The Unavoidability of Belief within Reason

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

nothing
Posts: 569
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: The Unavoidability of Belief within Reason

Post by nothing » Sat Apr 18, 2020 8:02 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Apr 14, 2020 3:38 pm

Still waiting for that link. As to the "loopis", it is grounded in the munchauseen trilemma:

All phenomena are a point of view which is assumed.
All phenomena are subject to infinite regress.
All phenomena exist through cycles.
The first is not necessarily true, the second is certainly not, the third is obvious.
At best, all phenomena are subject to a point of view
and infinite regress is not a real phenomena.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Apr 14, 2020 3:38 pm
As extensions of consciousness, which is real,
is not
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Apr 14, 2020 3:38 pm
all phenomena used for measurement (ie "points", "lines" and "circles") are real through the consciousness.
All measurement explicitly concerns the (con)science method(s) used, the rest is arbitrary.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Apr 14, 2020 3:38 pm
As to phenomena:

All phenomenon expand and contract from a point of origin.

An example is a particle. From a distance it appears as a point, upon magnification it appears as further particles which appear as points. The same is for an object such as a car. From a distance it appears as a point. Upon closer examination it appears as composed of points. The grounding of all phenomena is point space.
There is no such thing as a point, neither point space.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Apr 14, 2020 3:38 pm
This this expansion and contraction of phenomena necessitates all phenomenon as repetitive thus cycling. However, they are instrinsically empty in themselves as one phenomenon progresses to another.

These forms as expanding and contracting are loops, in the respect they exists through shapes. These shapes are outlinable are loops given any tracing of the phenomenon's outline results in them ending in the same origin point they begin with.

For example tracing the shape of a person results in the trace ending the same point in which they began.
Would you like a side order of {Αlpha+∞-Ωmega} to go along with that {beg∞end}?
Skepdick wrote:
Tue Apr 14, 2020 9:19 pm
Uh. It literally does. Light travels slower in water than it does in a vacuum.
Light doesn't actually have a speed, it has a rate of induction, which actually is a constant, as
just because light "slows down" in a medium doesn't mean the "speed" of light is not a constant.
Light has a fixed magnitude/rate associated with it which never changes.
Skepdick wrote:
Tue Apr 14, 2020 9:19 pm
nothing wrote:
Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:50 pm
Once light leaves any introduced medium it returns to the speed of light.
Q.E.D it's NOT a constant.
If light weren't a fixed constant, it would have nothing to "return" to once unimpeded.
Just because water impedes on light doesn't mean the rate isn't fixed.
Skepdick wrote:
Tue Apr 14, 2020 9:19 pm
nothing wrote:
Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:50 pm
Either this violates the conservation of energy law,
or light has a fixed/scalar magnitude
Or, the above is a false dichotomy.
If light returns to a fixed rate if/when unimpeded, this implies either
light has a fixed rate, or the conservation of energy is not necessarily true
viz. it is because light returns to a datum it is a fixed rate.
Skepdick wrote:
Tue Apr 14, 2020 9:19 pm
nothing wrote:
Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:50 pm
For every x there is a y, for example. 4/√Φ is a qualitative
relationship just as much as it is a quantitative "number"
So a relationship between quantity a quality makes. Got it.

Relationships are quantitative. That's why we call it quantum mechanics. Because we are dealing with quantities of energy.
Space and time are multiplicative reciprocal aspects of motion.
s/t x t/s = 1
Reciprocity is a relational quality, not a quantity.

Quantum Mechanics is a ghastly cult - light (rate of induction) is based on the root of Φ,
hence is a fixed/scalar constant. 4/√Φ = π thus 16=Φπ² is the constant
that precedes Einstein's e=MC², the latter being a shadow of the former.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6051
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Unavoidability of Belief within Reason

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Apr 18, 2020 8:20 pm

nothing wrote:
Sat Apr 18, 2020 8:02 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Apr 14, 2020 3:38 pm

Still waiting for that link. As to the "loopis", it is grounded in the munchauseen trilemma:

All phenomena are a point of view which is assumed.
All phenomena are subject to infinite regress.
All phenomena exist through cycles.
The first is not necessarily true, the second is certainly not, the third is obvious.
At best, all phenomena are subject to a point of view
and infinite regress is not a real phenomena.

Those are all assertions and as assertions are assumed without any definition given.

1. All being exists as assumed through a process of imprinting upon what is formless. This imprint can be on the subconsciousness or it may be the imprint of something of form, such as a rock, onto something else which is formless such as sand. All being exists through a process of imprinting which allows for the phenomena to exist as repeating through time.

2. Infinite regress occurs through an ever changing "now", where "now" acts as the perpetual means, between future and past, as the change of phenomenon.

3. The continual circularity of phenomenon occurs through the replication of the phenomenon across time. One thing repeating, such as a particle repeating itself across space through time, is the cycling of a phenomena.


Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Apr 14, 2020 3:38 pm
As extensions of consciousness, which is real,
is not

As extensions of consciousness, which is real, all phenomena are real in and of themselves as extensions of that said conciousness.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Apr 14, 2020 3:38 pm
all phenomena used for measurement (ie "points", "lines" and "circles") are real through the consciousness.
All measurement explicitly concerns the (con)science method(s) used, the rest is arbitrary.

As extensions of the consciousness all measurements, as the application of boundaries, is real.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Apr 14, 2020 3:38 pm
As to phenomena:

All phenomenon expand and contract from a point of origin.

An example is a particle. From a distance it appears as a point, upon magnification it appears as further particles which appear as points. The same is for an object such as a car. From a distance it appears as a point. Upon closer examination it appears as composed of points. The grounding of all phenomena is point space.
There is no such thing as a point, neither point space.

False, all is composed of point particles with all phenomena occuring from a distance acting the same as a particle.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Apr 14, 2020 3:38 pm
This this expansion and contraction of phenomena necessitates all phenomenon as repetitive thus cycling. However, they are instrinsically empty in themselves as one phenomenon progresses to another.

These forms as expanding and contracting are loops, in the respect they exists through shapes. These shapes are outlinable are loops given any tracing of the phenomenon's outline results in them ending in the same origin point they begin with.

