… 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|.

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 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.

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.

Hi Louis, I suppose you can’t prove it..

Well, what’s the derivative of a logarithmically changing curve..?

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..?

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..

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.

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) ..
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

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.

OK Bart, you win.