves as the receiving field for all transport seraphim and other beings arriving from points outside the sphere; such a sea of glass greatly facilitates the landing of transport seraphim.
You might agree that the depth of about 30 miles of the sea of glass refers to its diameter, whereas its circumference is about 100 miles. This agrees (e.g.) with the equation 95.0 / pi = 30.2, with pi = 3.14159. If pi = 4, then there would be no way for the sea of glass to be about 100 miles in circumference and about 30 miles in diameter..

Sat Sep 14, 2013 1:53 pm +0000

Bart wrote:Hi Louis,

Is your pi = 4 theory by any chance related to Miles Mathis’ pi = 4 theory? (see e.g. http://milesmathis.com/pi2.html) If so, then why didn’t you say so? Anyway, like Mathis, you speak in riddles. If you (as you say) actually "solved Eulers’ identity for pi = 4 and e = 3", then can you please intelligibly step us through it, and possibly end up with anything mathematically useful (some new calculus)?

And whether pi = 3.14159.. or pi = 4 or pi = 33, chaos and complex order is a phenomenon that can be observed in both real and mathematical dynamical systems. This has nothing to do with Eulers’ equation or the exact values of e or pi or phi. So, like your pi = 4 theory, your statement that "chaotic systems are yet another vain attempt to explain nature and skip the fetters of infinity" is much in need of exact clarification.

By the way, it seems The Urantia Book supports the common notion which has been accepted for hundreds of years that pi = 3.14159.. (not 4) ..
43:1.10 The Edentia sea of glass is one enormous circular crystal about one hundred miles in circumference and about thirty miles in depth. This magnificent crystal serves as the receiving field for all transport seraphim and other beings arriving from points outside the sphere; such a sea of glass greatly facilitates the landing of transport seraphim.
You might agree that the depth of about 30 miles of the sea of glass refers to its diameter, whereas its circumference is about 100 miles. This agrees (e.g.) with the equation 95.0 / pi = 30.2, with pi = 3.14159. If pi = 4, then there would be no way for the sea of glass to be about 100 miles in circumference and about 30 miles in diameter..

No Bart, I actually disagree with how Miles arrived at Pi as 4. Pi is certainly 3.14... in the static ideal of a circle. But a circle is not dynamic. It does not even depict motion because it depicts an acceleration only. Motion is an accelerated acceleration as I have said many times before. This is a logarithmic acceleration. Miles it not a Theist. He is not willing to acknowledge the Source as The Infinite. He is a mechanist. He can not even see the ellipse as eternal.

I demonstrated that Pi is 4 in Infinity by a thought experiment alone. I took unit circle with radius and mentally took that radius to infinity. At infinite radius, the circle loses all curvature and becomes a line. That line is perpendicular to the radius. Since perpendicular lines are one, the circle becomes a square in Infinity. You must have all lines that can be perpendicular to those and maintain a unified relationship. Not easy of conception but doable. The circle can be squared but only in infinity. The unit circle becomes the unit square but remains a circle as well, they become one. That is how I arrived at Pi is 4. Mathis did analytical manipulations to make dynamic the circle,
which I disagree with in principle. He assumed that motion can be had in a circle and you and I know that the ellipse is the motion.

The Sea of Glass is crystalized, static, and must be special in some way as to not exhibit motion, which facilitates landing and take off of seraphim, I would imagine. If there is no motion, Pi is indeed 3.14... The Sea of Glass must have no motion, it must be ideal like a circle.

In motion situations Pi is 4, as in Euler's Identity because it is a motion equation for the ellipse If you include phi in the identity as I have proposed.

When I said that Chaotic systems are mere attempts to circumvent Infinity, I mean that Infinite degrees of freedom are needed to exact nature. Nature is projected with the clarity of Infinite pixels. No system man can come up with can do that.

I am not trying to be mysterious or to speak in riddles, Bart, but I am having difficulty in expressing myself on paper. My physical presence would help to show better. But we are constrained.

Just ask Google "What is 3 to power 4i ?" and see what you get. I went on a hunch and saw it through. That is all, no riddles.