For example tracing the shape of a person results in the trace ending the same point in which they began.
Would you like a side order of {Αlpha+∞-Ωmega} to go along with that {beg∞end}?
Skepdick wrote:
Tue Apr 14, 2020 9:19 pm
Uh. It literally does. Light travels slower in water than it does in a vacuum.
Light doesn't actually have a speed, it has a rate of induction, which actually is a constant, as
just because light "slows down" in a medium doesn't mean the "speed" of light is not a constant.
Light has a fixed magnitude/rate associated with it which never changes.
Skepdick wrote:
Tue Apr 14, 2020 9:19 pm
nothing wrote:
Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:50 pm
Once light leaves any introduced medium it returns to the speed of light.
Q.E.D it's NOT a constant.
If light weren't a fixed constant, it would have nothing to "return" to once unimpeded.
Just because water impedes on light doesn't mean the rate isn't fixed.
Skepdick wrote:
Tue Apr 14, 2020 9:19 pm
nothing wrote:
Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:50 pm
Either this violates the conservation of energy law,
or light has a fixed/scalar magnitude
Or, the above is a false dichotomy.
If light returns to a fixed rate if/when unimpeded, this implies either
light has a fixed rate, or the conservation of energy is not necessarily true
viz. it is because light returns to a datum it is a fixed rate.
Skepdick wrote:
Tue Apr 14, 2020 9:19 pm
nothing wrote:
Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:50 pm
For every x there is a y, for example. 4/√Φ is a qualitative
relationship just as much as it is a quantitative "number"
So a relationship between quantity a quality makes. Got it.

Relationships are quantitative. That's why we call it quantum mechanics. Because we are dealing with quantities of energy.
Space and time are multiplicative reciprocal aspects of motion.
s/t x t/s = 1
Reciprocity is a relational quality, not a quantity.

Quantum Mechanics is a ghastly cult - light (rate of induction) is based on the root of Φ,
hence is a fixed/scalar constant. 4/√Φ = π thus 16=Φπ² is the constant
that precedes Einstein's e=MC², the latter being a shadow of the former.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6051
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Unavoidability of Belief within Reason

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Apr 18, 2020 8:20 pm

nothing wrote:
Sat Apr 18, 2020 8:02 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Apr 14, 2020 3:38 pm

Still waiting for that link. As to the "loopis", it is grounded in the munchauseen trilemma:

All phenomena are a point of view which is assumed.
All phenomena are subject to infinite regress.
All phenomena exist through cycles.
The first is not necessarily true, the second is certainly not, the third is obvious.
At best, all phenomena are subject to a point of view
and infinite regress is not a real phenomena.

Those are all assertions and as assertions are assumed without any definition given on your part. It would be the same as x is x because it is x.

1. All being exists as assumed through a process of imprinting upon what is formless. This imprint can be on the subconsciousness or it may be the imprint of something of form, such as a rock, onto something else which is formless, such as sand. All being exists through a process of imprinting which allows for the phenomena to exist as repeating through time.

2. Infinite regress occurs through an ever changing "now", where "now" acts as the perpetual means, between future and past, as the change of phenomenon.

3. The continual circularity of phenomenon occurs through the replication of the phenomenon across time. One thing repeating, such as a particle repeating itself across space through time, is the cycling of a phenomena.


Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Apr 14, 2020 3:38 pm
As extensions of consciousness, which is real,
is not

As extensions of consciousness, which is real, all phenomena are real in and of themselves as extensions of that said conciousness.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Apr 14, 2020 3:38 pm
all phenomena used for measurement (ie "points", "lines" and "circles") are real through the consciousness.
All measurement explicitly concerns the (con)science method(s) used, the rest is arbitrary.

As extensions of the consciousness all measurements, as the application of boundaries, is real.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Apr 14, 2020 3:38 pm
As to phenomena:

All phenomenon expand and contract from a point of origin.

An example is a particle. From a distance it appears as a point, upon magnification it appears as further particles which appear as points. The same is for an object such as a car. From a distance it appears as a point. Upon closer examination it appears as composed of points. The grounding of all phenomena is point space.
There is no such thing as a point, neither point space.

False, all is composed of point particles with all phenomena occuring from a distance acting the same as a particle.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Apr 14, 2020 3:38 pm
This this expansion and contraction of phenomena necessitates all phenomenon as repetitive thus cycling. However, they are instrinsically empty in themselves as one phenomenon progresses to another.

These forms as expanding and contracting are loops, in the respect they exists through shapes. These shapes are outlinable are loops given any tracing of the phenomenon's outline results in them ending in the same origin point they begin with.

For example tracing the shape of a person results in the trace ending the same point in which they began.
Would you like a side order of {Αlpha+∞-Ωmega} to go along with that {beg∞end}?
Skepdick wrote:
Tue Apr 14, 2020 9:19 pm
Uh. It literally does. Light travels slower in water than it does in a vacuum.
Light doesn't actually have a speed, it has a rate of induction, which actually is a constant, as
just because light "slows down" in a medium doesn't mean the "speed" of light is not a constant.
Light has a fixed magnitude/rate associated with it which never changes.
Skepdick wrote:
Tue Apr 14, 2020 9:19 pm
nothing wrote:
Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:50 pm
Once light leaves any introduced medium it returns to the speed of light.
Q.E.D it's NOT a constant.
If light weren't a fixed constant, it would have nothing to "return" to once unimpeded.
Just because water impedes on light doesn't mean the rate isn't fixed.
Skepdick wrote:
Tue Apr 14, 2020 9:19 pm
nothing wrote:
Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:50 pm
Either this violates the conservation of energy law,
or light has a fixed/scalar magnitude
Or, the above is a false dichotomy.
If light returns to a fixed rate if/when unimpeded, this implies either
light has a fixed rate, or the conservation of energy is not necessarily true
viz. it is because light returns to a datum it is a fixed rate.
Skepdick wrote:
Tue Apr 14, 2020 9:19 pm
nothing wrote:
Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:50 pm
For every x there is a y, for example. 4/√Φ is a qualitative
relationship just as much as it is a quantitative "number"
So a relationship between quantity a quality makes. Got it.

Relationships are quantitative. That's why we call it quantum mechanics. Because we are dealing with quantities of energy.
Space and time are multiplicative reciprocal aspects of motion.
s/t x t/s = 1
Reciprocity is a relational quality, not a quantity.

