Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:59 pm
Are you saying f(Φ*Φ) = Φ + 1

What are you saying? Formulate it first, then we can see if we can construct it!

You follow this by answering your own question as it is stated/related in the OP:

Whereas this sentence "squaring Φ derives (or "generates") itself +1.

Φ*Φ = Φ + 1

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:59 pm
The only argument for realism is the fear of subjectivity. --Jean-Yves Girard

This is backwards. It should read "the only argument for

*subjectivity* is the fear of

*realism*."

People are afraid of what they do not want to be real/unreal, such as a "believer" who fears their "belief" is false.

This is the case of "belief"-based ideologies, which is where fear comes from: fearing the unreality of ones own "belief".

I am not afraid of challenging mainstream views if/because I know where they are faulty, and why.

That is what knowledge serves towards: knowing all *not* to simply "believe".

However knowledge is not the be-all end-all: consciousness prevails over it.

Only a sound consciousness can resolutely and inductively attain what the true nature of reality is / is not.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:59 pm
The Universal '1' is The Universe itself. ALL of it.

Everything else is the parts you have reduced it to.

You're upside-down again: any particular body in/of of the physical universe

is some displacement(s) from '1' being unity over itself.

In order for it to be physical, it needs a displacement(s).

Therefor light as c = 1 is light that is not "displaced" from anything

but all is displaced from it. This is true both physically and metaphysically,

as any universal "geometry" must satisfy both.

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=28457
Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:59 pm
And I already pointed out to you that "applicability" is moot. How do you determine whether your geometry applies to "the physical universe" or not?

Have you considered the possibility that geometry os only a construct of the human mind for the purposes of understanding the universe?

To the first: the geometry derived by only π and Φ captures the same geometry as magnetism

Top: image generated in paint.net using only a simple golden spiral in relation to its own π.

Bottom: Ferocell image showing the magnetic "lines of force" generated by a magnet.

Nature is extremely simple: one geometric Φ, one transcendental π.

Calculating the real value of π requires knowing it comes from Φ.

Mainstream academia does not know π is a feature of Φ thus can be found directly, and thus is only "approximated" by them (3.141...).

It is still transcendental but the relationship can be known to the same precision (if not now more) than the Egyptians (π = 4/√Φ = 3.144...)

who built the Giza plateau / pyramids. It is the exact same geometry: knowledge of how π and Φ share in one another as curve-and-line.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:59 pm
Oh, you do.... how? How do yo ask the universe the question.

Hey Universe, does my geometry apply to you?

And then how does the Universe answer you? Do you get an e-mail? SMS?

How does the universe talk to you?

It is called

*conscience* - to ask questions (ie. who/what/where/why/when/how, if to, if not to etc.) and altruistically seek the answer.

The quality of the conscience will always reflect the quality of the question(s) it can generate/address.

If you ask questions, and have a true desire to know, the "universe" may relatively align itself to the inquiry over time.

If you don't ask questions, and have no desire to know, the universe lets you do whatever, because that is how "choice" works.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:59 pm
The geometry for magnetism is constructed by humans. From human constructs.

Present-day mathematics attempting to describe this geometry is certainly constructed by humans.

However Φ and π is not constructed by humans. The latter is approximated by humans, but that is why

they can never get astronomical calculations precise yet: they have the wrong value of π knowing not

it is naturally coupled to Φ. This humanity is very devolved by comparison to earlier civilizations.

Technology is nice, but not when it causes suffering/death. Not a problem with the technology, but with humans using it.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:59 pm
Space and time are resources from the lens of linear logic.

Resources required to compute functions.

The universe is not linear; neither is space, neither is time.

Even Einstein's GR "field equations" are highly non-linear.

The only "functions" space and time serve are s/t, numerator/denominator.

That is all, no more no less.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:59 pm
It's not the other way around. Geometrically π is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. If you don't have circles - you don't have π.

But never mind that! You literally just told me that you care about geometries, but now you are doing algebra. Huh?

Are you constructing algebra from geometry; or geometry from algebra?

Φ generates the circle whose diameter is √5, hence (1+√5)/2.

The +1 adds one unit length to the to √5, and the mid-point

coincides with a unit circle which fits perfectly in a unit square.

Because four circumferences are needed to make the full circle,

π becomes a function of 4/√Φ which is 3.144... this is the true π.

The approximations based on billions of triangles of 3.141 is demonstrative

of humanity's ignorance of what π even is, let alone where it really comes from.

Therefor any algebra that misses this relation is invariably

*severed* from the reality.

The approximation is still there, and it is accurate enough to go unnoticed

but still ultimately incorrect. The bigger problem is humanity suffering to understand

the relationship between π and Φ because it relates to the fabric of the universe:

curve and line,

likeness and image,

woman and man,

female and male

etc.

All of this symmetry is duly reflected in geometry: π and Φ.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:59 pm
In respect to what?

Itself, in relation to any given rotating base over time.

The entire function ultimately concerns c = 1 as a displacement(s) therefrom.

Because space and time are multiplicative reciprocals, s³/t implies s/t³.

Time also has 3 dimensions, however I am not going to get into that as

General Relativity has just retarded humanity too much to not see this.

In the same way Φ relates to the addition of '1' to itself as a function of its own square,

space and time obey an inverse square law which is directly related, though mainstream physics

either does not know the relationship or does not tell people, as it essentially destroys

a lot of the General Relativity / Quantum / Religions businesses on the planet.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:59 pm
3 equidistant points where? On the same circle? In a co-domain?

On the perimeter of the circle whose diameter is √5.

Because Φ implies π (and vice versa) all is in relation to the same.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:59 pm
Because you said π is an approximation. So is √5.

It need not be approximated, it can be left as an irrational.

Approximating irrationals is like trying to turn a curve into a line.

4/√Φ is not an approximation of π,

it is exactly π if/when left in this form

relative to all else concerning it.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:59 pm
it doesn't matter what the diameter is. Let it be 1. or x. It's arbitrary.

This is where the confusion is.

The diameter of the circle must be √5 because '1' is in relation to it.

By taking the diameter of √5, adding the '1' such to have a line (1+√5),

finding the half-way point of this line (equivalent: /2)

reveals the relevant unit circle inside a unit square

contained within the circle whose diameter is √5.