Sat Sep 14, 2013 3:02 pm +0000

loucol wrote:… No Bart, I actually disagree with how Miles arrived at Pi as 4. Pi is certainly 3.14... in the static ideal of a circle. But a circle is not dynamic. It does not even depict motion because it depicts an acceleration only. Motion is an accelerated acceleration as I have said many times before. This is a logarithmic acceleration. Miles it not a Theist. He is not willing to acknowledge the Source as The Infinite. He is a mechanist. He can not even see the ellipse as eternal.

I demonstrated that Pi is 4 in Infinity by a thought experiment alone. I took unit circle with radius and mentally took that radius to infinity. At infinite radius, the circle loses all curvature and becomes a line. That line is perpendicular to the radius. Since perpendicular lines are one, the circle becomes a square in Infinity. You must have all lines that can be perpendicular to those and maintain a unified relationship. Not easy of conception but doable. The circle can be squared but only in infinity. The unit circle becomes the unit square but remains a circle as well, they become one. That is how I arrived at Pi is 4. Mathis did analytical manipulations to make dynamic the circle, which I disagree with in principle. He assumed that motion can be had in a circle and you and I know that the ellipse is the motion.
When you say pi = 4 if a circle is viewed as a dynamic trajectory (not just a static circle), then you are saying exactly what Miles Mathis says. And Mathis did not arrive at pi = 4 by analytical manipulation! That’s exactly his (and your) problem. You can’t express what you say or think in any kind of formalism, so it cannot be checked in any rigorous way. And a circle is in each point perpendicular to its radius. And I don’t see (to say the least) how your "thought-experiment" shows that in infinity a circle is a square and pi = 4. You have to do much better than that. You have to show us the math. If you can’t, then that’s it. Our discussion ends.

loucol wrote:The Sea of Glass is crystalized, static, and must be special in some way as to not exhibit motion, which facilitates landing and take off of seraphim, I would imagine. If there is no motion, Pi is indeed 3.14... The Sea of Glass must have no motion, it must be ideal

In motion situations Pi is 4, as in Euler's Identity because it is a motion equation for the ellipse If you include phi in the identity as I have proposed.
You bet pi = 3.14..! Again, you are saying the same thing as Miles Mathis. And how is Euler's Identity a motion equation? Where does it have dimension m/s?

loucol wrote:When I said that Chaotic systems are mere attempts to circumvent Infinity, I mean that Infinite degrees of freedom are needed to exact nature. Nature is projected with the clarity of Infinite pixels. No system man can come up with can do that.

I am not trying to be mysterious or to speak in riddles, Bart, but I am having difficulty in expressing myself on paper. My physical presence would help to show better. But we are constrained.

Just ask Google "What is 3 to power 4i ?" and see what you get. I went on a hunch and saw it through. That is all, no riddles.
I tried google and it comes up with nothing. Any difficulty you might have in expressing yourself on paper is your problem. It can never mean that you are free to state any nonsensical statement you like without proper argumentation. Indeed, we are constrained. And (mathematical) chaotic systems demonstrate exactly that you do not need infinite degrees of freedom to model nature’s intricate order. You are missing the point of Chaos completely..

Sat Sep 14, 2013 3:47 pm +0000

OK Bart, you win.

Sun Sep 15, 2013 3:01 am +0000

loucol wrote:OK Bart, you win.
Hi Louis,

Actually I didn’t try to "win". I tried to see what you mean by: Euler’s equation can be solved for pi = 4 and e = 3. Actually in a so called Taxicab-geometry pi would be 4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab_geometry), which is similar to Miles Mathis’ pi = 4 theory. And a circle would be a square, but e would not be 3..

I might believe you have some intuition that in infinity pi and e would be whole numbers and motion is related to Φ and the Phi-spiral. You stated: "Euler's equation if phi is seen in the identity 1 as I have posed is the secret to the Universe of Motion! Nothing Less!" That’s a strong claim. But if you cannot explain this either graphically or formally, then it remains only a claim. And I don’t just take your word for it.

Now that’s all fine, but your subsequent rejection of Chaos-theoretical concepts which provide a perspective of physical reality (time, space, self-similarity, part and whole) which seems fully compatible with TUB, without argumentation or based on wrong arguments is unacceptable. Hence, my strong reaction.

I’m sorry if I offended you. That was not my intention.

Regards, Bart

Sun Sep 15, 2013 4:22 am +0000

Hi Bart, I can never take offense from God or a Brother. Not uniform in thought but united in Spirit. Peace Brother. 