Quantum Mechanics is a ghastly cult - light (rate of induction) is based on the root of Φ,
hence is a fixed/scalar constant. 4/√Φ = π thus 16=Φπ² is the constant
that precedes Einstein's e=MC², the latter being a shadow of the former.
And for the record 16=Φπ² is actually 15.9693553765 unless rounded.

Your maths work only in approximation.
Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on Sat Apr 18, 2020 10:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Skepdick
Posts: 4371
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The Unavoidability of Belief within Reason

Post by Skepdick » Sat Apr 18, 2020 9:22 pm

nothing wrote:
Sat Apr 18, 2020 8:02 pm
If light weren't a fixed constant, it would have nothing to "return" to once unimpeded.
Just because water impedes on light doesn't mean the rate isn't fixed.
It literally does. It means the speed of light is contextual.

It's X in one context. And Y in another context.

You are treating "ideal vacuums" as the default context. You are an idealist.
nothing wrote:
Sat Apr 18, 2020 8:02 pm
If light returns to a fixed rate if/when unimpeded, this implies either
light has a fixed rate, or the conservation of energy is not necessarily true
viz. it is because light returns to a datum it is a fixed rate.
It doesn't "return" to anything.

You are simply assuming "perfect vacuum" as the default state. Why?
nothing wrote:
Sat Apr 18, 2020 8:02 pm
Space and time are multiplicative reciprocal aspects of motion.
s/t x t/s = 1
Reciprocity is a relational quality, not a quantity.

Quantum Mechanics is a ghastly cult - light (rate of induction) is based on the root of Φ,
hence is a fixed/scalar constant. 4/√Φ = π thus 16=Φπ² is the constant
that precedes Einstein's e=MC², the latter being a shadow of the former.
Dumb Mathematician. Dumb. Fucking. Reductionist! You are equating things to 1. That's literally what quantification means.

You are choosing between two different contexts - you are picking favourites between relativity and quantum mechanics when they are equally useful in their respective domains (read: CONTEXTS) of applicability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time

nothing
Posts: 569
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: The Unavoidability of Belief within Reason

Post by nothing » Mon Apr 20, 2020 12:16 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Apr 18, 2020 8:20 pm
And for the record 16=Φπ² is actually 15.9693553765 unless rounded.

Your maths work only in approximation.
You're using the wrong π.
π = 4/√Φ or √(-8+8√5).

See below.
Skepdick wrote:
Sat Apr 18, 2020 9:22 pm
It literally does. It means the speed of light is contextual.

It's X in one context. And Y in another context.

You are treating "ideal vacuums" as the default context. You are an idealist.
No it's not: it's always x. It only appears as y upon introduction of a "context".
I've not said a word of any "vacuum" - you brought that in, not me.

Are you going to start with the labeling and name-calling? Let's see if that continues.
Skepdick wrote:
Sat Apr 18, 2020 9:22 pm
It doesn't "return" to anything.

You are simply assuming "perfect vacuum" as the default state. Why?
It returns to the same state as before impedance.
I am not assuming any "perfect vacuum" - again, you brought that in.
Skepdick wrote:
Sat Apr 18, 2020 9:22 pm
Dumb Mathematician. Dumb. Fucking. Reductionist!
The accuser is the accused.
Skepdick wrote:
Sat Apr 18, 2020 9:22 pm
You are equating things to 1. That's literally what quantification means.
i. there is nothing wrong with equating things to 1.
ii. there is nothing wrong with quantification.
iii. numbers are both quantitative and qualitative.
Skepdick wrote:
Sat Apr 18, 2020 9:22 pm
You are choosing between two different contexts - you are picking favourites between relativity and quantum mechanics when they are equally useful in their respective domains (read: CONTEXTS) of applicability.
There is only one context: the universe. I reject both relativity and quantum mechanics,
the former not so much in principle (just the interpretation) the latter outright.

I already solved for Einstein's E=MC². It requires the correct π as that's the c term.

Image

(-8+8√5) = π²
√(-8+8√5) = π = 4/√Φ

v = s/t (velocity is space on time)
(√5π+π)/2π = Φ
4/√Φ = π
16/Φ = π²
16 = Φπ²
E = MC²
1 = Φπ²/16

Φ = 1d Spatial Constant
π² = 2d Temporal Constant
16 = Coupling Constant

Or in other words: because 16 = Φπ² Einstein's E = MC² is a valid coupling.
Space and time are discrete units, 1s/1t is a photon, hence c = 1.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6051
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Unavoidability of Belief within Reason

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Apr 20, 2020 12:23 am

nothing wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 12:16 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Apr 18, 2020 8:20 pm
And for the record 16=Φπ² is actually 15.9693553765 unless rounded.

Your maths work only in approximation.
You're using the wrong π.
π = 4/√Φ or √(-8+8√5).

Still an approximation as 4/√1.618 = 3.14463853966




See below.
Skepdick wrote:
Sat Apr 18, 2020 9:22 pm
It literally does. It means the speed of light is contextual.

It's X in one context. And Y in another context.

You are treating "ideal vacuums" as the default context. You are an idealist.
No it's not: it's always x. It only appears as y upon introduction of a "context".
I've not said a word of any "vacuum" - you brought that in, not me.

Are you going to start with the labeling and name-calling? Let's see if that continues.

X is expressed as Y when Z context is present. The speed of light exists through the medium it is presented in.
Skepdick wrote:
Sat Apr 18, 2020 9:22 pm
It doesn't "return" to anything.

You are simply assuming "perfect vacuum" as the default state. Why?
It returns to the same state as before impedance.
I am not assuming any "perfect vacuum" - again, you brought that in.
Skepdick wrote:
Sat Apr 18, 2020 9:22 pm
Dumb Mathematician. Dumb. Fucking. Reductionist!
The accuser is the accused.
Skepdick wrote:
Sat Apr 18, 2020 9:22 pm
You are equating things to 1. That's literally what quantification means.
i. there is nothing wrong with equating things to 1.
ii. there is nothing wrong with quantification.
iii. numbers are both quantitative and qualitative.

Anything can be equated to one as all numbers are subject to equivocation due to their nature as quantifiers.
Skepdick wrote:
Sat Apr 18, 2020 9:22 pm
You are choosing between two different contexts - you are picking favourites between relativity and quantum mechanics when they are equally useful in their respective domains (read: CONTEXTS) of applicability.
There is only one context: the universe. I reject both relativity and quantum mechanics,
the former not so much in principle (just the interpretation) the latter outright.

The universal context exists through a recursion of contexts which sustains that context. An example would be the number 1. 1 repeats itself as 2,3,4... with each number being a variation of 1 as 1 number in itself. The one context is defined through an infinite continuum of contexts which again is a single context. A number approaching infinity is a variation of 1 as 1 number in itself. The one context exists through the many contexts and the many contexts are sustained through the 1 context. Relativity is context as the universal constant.

I already solved for Einstein's E=MC². It requires the correct π as that's the c term.

Image

(-8+8√5) = π²
√(-8+8√5) = π = 4/√Φ

√(8√(5)) = 4.22948505376 not Pi.

(8√5) = 17.88854382 not Pi squared = 9.86960440109






v = s/t (velocity is space on time)
(√5π+π)/2π = Φ
4/√Φ = π You are claiming Pi as 3.14460551103 with the difference between your Pi and the standard Pi as 0.00301285743.



16/Φ = π²
16 = Φπ²
E = MC²
1 = Φπ²/16 Actually it equals 0.99808471103


Φ = 1d Spatial Constant
π² = 2d Temporal Constant
16 = Coupling Constant

Or in other words: because 16 = Φπ² Einstein's E = MC² is a valid coupling.
Space and time are discrete units, 1s/1t is a photon, hence c = 1.

nothing
Posts: 569
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: The Unavoidability of Belief within Reason

Post by nothing » Mon Apr 20, 2020 1:40 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 12:23 am
Still an approximation as 4/√1.618 = 3.14463853966
You are the one doing the approximating.
Φ ≠ 1.618
Φ = (1+√5)/2
Leave Φ as a ratio if/when calculating π.

4/√Φ = π = 3.144605511029693144...

Alternatively:
√(-8+8√5) = π
-8+8√5 = π² = 9.88854381999...

The expression x²-x=1 has Φ as a root.
The expression x⁴+16x²=256 has two ± roots:
±√9.888... (real numbers)
±i√25.888... (imaginary numbers)

Which makes a symmetrical axes of real and imaginary numbers
coupled by a factor of '16'. Do you know what that means?

Image
The real part of every non-trivial zero of the Riemann zeta function is 1/2.
-Reimann Hypothesis
Image
R.H. = True (by Ananke)

The RH is a $1 000 000 Millennium Prize Problem - the solution reveals that
"imaginary" numbers are the constituency of real numbers (and vice versa)
wherein the constituency of a real '1' is an imaginary '16'. This relates to
Einstein's E = MC² reflecting 16 = Φπ² → 1 = Φπ²/16

Image
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 12:23 am
X is expressed as Y when Z context is present. The speed of light exists through the medium it is presented in.
Thus Y = XZ wherein X is a constant and Y is corollary of Z acting on X.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 12:23 am
Anything can be equated to one as all numbers are subject to equivocation due to their nature as quantifiers.
Let √1 be unity (or not).
+1 = Unity
-1 = Not
Not Not Unity = Unity
(-1) (-1) = 1
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 12:23 am
The universal context exists through a recursion of contexts which sustains that context. An example would be the number 1. 1 repeats itself as 2,3,4... with each number being a variation of 1 as 1 number in itself. The one context is defined through an infinite continuum of contexts which again is a single context. A number approaching infinity is a variation of 1 as 1 number in itself. The one context exists through the many contexts and the many contexts are sustained through the 1 context. Relativity is context as the universal constant.
1 does not repeat (rational), it is already discrete.
√5 does not terminate (irrational): it goes on and on.
1 is rational, √5 is not, thus (1+√5)/2 is a rational plus an irrational
about a "choice between two" /2 hence the pentagram having two roots.

1 = Unity
Φ¹ = (√5+1)/2 "PROGRESSION" (ie. concerns UNITY, cosmological constant)
Φ² = (Φ + 1) RATIONAL "DISCRETION" (terminus of discretion, the ever-present now)
Φ³ = (√5 + 2) "GRAVITATION" (ie. concerns DUALITY, gravitational constant)
____________________________________________________
Φ² ± Φ¹ = 1, Φ³
Rational DISCRETION with and/or without PROGRESSION
is proportional to UNITY and/or GRAVITATION.

There is only one universal constant: Φπ²/16 = 1.

In relation to the thread topic:
ALL BELIEF-BASED IGNORANCE(S) HAVE AN ASSOCIATED GRAVITY
WHICH AMOUNTS TO SUFFERING/DEATH IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE ADMONISHMENT OF GENESIS 2:17 CONCERNING THE TREE
OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF (SO-CALLED) GOOD AND EVIL.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6051
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Unavoidability of Belief within Reason

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Apr 20, 2020 1:51 am

nothing wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 1:40 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 12:23 am
Still an approximation as 4/√1.618 = 3.14463853966
You are the one doing the approximating.
Φ ≠ 1.618
Φ = (1+√5)/2
Leave Φ as a ratio if/when calculating π.

That ratio is still an approximation.

4/√Φ = π = 3.144605511029693144...

Alternatively:
√(-8+8√5) = π. no it equals 4.22948505376



-8+8√5 = π² = 9.88854381999... no -8+8√5 equals 17.88854382 ....I don't have to go any further considering you ignore these points prior.




The expression x²-x=1 has Φ as a root.
The expression x⁴+16x²=256 has two ± roots:
±√9.888... (real numbers)
±i√25.888... (imaginary numbers)

Which makes a symmetrical axes of real and imaginary numbers
coupled by a factor of '16'. Do you know what that means?

Image
The real part of every non-trivial zero of the Riemann zeta function is 1/2.
-Reimann Hypothesis
Image
R.H. = True (by Ananke)

The RH is a $1 000 000 Millennium Prize Problem - the solution reveals that
"imaginary" numbers are the constituency of real numbers (and vice versa)
wherein the constituency of a real '1' is an imaginary '16'. This relates to
Einstein's E = MC² reflecting 16 = Φπ² → 1=Φπ²/16

Image
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 12:23 am
X is expressed as Y when Z context is present. The speed of light exists through the medium it is presented in.
Thus Y = XZ wherein X is a constant and Y is corollary of Z acting on X.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 12:23 am
Anything can be equated to one as all numbers are subject to equivocation due to their nature as quantifiers.
Let √1 be unity (or not).
+1 = Unity
-1 = Not
Not Not Unity = Unity
(-1) (-1) = 1
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 12:23 am
The universal context exists through a recursion of contexts which sustains that context. An example would be the number 1. 1 repeats itself as 2,3,4... with each number being a variation of 1 as 1 number in itself. The one context is defined through an infinite continuum of contexts which again is a single context. A number approaching infinity is a variation of 1 as 1 number in itself. The one context exists through the many contexts and the many contexts are sustained through the 1 context. Relativity is context as the universal constant.
1 does not repeat (rational), it is already discrete. All numbers are recursions of 1 where a number approaching infinity is one existing through infinite variations.


√5 does not terminate (irrational): it goes on and on.
1 is rational, √5 is not, thus (1+√5)/2 is a rational plus an irrational
about a "choice between two" /2 hence the pentagram having two roots.

1 = Unity
Φ¹ = (√5+1)/2 "PROGRESSION" (ie. concerns UNITY, cosmological constant)
Φ² = (Φ + 1) RATIONAL "DISCRETION" (terminus of discretion, the ever-present now)
Φ³ = (√5 + 2) "GRAVITATION" (ie. concerns DUALITY, gravitational constant)
____________________________________________________
Φ² ± Φ¹ = 1, Φ³
Rational DISCRETION with and/or without PROGRESSION
is proportional to UNITY and/or GRAVITATION.

There is only one universal constant: Φπ²/16 = 1.

nothing
Posts: 569
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: The Unavoidability of Belief within Reason

Post by nothing » Mon Apr 20, 2020 2:07 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 1:51 am
That ratio is still an approximation.
LOL wow... did you just claim a ratio is an approximation?

Approximation does not happen if/until one terminates the decimal somewhere, which involves rounding,
which involves discretion. If/when leaving as a ratio, the integrity of the expression is preserved.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 1:51 am
no -8+8√5 equals 17.88854382 ....
...are you retarded? 8√5 is 17.88854381999...
...the expression is -8+8√5, hence your 17.888... is '8' too many...
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 1:51 am
....I don't have to go any further considering you ignore these points prior.
It looks like you're in a projection loop, hence my diagnoses of loopis were correct.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 1:51 am
All numbers are recursions of 1 where a number approaching infinity is one existing through infinite variations.
This is what you believe. It's not how nature works. Hence the loopis: it is local, not universal.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6051
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Unavoidability of Belief within Reason

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Apr 20, 2020 2:19 am

nothing wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 2:07 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 1:51 am
That ratio is still an approximation.
LOL wow... did you just claim a ratio is an approximation?

Yes, as the number it produces is irrational.

Approximation does not happen if/until one terminates the decimal somewhere, which involves rounding,
which involves discretion. If/when leaving as a ratio, the integrity of the expression is preserved.

The integrity is expressed as an irrational considering Pi itself as a ratio is ever expanding past 355/113.


Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 1:51 am
no -8+8√5 equals 17.88854382 ....
...are you retarded? 8√5 is 17.88854381999...
...the expression is -8+8√5, hence your 17.888... is '8' too many...

(-8+8)√5 --> 0√5 . Or, as I read it: (plus/minus8)√5 in which case a negative also results.

Maybe you should use brackets first -8+(8√5) the accuser is accused.


Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 1:51 am
....I don't have to go any further considering you ignore these points prior.
It looks like you're in a projection loop, hence my diagnoses of loopis were correct.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 1:51 am
All numbers are recursions of 1 where a number approaching infinity is one existing through infinite variations.
This is what you believe. It's not how nature works. Hence the loopis: it is local, not universal.

False, 1 existing through 2 as the repetition of 1 observes 2 as a variation of 1. Given an infinite continuum 1 exists through a number approaching infinity in a constant variation. 1 exists both as itself and through its variation. 1 has both 1 and many definitions thus is trifold: "1" and "n --> infinity" as "1".

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=29139

(1 --> 1) --> 2
(1 --> 2) --> 3
(1 --> 3) --> 4
Etc. As an expanding circle or spiral.

Or as evidenced by a number line where the point projects as a quantifiable line.
(0 --> 0) = 1.
(1 ---> 0) = (1/2, 2)
****where the line projecting to another zero results in the line divided in half as two lines.
(2 ---> 0) = (1/4, 4)
****where each line as projecting to another zero results in each line simultaneously halved and doubled.

A line resulting in a fraction results in each line, as individual lines, multiplied. Multiplication and division occur simultaneously in spatial phenomenon.

Φπ²/16 = 1 actually equals 0.99806374506 not 1. As a ratio, rounded, you are left 99/100. Unrounded the ratio would exist as a continuum (99806374506 --> inf.)/ 100000000000. Your whole theory hinges on Φπ²/16 = 1 and claim ratios as more accurate than decimals when in reality ratios are just as irrational, due to there continual expansion, as decimals. You are twisting variables to fit into faulty mathematics.

This is an example on how the assumed premises results in a series of further premises as a variation of the original. The beginning premises, such as ratios not being irrational, are determined through beliefs when a seperate case can be observed that the fractions as continuous can be observed as irrational. It ends up as a battle between what premise to believe in.

Second:

4/√Φ = π You are claiming Pi as 3.14460551103

The standard ratio of Pi is 355/113 = 3.14159292035. Even this ratio is an approximation as it continually expands.


The difference between your Pi and the standard ratio of Pi is 0.00301259068. All ratios are still approximations as they are irrational.

If you demand ratios as not irrational, then you are in a crux as the ratio of Pi as 355/113 is more accurate than 4/√Φ.
Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on Mon Apr 20, 2020 3:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

nothing
Posts: 569
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: The Unavoidability of Belief within Reason

Post by nothing » Mon Apr 20, 2020 3:24 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 2:19 am
Yes, as the number it produces is irrational.
Irrational numbers need not be approximated,
they may be rationalized without approximation.

Φ² - Φ = 1 (irrational - irrational = rational)
Φ² ± Φ = 1, Φ³ (irrational ± irrational = rational and/or irrational).

You need to understand that just because a number is irrational
does not mean that it is (or should be) approximated.

Irrational ≠ Approximated
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 2:19 am
The integrity is expressed as an irrational.
As a ratio, which is a rationalization. 4/√Φ is a ratio
comprised of one rational on one irrational, hence (correct) π is both
rational and irrational, the same as Φ: (1+√5)/2.
1=rational
√5=irrational
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 2:19 am
(-8+8)√5 --> 0√5 . Or, as I read it: (plus/minus8)√5 in which case a negative also results.
Respect the order of operations:

BEDMAS:
M = 8√5 = 17.888...
A = -8 + 17.888...
= 9.888...
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 2:19 am
Maybe you should use brackets first -8+(8√5) the accuser is accused.
i. I didn't make a single accusation, I asked you a definite yes/no question.
ii. You didn't answer the yes/no question, let alone address it (it was/is serious)
iii. Brackets are not needed: the operation begins with 8√5=17.888... before concerning -8.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 2:19 am
False, 1 existing through 2 as the repetition of 1 observes 2 as a variation of 1. Given an infinite continuum 1 exists through a number approaching infinity in a constant variation. 1 exists both as itself and through its variation. 1 has both 1 and many definitions thus is trifold: "1" and "n --> infinity" as "1".
i. 1 doesn't exist through 2, it is the other way around: 2 exists through 1.
ii. 1 doesn't repeat, nor multiply, it is discrete and rational.
iii. 'Infinite continuum' is not given, neither is infinity.
iv. The universe does not conform to your loopis: I tried/tested/falsified it already.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 2:19 am
(1 --> 1) --> 2
(1 --> 2) --> 3
(1 --> 3) --> 4
Etc. As an expanding circle or spiral.
Except that's not how nature actually works.
That's how it works in your personal Land of Loopis.
Here is how it works in nature:

The sole constituency of the universe is motion (v),
measured in discrete units as a ratio of space (s) over time (t),
thus (v=s/t). Space and time are multiplicative reciprocal aspects of motion,
thus s/t x t/s = 1 wherein t/s is energy (e).

s³/t ∞ s²t² ∞ t³/s
v ∞ reciprocity ∞ e

√1 = +Unity (and -Not)
2π/2π = 1 discrete unit of absolute magnitude concerning unity (or not)
(√5π±π)/2π = Φ, (Φ-1) → cosm. constant behind universal progression+/-gravitation (scalar)
(√5π+3π)/2π = Φ², (Φ+1) → rational discretionary terminus of absolute magnitude(s)
((√5π+3π) ± √(2π√5+6π))/2π = Φ³, 1 → gravity (irrational) and/or unity (rational)

The rational '1' is born by the squaring of an irrational(s),
thus any/all tautologies beginning with '1' implies Φ²
as constituency of the tautology: Φ²→1. This '1' is generated
in the s²t² domain wherein Φπ² incessantly reciprocate.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6051
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Unavoidability of Belief within Reason

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Apr 20, 2020 3:57 am

nothing wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 3:24 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 2:19 am
Yes, as the number it produces is irrational.
Irrational numbers need not be approximated,
they may be rationalized without approximation.

Φ² - Φ = 1 (irrational - irrational = rational) Still results in fraction:
1.618 squared - 1.618 = 0.999924



Φ² ± Φ = 1, Φ³ (irrational ± irrational = rational and/or irrational).

False The integrity is expressed as an irrational considering Pi itself as a ratio is ever expanding past 355/113.
Ratios, as continuous, are irrational.




You need to understand that just because a number is irrational
does not mean that it is (or should be) approximated.

Irrational ≠ Approximated

Actually as irrational it is infinitely continuous thus is always rounded. Pi as a fraction is an example.


Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 2:19 am
The integrity is expressed as an irrational.
As a ratio, which is a rationalization. 4/√Φ is a ratio
comprised of one rational on one irrational, hence (correct) π is both
rational and irrational, the same as Φ: (1+√5)/2.
1=rational
√5=irrational

Phi equals 1.61803398875, thus is an irrational number.


Actually 1 is not rational as is exists through an infinite series of numbers.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 2:19 am
(-8+8)√5 --> 0√5 . Or, as I read it: (plus/minus8)√5 in which case a negative also results.
Respect the order of operations:

BEDMAS:
M = 8√5 = 17.888...
A = -8 + 17.888...
= 9.888...


Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 2:19 am
Maybe you should use brackets first -8+(8√5) the accuser is accused.
i. I didn't make a single accusation, I asked you a definite yes/no question.
ii. You didn't answer the yes/no question, let alone address it (it was/is serious)
iii. Brackets are not needed: the operation begins with 8√5=17.888... before concerning -8.

The order of operations always necessitates brackets implicitly. Brackets are always the more accurate method of determining order of operations.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 2:19 am
False, 1 existing through 2 as the repetition of 1 observes 2 as a variation of 1. Given an infinite continuum 1 exists through a number approaching infinity in a constant variation. 1 exists both as itself and through its variation. 1 has both 1 and many definitions thus is trifold: "1" and "n --> infinity" as "1".
i. 1 doesn't exist through 2, it is the other way around: 2 exists through 1.
1 exists as continuous through the number it manifests as...its continuity allows for the number to exist. Each number as a variation of 1 is one existing through itself in infinite variation as infinite.


ii. 1 doesn't repeat, nor multiply, it is discrete and rational.
One exists through itself ad infinitum through an infinite number of numbers. Its infinite nature is what allows for it to continuously exist tautologically.

iii. 'Infinite continuum' is not given, neither is infinity.
Infinity is expressed through a continuous "now" which is observed through a perpetual change. Now is infinite.

iv. The universe does not conform to your loopis: I tried/tested/falsified it already.

False, your charts are dependendent upon the looping spiral of the golden ratio.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 2:19 am
(1 --> 1) --> 2
(1 --> 2) --> 3
(1 --> 3) --> 4
Etc. As an expanding circle or spiral.
Except that's not how nature actually works.
That's how it works in your personal Land of Loopis.
Here is how it works in nature:

The sole constituency of the universe is motion (v),
measured in discrete units as a ratio of space (s) over time (t),
thus (v=s/t). Space and time are multiplicative reciprocal aspects of motion,
thus s/t x t/s = 1 wherein t/s is energy (e).

s³/t ∞ s²t² ∞ t³/s
v ∞ reciprocity ∞ e

Rofl!!! Reciprocity is a loop as it is a "mutual exchange" which manifests as a cycle.

√1 = +Unity (and -Not)
2π/2π = 1 discrete unit of absolute magnitude concerning unity (or not)
(√5π±π)/2π = Φ, (Φ-1) → cosm. constant behind universal progression+/-gravitation (scalar)
(√5π+3π)/2π = Φ², (Φ+1) → rational discretionary terminus of absolute magnitude(s)
((√5π+3π) ± √(2π√5+6π))/2π = Φ³, 1 → gravity (irrational) and/or unity (rational)

The rational '1' is born by the squaring of an irrational(s),
thus any/all tautologies beginning with '1' implies Φ²
as constituency of the tautology: Φ²→1. This '1' is generated
in the s²t² domain wherein Φπ² incessantly reciprocate.

The Golden ratio square is not only a irrational number but it does not manifest as one: 2.61803398875


The 355/113 is not only a more accurate version of Pi, and exists as significantly different than the fraction you observed, but it necessitates all fractions as continuous (as pi is continuous) as irrational.


This is an example on how the assumed premises results in a series of further premises as a variation of the original. The beginning premises, such as ratios not being irrational, are determined through beliefs when a seperate case can be observed that the fractions as continuous can be observed as irrational. It ends up as a battle between what premise to believe in.

nothing
Posts: 569
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: The Unavoidability of Belief within Reason

Post by nothing » Mon Apr 20, 2020 4:49 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 3:57 am
Still results in fraction:
1.618 squared - 1.618 = 0.999924
LOL... oh dear.

Eod... are you aware Φ satisfies x²-x=1?
Because apparently... you are not.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 3:57 am
False The integrity is expressed as an irrational considering Pi itself as a ratio is ever expanding past 355/113.
Ratios, as continuous, are irrational.
...what?...
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 3:57 am
Actually as irrational it is infinitely continuous thus is always rounded. Pi as a fraction is an example.
Irrational numbers are not 'always rounded'. Every time you round an irrational you are severing from it at that chosen point.
Stop rounding, and problem solved. You are creating the problems you are trying to attribute to me by rounding - I don't round.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 3:57 am
Actually 1 is not rational as is exists through an infinite series of numbers.
1 is rational. If you believe otherwise...

Φ: x²-x=1 (solves with Φ as a root)
π: x⁴̄+16x²=256 (solves 4/√Φ as roots) wherein:
x=±√9.888...
x=±i√25.888...

Φ only has 1 "state" which is '1' in relation to 1.618... hence Φ²-Φ = 1.
π has 4 "states" which are x=±√9.888... and x=±i√25.888...
...these 4 "states" describe a real/imaginary number axes
that conforms to the same geometry that the universe conforms to
because the universe utilizes the relationship between Φ and π².
They are each respectively the yang and yin of all that exists.

That means that any infinite series of numbers passes through the axes
(including and especially complex numbers) as outlined above, wherein
every real value has a constituency of 1/2 the imaginary offset by a factor of ±i√16,
hence 16=Φπ² solves for e=MC² via. 1 = Φπ²/16.

Real r/i Imaginary (Complex)
v = s³/t ∞ s²/t² ∞ t³/s = e
r = s³/t ∞ s²/t² ∞ t³/s = i
1 = s³/t ∞ s²/t² ∞ t³/s = 16
_______________________
v = s³/t = 1
e = t³/s = 16

1 and 16 are two sides of the same coin in terms of velocity and energy
wherein each discrete and real '1' has an energy constituency of '16'
as expressed on/as the imaginary axis.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 3:57 am
The order of operations always necessitates brackets implicitly. Brackets are always the more accurate method of determining order of operations.
Only if/as needed: -8+8√5 is not needed, the 8 is multiplicatively pinned to √5, whereas the -8 is add/sub.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 3:57 am
1 exists as continuous through the number it manifests as...its continuity allows for the number to exist. Each number as a variation of 1 is one existing through itself in infinite variation as infinite.
It manifests through the squaring of Φ.
Φ incessantly acts on itself to produce 1,
thus 1 and 1.618... are ever-in-relation-to-one.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 3:57 am
One exists through itself ad infinitum through an infinite number of numbers. Its infinite nature is what allows for it to continuously exist tautologically.
1 actually exists through the incessant squaring of Φ, as Φ² = itself +1, hence Φ²-Φ=1 (!)
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 3:57 am
False, your charts are dependendent upon the looping spiral of the golden ratio.
i. dependendent is not a word
ii. Nature is dependent on the golden ratio. I simply acknowledge it.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 3:57 am
Rofl!!! Reciprocity is a loop as it is a "mutual exchange" which manifests as a cycle.
Reciprocity is a stage for two to dance upon.

If you, yourself, are loopy, you will yourself see everything as loops. I call it loopis.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 3:57 am
The Golden ratio square is not only a irrational number but it does not manifest as one: 2.61803398875
...yes it does, it is in the difference of itself.

Φ² - Φ = 1
and even
(√5±1)/2 = Φ, (Φ - 1)

I'd say the cure for loopis is rationalization.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 3:57 am
The 355/113 is not only a more accurate version of Pi, and exists as significantly different than the fraction you observed, but it necessitates all fractions as continuous (as pi is continuous) as irrational.
No idea what 355/113 has to do with anything.
The constituency of π relies on a ratio of Φ,
from Φ's own "rib" is derived π, as from Adam's own "rib" is derived Eve,
π = 4/√Φ. Not an approximation of it, the ratio integrally maintained.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 3:57 am
This is an example on how the assumed premises results in a series of further premises as a variation of the original. The beginning premises, such as ratios not being irrational, are determined through beliefs when a seperate case can be observed that the fractions as continuous can be observed as irrational. It ends up as a battle between what premise to believe in.
Now try π as "approximated" and being "transcendental"... humanity has been stuck on that for thousands of years.
The approximated π problem is what humanity is suffering: 4/√Φ is not only precise, it relates to the harmonic of light.

A ratio that is composed of one rational and one irrational is a complex ratio: one is to one is not.
4/√Φ is a complex ratio: it has a rational numerator about an irrational denominator. Hence:
the 'real' and 'imaginary' number lines of complex analysis (though Western science still doesn't understand the relationship
between real numbers and "imaginary" numbers yet, as it deals with the actual construct of the number system itself).

Skepdick
Posts: 4371
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The Unavoidability of Belief within Reason

Post by Skepdick » Mon Apr 20, 2020 8:12 am

nothing wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 12:16 am
The accuser is the accused.
Q.E.D You can only think up to isomorphism.

I use mathematics. That doesn't make me a mathematician.
nothing wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 12:16 am
i. there is nothing wrong with equating things to 1.
ii. there is nothing wrong with quantification.
iii. numbers are both quantitative and qualitative.
Numbers don't exist!
nothing wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 12:16 am
There is only one context: the universe. I reject both relativity and quantum mechanics,
the former not so much in principle (just the interpretation) the latter outright.
Your rejection of quantum physics doesn't stop the quantum effects from occurring.
The goal is unification of the two - not sticking your head in the sand.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6051
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Unavoidability of Belief within Reason

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Apr 20, 2020 4:35 pm

nothing wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 4:49 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 3:57 am
Still results in fraction:
1.618 squared - 1.618 = 0.999924
LOL... oh dear.

Eod... are you aware Φ satisfies x²-x=1?
Because apparently... you are not.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 3:57 am
False The integrity is expressed as an irrational considering Pi itself as a ratio is ever expanding past 355/113.
Ratios, as continuous, are irrational.
...what?...

Pi, as a fraction, is continuously expanding. Any acknowledgement of Pi, as a ratio, is always an approximation of it.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 3:57 am
Actually as irrational it is infinitely continuous thus is always rounded. Pi as a fraction is an example.
Irrational numbers are not 'always rounded'. Every time you round an irrational you are severing from it at that chosen point.
Stop rounding, and problem solved. You are creating the problems you are trying to attribute to me by rounding - I don't round.

355/113 is a rounded version of Pi and an more accurate one than the one you presented.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 3:57 am
Actually 1 is not rational as is exists through an infinite series of numbers.
1 is rational. If you believe otherwise...

Φ: x²-x=1 (solves with Φ as a root)
π: x⁴̄+16x²=256 (solves 4/√Φ as roots) wherein:
x=±√9.888...
x=±i√25.888...






Φ only has 1 "state" which is '1' in relation to 1.618... hence Φ²-Φ = 1.
π has 4 "states" which are x=±√9.888... and x=±i√25.888...
...these 4 "states" describe a real/imaginary number axes
that conforms to the same geometry that the universe conforms to
because the universe utilizes the relationship between Φ and π².
They are each respectively the yang and yin of all that exists.

That means that any infinite series of numbers passes through the axes
(including and especially complex numbers) as outlined above, wherein
every real value has a constituency of 1/2 the imaginary offset by a factor of ±i√16,
hence 16=Φπ² solves for e=MC² via. 1 = Φπ²/16.

Real r/i Imaginary (Complex)
v = s³/t ∞ s²/t² ∞ t³/s = e
r = s³/t ∞ s²/t² ∞ t³/s = i
1 = s³/t ∞ s²/t² ∞ t³/s = 16
_______________________
v = s³/t = 1
e = t³/s = 16

1 and 16 are two sides of the same coin in terms of velocity and energy
wherein each discrete and real '1' has an energy constituency of '16'
as expressed on/as the imaginary axis.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 3:57 am
The order of operations always necessitates brackets implicitly. Brackets are always the more accurate method of determining order of operations.
Only if/as needed: -8+8√5 is not needed, the 8 is multiplicatively pinned to √5, whereas the -8 is add/sub.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 3:57 am
1 exists as continuous through the number it manifests as...its continuity allows for the number to exist. Each number as a variation of 1 is one existing through itself in infinite variation as infinite.
It manifests through the squaring of Φ.
Φ incessantly acts on itself to produce 1,
thus 1 and 1.618... are ever-in-relation-to-one.


Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 3:57 am
One exists through itself ad infinitum through an infinite number of numbers. Its infinite nature is what allows for it to continuously exist tautologically.
1 actually exists through the incessant squaring of Φ, as Φ² = itself +1, hence Φ²-Φ=1 (!)
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 3:57 am
False, your charts are dependendent upon the looping spiral of the golden ratio.
i. dependendent is not a word
ii. Nature is dependent on the golden ratio. I simply acknowledge it.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 3:57 am
Rofl!!! Reciprocity is a loop as it is a "mutual exchange" which manifests as a cycle.
Reciprocity is a stage for two to dance upon.

If you, yourself, are loopy, you will yourself see everything as loops. I call it loopis.

Mutual exchange, as reciprocity, is the given and take, a cycle, between phenomenon.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 3:57 am
The Golden ratio square is not only a irrational number but it does not manifest as one: 2.61803398875
...yes it does, it is in the difference of itself.

Φ² - Φ = 1
and even
(√5±1)/2 = Φ, (Φ - 1)

I said the Golden ratio squared, not Φ² - Φ = 1


I'd say the cure for loopis is rationalization.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 3:57 am
The 355/113 is not only a more accurate version of Pi, and exists as significantly different than the fraction you observed, but it necessitates all fractions as continuous (as pi is continuous) as irrational.
No idea what 355/113 has to do with anything.
The constituency of π relies on a ratio of Φ,
from Φ's own "rib" is derived π, as from Adam's own "rib" is derived Eve,
π = 4/√Φ. Not an approximation of it, the ratio integrally maintained.

355/113 is an expression of Pi as a ratio.


Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 3:57 am
This is an example on how the assumed premises results in a series of further premises as a variation of the original. The beginning premises, such as ratios not being irrational, are determined through beliefs when a seperate case can be observed that the fractions as continuous can be observed as irrational. It ends up as a battle between what premise to believe in.
Now try π as "approximated" and being "transcendental"... humanity has been stuck on that for thousands of years.
The approximated π problem is what humanity is suffering: 4/√Φ is not only precise, it relates to the harmonic of light.

A ratio that is composed of one rational and one irrational is a complex ratio: one is to one is not.
4/√Φ is a complex ratio: it has a rational numerator about an irrational denominator. Hence:
the 'real' and 'imaginary' number lines of complex analysis (though Western science still doesn't understand the relationship
between real numbers and "imaginary" numbers yet, as it deals with the actual construct of the number system itself).

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests