## Introduction by Kevin Barrett, Veterans Today Editor

*In Yann Martel’s novel Life of Pi, the narrator – a person named Pi – recounts the story of his life: “A story that will make you believe in God.” At a key point, the story splits in two. The main version of the story is fantastic; a lesser, alternate version is horrific and tawdry. Choose the better story, the fantastic story, the narrator suggests; choose the story with God in it.*

*The problem is, the horrific and tawdry story seems more plausible.*

*Leo Strauss would have enjoyed Life of Pi. He would have advised his neoconservative cult followers to hypnotize the masses with the fantastic story, while reserving the horrific and tawdry truth for themselves.*

*I think the neocons are wrong: The truth is fantastic, and God is truth. But that’s a long story, and this is a short introduction to a very long article.*

*Paralleling the two versions of the Life of Pi, there are two stories about pi the number. According to the boring conventional story, pi is 3.14159… This number is derived from imagining a circle as an infinitely-sided polygon.*

*But there is another story about pi, the story told in this article. It is a fantastic story – wild, hard to believe, full of bizarre implications like something out of a Dan Brown novel. If Mark Wollum is right, the truth about pi has been intentionally hidden from humanity for centuries or millennia. Perhaps it has been an “eyes-only” secret reserved for 33rd degree masons. *

*Will the whole history of science and mathematics have to be re-written? *

*I have been arguing about this with Mark for more than a year. The traditional infinitely-sided polygon derivation of pi seems obvious to me. Mark thinks I must have smoked too much pot in high school – he says there is NO WAY a circle is the same as an infinitely sided polygon. I don’t know what he’s been smoking, but whatever it is, it’s giving him some amazing geometrical visions.*

*So you, dear reader, will have to decide. Has Mark Wollum, a very smart guy and one of the best 9/11 truth activists in Wisconsin, independently discovered one of the most closely guarded secrets of all time? If not, can you prove him wrong?*

*-KB*

# The Great Pi Conspiracy

### The Real Value of Pi With Mathematical Proof, by Mark and Scott Wollum

This article presents the author’s quest for the true value of pi, with compelling empirical evidence and multiple mathematical proofs that the real value of pi differs from the textbook number by approximately one-tenth percent, and is based on the mathematical constant known as the ‘Golden Ratio’.

Contents

Introduction

The Debate Begins

Scientific Inquiry- Testing a Hypothesis; Measuring the Circumference of a disc to Calculate Pi.

Evidence the Old Pi might Be Wrong

Questions Raised in Considering a New Pi (including problems with the infinite-sided polygon approach)

Finally- The Real Pi?

Mathematical Derivations of the Real Value of Pi

Definitions

Derivation of An 8th-Degree Polynomial for Pi

Derivation of a 4th-degree Polynomial for Pi

The Simpler Solution

Interlude

The Final Proof to Lay the Old Pi to Rest (a more conventional geometric approach)

Summary

Dedication to My (late) Brother, Scott Wollum, the Real Mathematician

**Introduction**

On September 5, 1962 a 20-pound chunk of metal fell from the sky and landed in the streets of Manitowoc, Wisconsin. This was determined to be a piece of satellite known in the West as Sputnik IV, a Russian satellite launched 2 years earlier. The official story claims that the satellite had failed a re-entry attempt 5 days into its voyage, instead entering into a higher but gradually decaying orbit. A replica of the metal object can be seen in Manitowoc’s Rahr-West art museum, which, coincidently, was adjacent to where it landed. The original piece was returned to Russia.

Manitowoc happens to be the town in which I was raised with my late twin brother Scott. Interestingly he had an affinity for astronomy, was very gifted academically and was brilliant at mathematics and problem-solving. We were quite young when this incident occurred, but we had seen the replica many times, which sits in a glass case at the museum.

The placing of a satellite in orbit is the culmination of centuries of advancement in science and mathematics. The mathematical constant pi, the ratio of a circle’s circumference divided by its diameter, is fundamental to understanding the behaviors of orbiting objects. In fact, knowledge of the value pi is so fundamental to our physical constructs, it’s value is paramount to understanding how the universe operates. Pi is an important factor in energy calculations of anything with rotational momentum. Its value is therefore required to understand the behavior of everything from the cosmos to sub-atomic particles. It is used extensively in physics, electromagnetics, and trigonometry, and is arguably one of the most important physical constants.

**The Debate Begins**

I was therefore a bit taken aback while researching alternative energy when I saw references which indicated we were using the wrong value of pi. There were claims being made that the traditional value of pi, 3.14159… was wrong, and the real value is 3.144605511…., or 4 divided by the square root of a mathematical constant known as the ‘golden ratio‘, generally referred to by the Greek letter ‘Phi’. The golden ratio = square root of 5, +1, all divided by 2. (More on this later). Four divided by square root of Phi = 3.144605511….

Upon further investigation, I found some interesting sites. There is a mathematician Jain who promulgates this new idea for pi who has written several books on subjects involving the golden ratio, and has just released a new book on the topic of pi. He expects that this revelation of new pi is expected to spark international math conferences to hash this all out, as this new knowledge reverses a couple thousand years of erroneous thinking and many flawed math concepts and physical models which all depend on this ratio pi.

There was a facebook page that discussed this topic (I can no longer find the link to this, but I did save a screen capture of the page.) The page had been terminated with the statement, “page frozen until further internal computations are made. So for now this will only be work in progress”. It also states, “3.1446055110297 (author’s note- the new pi) can be useful only under certain circumstances, which may be elaborated once (and only if) sufficient proof can be produced”.

These are very odd and nonsensical statements. How many values for pi do they want to entertain?

There had been discussion on this topic at ‘abovetopsecret.com’. Another site called ‘vortexspace.org‘ also espouses the new pi. (When last checked prior to release of this article, that site appeared to be down and inaccessible.) The problem I had digesting this material, was that most of the time, the things proffered as proof were merely geometrical expressions of this new pi based on the golden ratio. They looked as though they were begging the question. There were several sites with reference to a geometrical depiction of pithat was offered in 2006 by Bengt Erlandsen. Another site used this depiction and offered a new formula for the square root of Phi, supposedly based on this depiction. That formula is *square root of Phi equals the area of a circle multiplied by 16, divided by the circumference squared. *However the derivation of this formula was not explicit, perhaps buried somehow in Erlandsen’s depiction (?).

Now there was one reference, with a link posted at ATS to a paper written by a Greek engineer Stephanides, offering something that looked like it might be a real proof. The paper was from a symposium in 2008 on symmetry, held in Budapest, and offered some insightful precursor material, followed by his proof. This consisted of a rather elaborate (and very ingenious) geometric diagram, and followed logic that I had difficulty digesting. (My proofs ultimately were derived after seeing a hint provided by Jain, and from hints received from my late brother during a night-time dream visit. More on that later.)

**Scientific Inquiry- Testing a Hypothesis**

**Measuring the Circumference of a Disk to Calculate Pi**

But wait. Could any of this really be true? Could we have been using the wrong value of pi all these centuries and not have realized it? Could there be an easier way to verify one way or the other? One thinks of mathematics as being a pure science, one which needs no supporting empirical evidence, as everything is manipulated according to our created definitions and uniform rules of logic. Science however, must be supported empirically. The two purported values of pi are close, but not that close. They are off by the 4^{th} digit, 3.14159… VS 3.1446055…. It is a small difference, but not that small, roughly 0.1%. It’s rather curious that among the debates, I had not seen one person suggest just trying to measure the thing. Since pi is supposed to represent the distance around a circle of given diameter, with some diligence, one should be able to measure pi to 4 significant digits. This can be done with under $20 worth of equipment, a digital caliper which reads to thousandths of an inch (or hundredths of a millimeter), a tape measure, and an accurate round disc. Measure the circumference of the disc accurately to 4 places, place a reference mark along the edge of the disc, then roll the disc along a flat surface, carefully documenting starting and ending points along the flat surface. If you roll a 5-inch disc 3 times, measure this distance, divide by 3, then divide by the diameter of the disc, this number should represent pi.

**Evidence Old Pi Might Be Wrong**

Turns out this is easier said than done, but with with some diligence one can do it. ( I used an optical disc which was ~4.7 inches diameter, but not truly round, off by a few thousandths, so I had to try to find an average circumference). The difference between the 2 corresponding values of pi would be roughly 1/16^{th} inch (actually, roughly 3/64th of an inch or 1 millimeter) rolling such a disc 3 times. The three problems encountered are finding a true circular disc, accurately measuring the circumference, and rolling the disc with no slippage. Error is easily introduced if the disc deviates from the vertical plane while being rolled. My measurements did vary, but my most diligent attempts turned out considerably higher. than the old pi. This was enough to convince me that the old pi might be wrong. and gave me enough reason to continue investigation. During the course of developing mathematical proofs, I repeated this measurement one more time with the optical disc, as carefully as I could, and got 3.1448 (measuring to 4 significant figures, the 5th digit can only be an approximation). With a 10-inch brake disc and 12-inch caliper, my initial tries at 5-place precision were unsuccessful. Although I had a well-machined disc to within about 1/1000^{th} inch at 10.124”, the thicker disc seemed to provide other problems with reproducibility, along with variations in various tape measures themselves. My numbers varied between 3.143 and 3.145. still far from the old pi at 3.14159….

Attempts to reproduce measurements prior to publications of this article again highlighted difficulties encountered, with variable results. It is possible to reproduce consistent and accurate results with proper technique and diligence. The subject of how to do this could be it’s own article, and this article needs to be kept to a palatable length. But a few points need to be made. If you want to try this, here’s my advice:

1. If you use a standard optical disc, it must be a CD, NOT a DVD. The CD’s (at least the one’s I have) have a square edge, my DVD’s don’t. The CD’s I used had a pretty uniform diameter, didn’t vary more than a thousandths of an inch in a given individual disc. Different discs seem to vary by a couple thousandths.

2. When you roll it, it must be kept perfectly vertical. The rolling surface I used was wooden with a piece of electrical tape along the rolling surface to add a little more friction. I had to fashion a jig to keep the disc vertical. Rolling must be done with no slippage. Do not use much downward pressure as you roll the disc, as the thin disc is easily distorted, and doing so will affect accuracy.

3. Accuracy of measuring equipment can vary. I have several stainless-steel 6-inch calipers which are all consistent and give precise reproducible measurements. I had some difficulty getting consistent measurements with my 12-inch calipers. I suggest using a good 6-inch caliper with an optical CD, as they are inexpensive and accurate to four decimal places.

4. The accuracy of tape measures I have found can vary by 1/32nd of an inch among various models, and even within the same unit, depending on start and stop points. But this accuracy is enough to refute the old pi. If you want consistent 4-place accuracy, you may have to check your tape against others, or roll the disc over a longer distance, up to 8 feet.

Only one of my tape measures was graduated in 1/32ths of an inch, and I had to interpolate between lines. When I was able to get consistent rolls of 3 rotations, the same measured distance using five different tape measures revealed the following calculated pi values:

1) 3.144

2) 3.144

3) 3.143

4) 3.143

5) 3.145

You will need to check measurements for yourself. If my numbers aren’t reproducible, they won’t mean anything. If people want to obscure the truth, they will just post bogus numbers. If you are good with detail work, have a steady hand and a good eye, know how to use linear measuring equipment, you should be able to duplicate my results. I contend that these results call into serious question the validity of the old pi, and **the hypothesis that the circle equals an infinitely-sided polygon must be re-examined.**

**If the old pi cannot be supported empirically it must be discarded.**

**Questions Raised in Considering a New Pi**

Could this really be true? Could we have been using the wrong value for pi for 2000 years? If so, what would be the implications?

**The true value of pi is paramount to understanding the interactions of all our constructs of reality, since they all involve rotational energy.**

So if you really wanted to interfere with a culture’s technological advancement, just give them the wrong value of pi. If we assume (and we do) that there can only be 1 value of pi (this assumption might be up for debate, as problems can arise when attempting to define the length of an arc), and we have been using the wrong value, then several questions come to mind.

1). How could we be using the wrong value for pi all these centuries and not realize it?

2). NASA needs the true value in order to understand the behaviors of their orbiting projects. If the rest of us were using the wrong value, why would they not inform us?

3). How could this go un-noticed by experts, and would any of them be aware of the true value?

4). If the old value of pi is wrong, then the method used for its derivation must be flawed. Could this old derivation really be flawed? Could every scientific calculator and trigonometry table in the world be fundamentally flawed?

1). An accurate value of pi is not needed for most daily applications. Three-place accuracy will usually be sufficient. In the mid 1970’s we were still using slide rules for engineering, and most only had 3-place accuracy. Most mechanical or electrical systems have enough tolerances built into them, and problems/discrepancies can be accounted for by other elements in a system, generally un-noticed. I tried to explain to a friend of mine that my pi measurements didn’t match the academic number. His response was, “I’d rather trust the math”. The hardest things to see can be those for which you aren’t looking.

2). We know NASA needs the true value in order to successfully predict the behaviors of orbiting bodies. One tenth of a percent is large when dealing with astronomical distances. Would they have any reason to keep its true value hidden? There were rumors online that NASA had to use a slightly higher version of pi to successfully land on the moon. Jainclaims to have received a communication from a worker from NASA who confirmed that he had to use a higher value for pi when doing some precision mechanical work. Did NASA want to make sure they maintained advantage over competitors in the space race? Does knowledge of true pi have profound implication for the understanding of other energy sources or the very fabric of reality? Perhaps the key to a unified-field theory? Is this one of the elite’s guarded secrets?

3). Don’t get me started on the academics. If they are so morally and/or intellectually challenged as to acquiesce to absurd government propaganda regarding the collapses of the Twin Towers and building 7, then we can hardly look to them as pillars of academic truth. After all, they were challenged enough at applying high-school level physics to the collapses of the Twin Towers. How can you expect them to be adept at applying high-school level algebra and geometry to other real-life issues? And you can just ask Dr. Barrett what happens to intellectual honesty when politicians confront academics who lack cojones.

4). The old value of pi is believed to be a transcendental number, that is, non-algebraic, not able to be represented by any polynomial (see link for detailed definition). It is derived using a circle with an inscribed polygon. As the number of sides of the polygon is increased, it appears as though the circumference of the polygon approaches that of the circle, as the number of sides of the polygon approaches infinity. This idea is so thoroughly ingrained that I have seen this argued as being the actual definition of a circle. Well, a circle can be defined any way we want, but to be consistent with reality and the basic algebraic expression of a circle, one would have to say that **a true circle is a collection of points on any given plane which are equi-distant from a given point on said plane. That is a true circle. **From my recollection, that is what I was taught in high-school geometry class. I will attempt to prove that is not the same as the infinitely-sided polygon.

It has been argued that further evidence of the validity of this old method is the fact that attempting to approach the circle with a polygon circumscribed around the circle (on the outside of the circle) yields the same results. That is, the limits of an infinitely sided polygon circumscribed around the circle, equals the limits of an infinitely-sided polygon inscribed within the circle. It’s been decades since I studied calculus, so I’ll take someone’s claim that the 2 numbers are equal. That would make sense, they would have to be the same, as those two polygons have points in common. But I would argue that those limits do not equal the true circle. Some have argued that no matter how many times you divide the arc, there will always be a value of an arc that is longer than the subtending chord. (more on that in a minute). Think about this- you are looking at limits of adding up an infinite number of things which are becoming infinitely small, which, even if you could get to infinity, would never equal the circle. What could possibly be wrong with that logic?

People have argued that this approach is similar to a graph of y = 1/x, where the function will approach the x-axis as you approach infinity, (the x-axis being defined as an asymptote or a limit). Although the graph never reaches the x-axis, the difference between the graph and the x axis keeps reducing as you carry out calculations to more significant digits.

This is comparing apples to oranges. In y = 1/x, as the variable ‘x’ becomes infinitely large, the value of the function ‘y’ becomes infinitely small. The value for the circumference of the polygon is not simply an inverse function, but a different algebraic manipulation involving the limits of adding an infinite number of objects which are becoming infinitely smaller. In this case there are two variables which are dependent, the number of sides of the polygon and the lengths of each side. As the number of sides becomes (approaches) infinitely large, the lengths of each side become infinitely small. (I never could wrap my mind around that concept). Remember the old school days when the astute student’s inquiry questioning the logic of this approach were met with creative and unintelligible answers from the teacher? Yes, the good old days…..

The concept of infinity can be difficult to grasp. Infinity does not really exist, as you can never get there, you can only approach it. Approaching something that doesn’t exist is like chasing the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. You have a direction and a boundary but you can never reach it. There are two infinities- infinitely large and infinitely small. One can get a sense of an infinitely large number as being really large, and an infinitely small number as being really small. The idea of approaching it only establishes upper and lower limits (boundaries) as you increase or decrease the value of a function.

_

In the case of the infinitely-sided polygon, you have a limit (the circumference of the polygon) which approaches opposing infinities at the same time. As the number of sides becomes infinitely large, the length of each side becomes infinitely small. **Approaching both opposing infinities at the same time makes no conceptual sense.** What would you have if you could get there? (You’d have a whole lot of nuthin’, baby, ain’t that somethin’?). With some work, that might give you a good blues song, but not a good circle.

Some people have criticized the infinite-sided polygon by arguing that the area under the arc never disappears. But in the context of infinite limits, the idea is that area should diminish to insignificance.

**It is this author’s contention that the entire process is conceptually flawed, and should be classified as undefined and discarded.** And even accepting this mythical polygon, there is no proof that this actually equals the traditional definition of a circle. It has only been assumed that this entity has something to do with reality.

**Since they couldn’t prove that an infinite-sided polygon equals a true circle, they just changed the definition of a circle to equal the infinite-sided polygon.**

**You can’t make this stuff up.**

If you are still skeptical, just remember that for two thousand years we have accepted the limit of the polygon as being the circle based on, as far as I know, no physical evidence whatsoever, only a belief that the two are the same. The fact that relatively simple algebraic derivations of pi exist, along with reproducible empirical evidence which contradicts the old pi, **PROVES that the old method is flawed,** unless you want to argue there are two values for pi. The error of this approach is expected to be the catalyst for entire conferences, (according to Jain) and a detailed analysis is beyond the scope and purpose of this article.

**Finally the real pi?**

I wondered how my late brother Scott might have approached this problem. As I worked on these derivations looking for the answer, (to either prove or disprove claims for the new pi), my brother actually visited me in a dream and I told him, “I think I can solve this thing.” Suddenly I got this image in my head of a square, with sides equal to pi, relating to a circle with diameter 4. This was before I saw Jain’s hint about squaring the circle. This, along with revisiting some of Jain’s information were keys to my derivations. He provided overt hints online as to how a proof might be worked, using a geometric depiction based on squaring of the circle. The following derivations only require a high-school-level understanding of algebra and geometry.

**I contend that proof of the real pi is strong evidence of an academic conspiracy on some level.**

**You can bet NASA knows this,** and other elites- especially those involved with theoretical physics work. Since the value pi is now pre-programmed into even the cheapest scientific calculators, one might wonder what value actually comes (stealthily ?) up when technicians involved in high-precision or classified work use its value in calculations.

In the quest for mathematical derivations for the real value of pi, I had many failed attempts. In a particular approach I had devised some equations which I later deemed to be conceptually flawed . I devised the equations based upon geometric constructions which weren’t adequately linked to pi. If I changed one variable, I could get pi to equal just about anything. However, in the context of the ‘squared circle’ depiction, the arguments I had used make a lot more sense, and are presented below. If you don’t like them, I think you may find my final proof more convincing.

So I now offer these derivations of pi, with acknowledgments to Jain for dedicating much of his life to study of the golden ratio and sacred geometry, for pioneering the new value of pi and working to get the message out. I am looking forward to his upcoming world tour. Also thanks to Stephanides for publishing his work, and to vortexspace.org for helping to lead the way, and to all those who continue searching for truth, no matter how that inquiry challenges their fundamental beliefs or elicit ridicule.

**Special dedication to my twin brother, Scott Wollum.**

He had a knack for reducing complex issues to high-school level mathematics, and a clarity of thought that, on his bad days, rivaled my best days. His problem-solving abilities gave him recognition as among the top students of our state, several years in a row. He showed how complex issues can often be resolved by reducing them to fundamental relationships, and that **when things don’t make sense, to always challenge your assumptions.** He valued intellectual honesty and moral integrity over popularity and material gain, (putting our institutional academics to shame), always had more cajones than me, and remains a great inspiration. So I offer these proofs in his name. (It is unknown whether these presentations have been discussed elsewhere).

Until we meet again, bro’.

This one’s for you,

Thanks for the visit!

**Mathematical Derivations of the Real Value of Pi-**

The goal is to present this material in a manner that can be digested by any reasonable high-school math student. It will therefore require a working knowledge of basic algebra and geometry.

**Definitions:**

**concept of proportionality in linear relationships using triangles**

Given orthogonal (right) triangles 1 and 2, we can say they are proportional when A2/A1 = B2/B1 = C2/C1. The triangle can be scaled up or down by any factor ‘X’ and this relationship still applies. (Fig. 1)

Also note that when two triangles are proportional, A_{1}/B_{1 }= A_{2}/B_{2 , }B_{1}/C_{1 }= B_{2}/C_{2, }and_{ }A_{1}/C_{1} = A_{2}/C_{2}

The corresponding interior angles will be the same in the two proportional triangles.

If two proportional triangles each have the same orientation, the corresponding sides will be parallel to each other. (side B will be parallel to BX, A will be parallel to AX, etc.)

The slope of a line is generally defines as the change in its vertical height with respect to the change in its horizontal distance.

When the triangles are oriented with respect to the same cartesian coordinate system, that is, a vertical line would represent (or be parallel to) the ‘y’ axis, and a horizontal line would represent (or be parallel to) the ‘x’ axis, the two axis being perpendicular to each other, then the hypotenuses of two proportional triangles will have the same slope. In these examples it could be defined as B/C.

Also recall that in orthogonal (right) triangles, where one angle is defined as being 90 degrees, knowing the lengths of any 2 sides, there can only be 1 third side which completes the triangle. So knowing the lengths of any 2 sides will be enough to define a unique orthogonal triangle.

More examples of proportional triangles, Fig. 1.1

In fig. 1.2 we have 3 parallel vertical lines, intersected by two horizontal lines and one oblique. Notice the numerous proportional triangles formed and how they relate to each other.

**Pythagorean theorem:**

for all orthogonal triangle: B^2 + C^2 = A^2. or B^{2} + C^{2} = A^{2}

note: X^2 means: X squared

**The ‘Golden Ratio’ **(Fig. 2):

**The Kepler triangle defined.**

A Kepler triangle is an orthogonal triangle with proportions in the square root of the golden ratio with sides Tº, T¹, T², or T^0, T^1, T^2, or any multiple ‘X’, (T^{0}X), (T^{1}X), (T^{2}X).

In a Kepler triangle, we can see the following special relationships (Fig. 3):

Important note: If you have an orthogonal triangle as above with sides A, B, and C, and A/B = B/C, then by definition, this will be a Kepler triangle, and A/C = Φ (Phi), the golden ratio.

**Squaring the circle or circling the square **(Fig. 3.1)

When a square and circle share the same circumference, the ratio of the diameter of the circle to the side of the square will always be 4/π.

**Triangles embedded in the squared circle **(Fig. 3.2)

The circle has diameter = 8, the large square has sides = (2)( π).

Note that the horizontal and vertical reference lines pass through the geometric centers of the circle and the square. The triangle on the left has hypotenuse = 4, and vertical leg = π, the triangle on the right has vertical leg = 4 and horizontal base = π.

There are many triangles in this depiction with sides of 4, π, and π^{2}/4. It is easy to identify many triangles with 2 of those 3 sides, but identifying the 3rd side apart from it’s Pythagorean expression is difficult. If all three of those segments were identified in any one triangle, they would define a Kepler triangle which would define a new pi as being related to the golden ratio.

Here are just some of those line segments. (Fig. 3.3)

**Other geometric constructions based on the Kepler triangle **(Fig. 4.1):

Consider these diagrams, each a Kepler triangle of defined proportions inscribed within a circle, in which each hypotenuse defines the diameter of each circle.

In diagram 2, since C_{2} = pi, the circumference of the circle is defined by (A_{2}) (C_{2}), which also defines the area of the square, since (A) (C) = (B)^2 (read A times C equals B squared).

In each diagram we can see that the ratio of the square circumference / circle circumference = 4/(T∙π). (Note that this ratio will always be the same for any linear scaling ‘X’ of this depiction).

We will prove that this ratio: 4 divided by T times pi = 1 (or 4 = T∙π), and that these 2 diagrams in fact represent the same triangle.

**Derivation of an 8th degree polynomial for pi:**

Consider these 2 orthogonal triangles from our squared circle depiction, Fig. 3.2, in which each has 2 defined sides 4 and π, where the third sides (C_{1 }and A_{2}) are derived using the Pythagorean Theorem. It is important to note that these triangles are taken from the context of the squared circle depiction, in order to adequately relate them to the real pi. (Fig. 5.1):

This next depiction will show each triangle with it’s circumscribed circle (Fig. 6), (The 3 vertices (corners) of every orthogonal (right) triangle define a circle, and the hypotenuse of the triangle will define the diameter of its circumscribed circle. See Thale’s Theorem).

circumference of circle 1 = (A_{1}) (B_{1}); circumference of circle 2 = (A_{2}) (C_{2})

We know by definition that these 2 triangles are orthogonal, but we don’t know whether they might be in Kepler proportions. We want to test whether (A) (C) = (B)^{2} (a property of Kepler triangles).

We write this as follows: (insert 6.1)

algebraically equivalent

Note that we end up with the same expression on each side. We cannot call these equations because we are questioning their equality and don’t yet have enough information to solve them. But how could both algebraic expressions be the same? We can say that the 2 expressions are equivalent or equal to each other, because there is a one-to-one correlation among their elements. That is, each algebraic expression from diagram 1, has a corresponding algebraic expression in diagram 2; We obtained these expressions doing the same operations (algebraic manipulations) on corresponding elements of each triangle.

Let us simplify this to more clearly see what is happening, and represent each triangle as follows.

We will represent the 2nd triangle as being in unknown proportions to the first triangle using the scaling factors X_{1, }X_{2}, and X_{3}. We need more investigation to see what relationships they might have to each other. (Fig. 7)

If these expressions are equivalent (the same)

then X_{1 }∙ X_{3 }must = (X_{2})^{2 }to enable the X factors to cancel out.

The only way these 2 expression can be the same is when the X factors on the right all factor out of the equation, that is, when (X1) (X3) = (X2)^{2}.

note; This may also happen when X_{1} = X_{2} = X_{3}, but we don’t yet know whether they are equal to each other.

By definition we know the values of X_{1}, X_{2} and X_{3}. We can substitute these values in the above equation as follows, giving us an 8th degree polynomial for the expression of pi.

(Note that expressing pi as a polynomial is something the experts say can’t be done.)

We will not go into detail how to solve this equation. (won’t need to).

An 8th degree polynomial will have multiple solutions, but only 1 of them will make sense in the context of our problem. We suspect pi is somewhere between 3.1 and 3.2;

If we substitute the old pi = 3.14159…into the equation, we get:

65296 = 65536.

The old pi is not a good fit for this equation. Using the proposed new pi = 3.14460, we get:

65536.1 = 65536, calculations were carried out only with 7 significant digits. Using more digits will improve accuracy. Substituting old pi = 3.141592654 we get: 65296.658 = 65536, not a good fit; substituting proposed new pi = 3.144605511, we get: 65536 = 65536 a good fit! This new pi satisfies the equation, the the old pi does not. What does this mean? See Fig. 8.1

circumference 1 = A_{1 }∙ B_{1}; circumference 2 = A_{2 }∙ C_{2}

Consider these diagrams of circles with inscribed triangles (the 3 vertices (corners) of every orthogonal triangle defines a circle, see Thale’s Theorem). In our depictions the circumference of each circle is defined by the hypotenuse of each triangle multiplied by the corresponding leg defined as pi.

The circumference of circle 1 is represented by (A) (B), or the diameter multiplied by pi, the circumference of circle 2 = (A) (C). We have discovered a curious relationship between these triangles, derived a mathematical equation that satisfies pi in our depictions that contradicts the old pi value.

We have demonstrated that the old pi does not survive algebraic derivations based on these figures, . But the purported new pi, 3.14460 does to at least 6 places. The old pi does not satisfy the definition of pi in the squared circle or in the above diagram, and would give an erroneous result for the circumferences of these circles.

In our diagrams, the ratio of circumferences of circle 2/circle 1 =

The value of pi in our diagrams must satisfy the 8th degree polynomial we derived. If you use the old pi to describe this ratio, you of course will get a different number. And that number would be wrong,

The same 8th degree polynomial may also be derived as follows:

Since we have determined that (X_{1}) (X_{3}) = (X_{2})^{2,}

Making substitutions and reducing this expression will yield the same polynomial:

π^{8 }+ 16π^{6} + 16^{3}π^{2 }= 16^{4}

By now you may be wondering whether X_{1, }X_{2 }and X_{3 }are all the same factor, Indeed they are, but we haven’t demonstrated that yet.

You will see that demonstrated in the next section.

**Now we will derive a 4th degree polynomial for pi**

We will do this after establishing proportionality between 2 specific triangles.

Consider these 2 triangles again from our squared circle depiction, and we will write the Pythagorean expression for each (Fig. 9).

**Pythagorean expressions:**

Again we find a situation where we perform the same algebraic manipulation on 2 different triangles and get the same algebraic expressions. Let’s again simplify this, by representing the triangles more generically.

We represent each side of the 2nd triangle as some unknown factor of the 1st one with the factors X1, X2, and X3 (Fig. 10).

same expression, therefore X_{2} = X_{3} = X_{1 }to allow all X’s to factor out triangles must be proportional

The only way in which these 2 equations can be the same is when X_{1 }= X_{2} = X_{3} and they all factor out of the second equation. This means that the 2 triangle are proportional to each other, and we can solve for another expression to define the 3 sides. (Fig. 11)

This allows for an easy derivation to express pi as a 4th degree polynomial.

This time we won’t bother to plug in any numbers for pi, as having derived other ways in which to express these triangles results in a very simple solution for pi.

**The simple solution:**

consider triangle 2 (Fig.12)

We will re-scale the triangle so that the base C = 1. and solve for the other sides maintaining the same proportions.

The new triangle has sides 1, 4/π and 16/π²

Now we write the Pythagorean expression for this as:

1² + (4/π)² = (16/π²)² or 1 + 16/π² = (16/π²)²

Anytime we have an equation in the form 1 + X = X², then X, by definition = Phi.

**This means that 16/π² = Phi, (the Golden Ratio) and pi = 4/square root of Phi.**

**Pi = 3.144605511…**

The other way to see this is to remember that if you have an orthogonal triangle with sides A, B and C, in which A/B = B/C (that ratio in this case being 4/π, A is the hypotenuse and C is the shorter side), then this defines a Kepler triangle in which A/C = Phi.

This proves these triangles are not only proportional, but in Kepler proportions.

We have given a geometrical depiction that is logically consistent with the definition of pi and the circumference of a circle, using the depiction of the squared circle which defines the circle’s relationship to a particular square, performed some basic algebraic manipulations and proved that the old pi does not match the derived equations, but the new pi does exactly. The new pi is the only pi which logically completes our diagrams, and satisfies the definition of pi in the depiction of the squared circle. The new pi has also been supported empirically (and reproducibly) with actual measurements. The old pi must go, and we must introduce the new pi = 4/square root of the golden ratio.

**Now this proves pi is not transcendental, it is an irrational number based on the square root of 5.**

OK, that should do it.

**What?!**

Are you still not convinced?!

You don’t like deriving equations from non-equations?

Do you really think that pi, one of the most important constants in the universe which quantifies the energies and interactions of all of our physical constructs, is a number which is algebraically unrelated to any other number?

Do you STILL believe in infinite-sided polygons???…..

Did you smoke a lot of pot in the 1970’s?

Just asking….

**OK, you want more?- We’ll get it!!! This is it!!!**

Now we roll up our sleeves and get busy, down to brass tacks!

We will attempt to finish off the old pi in no uncertain terms!

But first we must take a ride.

Say what?

Yes, sometimes it takes a couple tank-fulls of gas to clear ones head. (Fig. 12.1)

**Interlude**

Here we join hundreds of clear thinkers who gather for the biannual ‘Slimy Crud’ motorcycle run. This run through the bluffs of southwest Wisconsin was originally started many decades ago by a group of college students from the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who shared a love of motorcycles, cafe racing and the desire to think more clearly. We carry on the tradition twice each year with participants from around the Midwest, in memory of a time when students actually thought more clearly and had their priorities straight.

**Back to Pi!**

**The Final Proof!**

OK, we come back refreshed and will attempt to finish off the old pi in no uncertain terms!

Now we have found that which cost many months and many failed attempts to find. We will prove that the squared circle depiction is identical to a similar depiction based on the square root of the Golden Ratio. We will begin by analyzing the squared circle in some detail. (If you skipped ahead, you will need to understand the Golden Ratio, the Kepler triangle, the concept of proportionality and ‘squaring the circle’. So please review the definitions.)

We return to the depiction of the squared circle. An interesting note- the appearance of this depiction will depend on what value one assumes for pi. We know/suspect pi is around 3.14, but how would deviation up or down change this diagram?

In Fig. 12.4 we illustrate how this affects relationships within the diagram. Increasing or decreasing pi from 3.14 takes away some of the elegant symmetry of the diagram when they are nested together.

Now we examine in more detail the relationships of the triangles in the squared circle. (Fig. 12.3)

We have inscribed lines A and B as shown. Line A is the diagonal of a rectangle, and joins the top of the circle (point where horizontal tangent intersects the circle) with the left side of the square at the midpoint of the square. Line B is drawn from the intersection of the circle with the square, to the origin, the geometric center of our diagram. Notice how it appears that the two lines A and B which represent hypotenuses of embedded triangles appear as though they might be parallel. But if the old pi is correct, they cannot be parallel.

Either way, they will appear parallel because the difference between the old pi and the proposed new pi would only be 1/10^{th} percent. The question is, if you extend line B upward, will it intersect the upper right hand corner of the depicted rectangle, as line A does? If they are parallel, lines C and D will be equal in length. Line C is derived from the proportional triangles, where the ratio of the longer leg to the shorter leg is 4/л.

We will demonstrate that, in the context of pi, lines A and B in Fig. 12.3 indeed have to be parallel, and lines C and D have to be the same length, based upon our final geometric proof. This will allow easy identification of all three sides of a Kepler triangle in proportions of 4/л, giving us our new pi value as defined by the Golden Ratio. (Fig. 12.5)

An interesting note, see Fig. 12.6.

In Fig. 12.7 we illustrate the squared circle depiction expanded outward to show how it repeats a pattern in multiplies of 4/π. Each square is surrounded by another square which is expanded by a factor of 4/π. Each circle is surrounded by another circle which is expanded by a factor of 4/π. Each square has an inscribed circle.

In order to simplify our illustrations, we will now focus on the upper right quadrant of the squared circle depiction. In Fig. 12.8 we see another construction based on the squared circle. Notice how each rectangle extends outward expanding one side of the square by a factor of 4/π.

The circle with radius = 4 will intersect the rectangles at points a and b. We will not draw it in as we haven’t yet determined where it intersects the rest of the drawing.

Notice how the two diagonals of the rectangles intersect the square in symmetrical fashion. Then we draw horizontal and vertical lines through those two points of intersection to define point p. Notice how point p defines the upper right corner of a square with sides = **π**^{2}**/4. **This is the same quarter-square which ‘squares’ the inscribed quarter-circle. That is, the square with sides = (2) (**π**^{2}**/4) **has the same circumference as the circle with diameter = (2) (π).

In Fig. 12.9 we see the similar diagram highlighting some proportional triangles defined by this depiction.

Notice that we do not yet know the lengths of lines A and B apart from their Pythagorean expression.

If we draw in an arc with radius = 4, we do not know where that arc intersects the square. (Fig. 13)

Here’s another look at this depiction highlighting how point p defines the corner of a square (Fig. 14). Here we define point p as before as having been formed by drawing vertical and horizontal lines through where the diagonals of the rectangles intersect the square with sides equal pi at points a and b. We may also define point p as being the corner of the square that has sides of factor π/4 times the larger square with side π. Notice that point p will lie on the diagonals to the squares. This is due to the symmetry and the fact that point p is on the corner of square.

In Fig. 15a we take another look highlighting the unknown relationship of the circle with radius = 4 to our depiction, and in Fig. 15b we define points f and g. Point p is the corner of the square with sides = π^{2}/4, points f and g are identified by the points of intersection of the diagonal of the rectangle with the square and the quarter circle as illustrated.

You can see that if we define points f and g as above, they will lie on the same radial through the origin. Note that in this case, we cannot presume that arc with radial = pi also intersects the point g. This is what we need to prove.

Now we are going to **re-define points f and g differently in the following two diagrams,** (Fig. 16).

Diagram 1 is derived from the squared circle, but this time points f and g are defined by drawing a vertical and a horizontal line through point p, and marking the points of intersections with the square and the arc. In diagram 1, we do not know whether points f and g lie on the same radial through the origin.

In diagram 2, we start with the same basic geometric shapes, a square and its inscribed quarter-circle, but this time we define a point p, which lies along a diagonal of the square, as such that if you draw a vertical and a horizontal line through point p, the points of intersection with the square and quarter-circle labeled as f_{2} and g_{2}, will both lie on the same radial through the origin as depicted.

We will examine both these diagrams in detail.

Each diagram starts with two common shapes, a square and its inscribed quarter-circle. Each diagram defines one and only one specific point p along the diagonal of the square. The exact relative position of point p in each diagram uniquely defines each diagram, and their respective points f and g.

The diagram on the left is derived from the squared circle.

To show that the diagram on the right, diagram 2 defines one unique point p, we look at Fig. 17.

In Fig. 18, we show how diagram 2 defines Kepler triangles within the depiction.

In Fig. 19, we will add some dimensions to diagrams 1 and 2. Remember diagram 1 is derived from the squared circle, and its dimensions expand outward with a factor of 4/π. Diagram 2 has a similar appearance, but expands outward with a factor of T, the square root of the Golden Ratio. Each diagram starts out with the same basic geometric shapes, a square with its inscribed quarter-circle.

**Each diagram is uniquely defined by the position of point p in each diagram, which defines one and only one specific location within each diagram.**

Now we examine diagram 1 with some defined points along the diagonal of the square, Fig. 20.

These defined points specify precise locations within our diagram. We can define their relative locations within the diagram by describing the relationships of their radials. For example, radials P/S defines the relative distance from the inscribed arc at point s to point p. We will examine equations which define the locations of all four points. Note- Points s and w are defined by the common geometry, s is the intersection of the diagonal with the inscribed quarter-circle, and w is the corner of the square. These two points have the same relative positions in diagram 1 and diagram 2. Points q and p however, define the uniqueness of each diagram. See Fig. 21 for relationships in diagram 1.

These equations define precise location of points p and q relative to w and s by way of their corresponding radials through the origin. If the locations of points p or q would change, so would these equations. Note that this diagram can be scaled up or down by any factor, and these relationships would still be the same. Linear dimensions will maintain proportionality for any scaling of the depiction. The scaling factor would just cancel out of each expression.

It should be obvious that if we change any one radial describing the relative position of any one point, then these equations would change. Just to illustrate this idea, we will throw in a factor M and illustrate how the equations would change under various scenarios, illustration 21a. Note that the ratio W/Q = the ratio P/S. There are many positions of q and p which will preserve this ratio, but if we change their positions, Q/P would change.

In Illustration 21b, we take one more look at how these equations would change by altering the radials.

As you can see, you cannot alter W, Q, or P without changing these relationships, unless all defining radials are changed by the same factor, to retain proportionality. We can even go one step further and use this relationship for a new definition of pi.

We can call this the Wollum Theorem. (Probably the one and only….) (Fig. 21a)

Note- W lies on the same line as the diagonal of the square, and defines the corner of another square with sides = W/√2, which also defines radial S = W√2.

We could also state the criteria as follows-

When Q = 4, and P/S = S/(2∙√2), and Q/P = (8∙√2)/S^{2}, then S = pi.

Why go through all this trouble for seeming redundancy? We shall soon see.

Now we will look at diagram 2 derived from the square root of the Golden Ratio, and define similar points within that diagram. (Fig. 22). Note that previously we defined the square the same in both diagrams 1 and 2, with sides = pi. This time we will change the scale of diagram 2 and label the square as having sides = 4/T. The diagram will still expand by a factor of T, giving us our depiction with embedded Kepler triangles.

Again we have a set of equations that define the precise locations of points w, q, p and s relative to each other and the side of the square.

Now we will look at both sets of equations for diagram 1 and diagram 2, side-by-side. (Fig. 23)

You may note that the two sets of equations are identical, except for the two operands which describe the sides of each square. What does this mean? The operand pi is derived from the squared circle, and 4/T is derived from the Golden Ratio. Each one describes its respective square.

It means that points w, q, p and s in diagram 1 share the exact same relative positions with respect to each other and to its defining square, as those points do in diagram 2.

I believe this proves the diagrams are proportional to each other.

And since radial Q = 4 in each diagram, I believe this proves that the two diagrams are in fact, the same diagram. They are algebraically and geometrically equivalent.

**Diagram 2 with its equations comply with the criteria we proved are necessary to define one and only one point p, derived from the squared circle. These two diagrams are algebraically and geometrically identical.**

This proves that points f and g from Fig. 16 diagram 1 lie on the same radial as they do in diagram 2, since diagrams 1 and 2 are the same depiction with different labels. This gives us Kepler triangles in each depiction. The Kepler triangles in the squared circle are evident from the geometry, now that we know where the arc of radius = 4 crosses the square, giving us a triangle with sides = 4, π and π^{2}/4. This validates our prior equations, the 8^{th} degree and 4^{th} degree polynomials, and gives us pi = 4/T, where T = the square root of the Golden Ratio.

I can think of no way to refute this. Don’t be fooled by arguments like this (Fig. 26).

Diagram 1 is the familiar depiction we just had based on the squared circle. In diagram 2 we scale all dimensions by factor H = 4/T∙π, still leaving us with a representation of the squared circle in a different scale. In diagram 3, we vary some of the radials as shown, using the factor H which gives us the points from the Golden Ratio depiction. Now since we deviated from diagram 2, you might think that those points no longer represent a squared circle. But if you do the math given the indicated dimensions based on the Golden Ratio root T, you will find it meets our criteria for pi = the side of the square: Where W∙H/Q = P∙H^{2}**/**S∙H, and Q/P∙H^{2} **= **8∙√2/(π∙H). (You can do the math yourself, this article is already too long!). In this case, pi = π∙H. This is telling us that the factor H can only equal 1. If H were to be any other variable, the symbol π would have to change from a constant to a variable and no longer represent the real pi.

And there is the final proof, showing that the squared circle depiction defines the exact same points as the similar depiction based on the Golden Ratio. Back in Fig. 16 we showed how the position of point p defined the positions of points f and g in their respective diagrams. Since this point p occupies the exact same relative positions in both diagrams 1 and 2, this proves that points f and g in Fig. 16 diagram 1 do lie on the same radial through the origin as in diagram 2, and now we know both diagrams define Kepler triangles. We can identify three sides of a Kepler triangle in the squared circle depiction with sides 4, π and π^{2}/4, since we now know where the arc of radius = 4 crosses the square. This validates our prior equations, the 8^{th} degree and 4^{th} degree polynomials, and the Kepler triangle solution. Remember in the Kepler triangle, the ratio of the hypotenuse/short leg = the Golden ratio, which in the squared circle = 16/π^{2}, giving us 4/π = T, the square root of the Golden Ratio, or π = 4/T.

Final answer:

Pi = 4/square root of the Golden Ratio.

Now can we call it quits? Are we done now? I’m all pi’d out.

**Summary**

Our attempts to calculate pi by measuring the circumference of a round disc using $20 worth of linear measuring devices, a 6-inch digital caliper, a tape measure and CD optical disc, yielded numbers generally varying from 3.143 to 3.145, different from the textbook value of 3.14159…..

For our math explorations we started with 2 orthogonal triangles that were derived from (embedded in) a geometric depiction of the squared circle, which highlighted the relationship of pi to the dimensions of the square. We found a curious relationship which allowed derivation of an 8th degree polynomial for pi, (which the old pi could not satisfy), then demonstrated that the two triangles were proportional to each other, allowing derivation of a 4th degree polynomial, then demonstrated that the triangles were in Kepler proportions, allowing an easy derivation of the exact value of pi. We have demonstrated that the old pi would not satisfy those equations, but only the new pi would satisfy the definition of pi in our depictions. Lastly we used a more conventional geometric approach to identify Kepler triangles within the squared circle depiction, by **proving that the squared circle depiction is algebraically and geometrically identical to the depiction based on the Square Root of the Golden Ratio, thus validating our equations.**

The opponents will argue that these triangles as depicted cannot exist in Kepler proportions, based on a belief that the old pi is correct. Wikipedia calls it a mathematical coincidencethat the old value pi is very close to 4/square root of golden ratio. But this *assumes* the old pi is correct. I know of no other way to refute these proofs. Assumptions don’t make good arguments. The math presented here proves the old pi cannot be correct. Think about it. If they could prove that an infinite-sided polygon was the same as a circle, they wouldn’t have had to change the definition of a circle.

Are you getting this yet?

To refute my equations, and my final proof, one would have to find errors in logic used for my derivations and proofs, **and **demonstrate empirically that the old pi can be measured. Since pi is used to calculate the distance around a circle, expecting 4-place accuracy with precision equipment when attempting to measure the circumference of a circle is not at all unreasonable. The old pi has not survived attempts to measure it, (perhaps others will duplicate this) and does not survive the logic used in derivations of these equations. The new pi is further supported (I believe proven beyond reasonable doubt) by the final geometric proof presented in this article.

**Final answer:**

**π = (4)/(T), where T = the square root of the golden ratio**

**π = 3.144605511…**

**The new value pi = 4/square root of golden ratio, is a much better fit with all evidence I have seen or produced. And this author believes the final proof should leave no doubt.**

Did we just prove there exists a serious fundamental flaw in our math and physics models, using only basic algebra and geometry? Do you think someone who is indoctrinated with all the flawed concepts and dysfunctional systems as required in graduate-level training, (Masters or Doctorate Degree) would easily admit this? Have you ever tried to tell something new to someone with a graduate degree? You can’t, they already know everything. Two thousand years of erroneous thinking is long enough, don’t you think?

Now, about that conspiracy-

What will the academics do now? The responses might be somewhat predictable.

Phase 1.

This is the denial/cover-up phase in which we are currently . It may continue a while longer. But sooner or later it will become an embarrassment to credentialed academics as people around the world demonstrate the old pi wrong with $20 worth of measuring equipment. This phase may soon end if no one can find any flaws in our (or others’) mathematical proofs. My final proof is more conventional and I have found no weaknesses yet.

Phase 2.

This will be the slow acceptance phase. Those who have been guarding this secret, know that this day is coming. They have likely prepared for it. Perhaps they have their own proof from some esteemed scholar ready to roll out when the timing is deemed right, when they feel they can no longer contain the truth.

One thing is certain.

**They will try to downplay the significance of this finding.**

Don’t let them fool you again. Pi is arguably the most important physical constant in the universe. **A new value will force a reassessment of matter/energy relationships in all of our rotational models.** There is after all, a reason the real pi has been kept hidden from us.

A new value of pi based on the ‘golden ratio’ will support the interconnectedness of our physical constructs of the universe, and be much more eloquent than the old one. Our present physics models have only limited predictive ability and have become quite convoluted. A new pi should allow for more accurate energy assessments, predictability in rotational systems, and perhaps lead to an entirely new physics paradigm, based on interactions of rotational (vortexspace.org) energies. Might the real pi be the key to a unified field theory?

Just maybe this universe is far more elegant than we ever dreamed.

Wouldn’t it be nicer to have a new pi embedded in a diagram like this? (Fig. 24)

Please pass this article along and help us challenge the academics to adopt the correct value of pi, and support Jain in his mission to spread the word.

Or prove this wrong.

How many ways are there to derive this new pi? There are undoubtedly other ways. The site vortexspace.org had made reference to dividing a square up into 16 parts as a key to derivation of pi. This was not detailed, and when last checked, that site was down. I would like to spend more time on this, but have to attend to other projects long overdue. I’m satisfied with the final proof. Perhaps others can review some of the links I’ve provided, and come up with other proofs, either original or more clearly defined prior works. Jain claims to have proofs in his new book.

Note: Some of the links I’ve visited for reference material seem to be no longer functional. (the facebook page, and the votexspace.org sites were down, even references on geometry were getting harder to find).

I’m not a mathematician by trade. I only have a B.S. in science from the same institution that blacklisted Dr. Barret. Publicly I have unkind things to say about the University of Wisconsin, Madison. In private I tell people what I really think of the moral-less, spineless cowards who sold out academic freedom and honesty for a buck, allowing the slaughter of millions of people and a host of crimes against humanity and the U.S. Constitution due to their complicit silence covering the phony war on terror.

I can see why my brother spent so much time with this kind of stuff. It heightens creativity, sharpens visualization skills, and is fun. He had spent much of his life on the famous math problem Fermat’s last theorem, and thought he had a solution about the time Wile produced his. (I don’t know what became of my brother’s work, whether he found any flaws or not.)

And with no apologies to the atheists (who’ve never actually been proven to exist), I share my brother’s favorite Einstein quote:

“There are only two ways to live your life. One is as if there are no miracles, the other is as if everything is a miracle”.

Indeed he believed in miracles.

**In dedication to, honor and memory of by brother Scott Wollum**, **the mathematician, who was never afraid to challenge his assumptions, and never sold out his integrity.**

### Related Posts:

**All content herein is owned by author exclusively. Some content may be satirical in nature. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians or Veterans Today Network and its assigns. In addition, all images within are full responsibility of author and NOT Veterans Today Network.**

Legal Notice - Comment Policy

Posted by Kevin Barrett on February 5, 2015, With 16536 Reads Filed under Humor. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

## Comments Closed

### 42 Responses to "The Great Pi Conspiracy"

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

The correct value of the Golden ratio will determine the correct value of both the square root of the Golden ratio and Pi. Traditional Pi 3.141592653589793 is also false because it is based upon a false value for the Golden ratio for example traditional Pi 3.141592653589793 can also be gained from 4 divided by the square root of 1.621138938277405 = 1.273239544735163. The correct value for the Golden ratio is Cosine (36) multiplied by 2 = 1.618033988749895 and the correct value for the square root of the Golden ratio is 1.27201964951406. We do not even need to use any of the Pi values to determine the diameter of a circle or the circumference of a circle instead we can use the Square root of the Golden ratio = 1.27201964951406

3.144605511029693 is the correct value of Pi and this fact can be proven by almost anybody that has sufficient knowledge of the principles of the Kepler right triangle including the creation of a circle with a circumference equal in measure to the perimeter of a square.

MW, although our triangle satisfies the ratio test, A/B = B/C, so that its sides are related to the golden proportion, it still fails to satisfy the criteria to be a Kepler triangle.

A Kepler triangle is the triangle that has sides ‘a’, ‘a√Θ’, and ‘a.Θ’ where Θ is Phi.

The basic relationship between the sides is 1, √Θ, Θ and any constant multiplier ‘a’ can scale this relationship.

Our triangle with sides 16/π, 4 and π does NOT have a common constant multiplier such that if the 3 sides are divided by it would still retain the Kepler relationship of 1, √Θ, Θ

and so basically fails to be a Kepler triangle.

The length of a diameter of a circle is always less than the circumference of the circle.

Assigning a value of pi to a side of an inscribed triangle, a side whose length is less than the diameter is absurd.

The problem with the author’s premise is one of impossibility.

And besides free energy is not predicated on the value of pi.

Wait, let me get deeper into this, I made a hasty reply. This is an interesting problem.

No, there is nothing non-Euclidean about this. The apparent contradiction exists if one conflates the true circle with an infinite-sided polygon, which is not a true circle, and has no basis in reality. This article proposes a very logical resolution, with multiple forms of proof, that the textbook pi is simply wrong.

Mark W

Thank you for your dogma-dispelling magnificent work. Allow me to humbly submit an uncle’s advice offered to me at a young age over Thanksgiving dessert: “When you find a pi(e) you like, don’t tell everyone how good it is. Go back for another piece”. And to think, I was inspired to memorize the “value” to ten decimal places by a Little Orphan Annie cartoon panel…

Definition of the circumference L of a circle with radius R :

L = 2.π.R

So any student with a piece of rope and length scale can calculate the value of pi which we now can define for empirical measurement as :

π := L/(2R)

So are there any `different’ values of π or `different’ π’s ? No.

I definitely come down with Kevin. Kudos for allowing debate, but I agree with those who say this only tends to besmirch VT and its other vital truths. Like other commenters said, run the C programs or Excel bound formulas. Hate to appeal to consensus, but a 3rd order error would have come out in universities years ago.

Mark objects chiefly to the infinite polygon as circle derivation almost like the Greeks protested that root two couldn’t be irrational, which we can prove it is via reductio ad absurdum. And the polygons are little more than the same narrowing of limits/infinite series that gives us highly proven derivatives and integrals (calculus) that go to exact values as delta x approaches zero. The polygon objection is analogous to saying that an infinite .99999 can’t possibly truly equal one. Unless you sum up both sides of this:

1/3 = .33333… (ad inf.)

1/3 = .33333… (ad inf.)

1/3 = .33333… (ad inf.)

_________________

3/3 = .99999 ad inf. 3/3 = 1, therefore by transitivity of equality, QED to philosophical objection. The key is infinity. Integrals, the “polygon” circle, and pi stand.

Though Mark may be wrong, I don’t think this article besmirches VT. On the contrary, it stimulates thought and targets the kind of smart, open-minded readers VT cultivates. Entertaining the possibility that pi might be wrong, and going over Mark’s arguments, is a real mind-bender…and kind of fun. I posted the article in the “humor” category (1) in honor of its entertainment value, and (2) so the alien-freemason conspiracy foisting a false pi on humanity won’t have to kill us.

PQ

A third-order error would have come out long ago? Seriously?

Judging from the comments here, no one else is even trying to measure it. Have you ever seen reported studies with reproducible methods for measuring this? I haven’t.

The writers and readers on VT are the most intelligent and well-informed people I know. No one believes that everything that is printed here is true. But issues must be raised for debate, as only this way the truth can come out. I have pointed out some serious discrepancies between the old pi and actual measurement, (in regards to circumferences) and have pointed out that the old pi does not survive critical geometric analysis. No one has criticized the final proof yet.

I propose that it may become an embarrassment to academics around the world when 12-year olds demonstrate they cannot verify the old pi with measurement. How could a teacher possibly respond to this? “Well you see, real circles don’t exist in the real world, they are just made up in someone’s head” Seriously? Can anyone really use that argument straight-faced? Too funny….

I do disagree with your comment that the polygon objection is analogous to saying that .99999… cannot equal one. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Thanks for the feedback!

Mark W

For Dr. Barrett,

Say what? I may be wrong?!

I feel so confident in my measuring technique and my math, that I am perfectly willing to risk your reputation on them.

Mark W

wjabbe

I’ve received some interesting ideas on other ways to measure the circumference of a disc, including rotating it and using a timed strobe. But my method really isn’t that hard to duplicate, if done correctly. And it’s very cheap with readily-available equipment. Thanks for your suggestion. But for a topic like this, the method really needs to be independently reproducible. I was more concerned with teaching people how to measure a disc before I found my last proof. It is more conventional than my initial approaches.

Mark W

That’s interesting. I think an error occurs at the point where it is stated:

“We know by definition that these 2 triangles are orthogonal, but we don’t know whether they might be in Kepler proportions.”

After that point, though, you proceed to derive relations that assume they are in fact of Kepler proportions. Your value of pi then falls out, but it was never proven that this is true.

Thanks Chris,

no, that assumption is not made, hence the questionmarks. The equations were derived logically from the relationships illustrated. I realize that approach would not satisfy some people, so I provided the final proof which uses nothing unconventional. The final proof arrives at the same conclusion.

Mark W

Thanks to everyone for comments so far! We are giving this time for people to digest, as there is a lot of information. It appears that some people get this; others have trouble distinguishing the difference between the hypothetical circle defined by the old transcendental pi, and the geometric circle defined by a circle’s relationship to the square, the true geometric circle. The article was explicit, and I don’t want to be too redundant, but you can see response to William St. George for more detailed explanation, coming soon.

Mark Wollum

This is wrong, so wrong. An article like this just makes VT becomes less reputable. The numerical value of pi IS 3.14159… and NOT 3.1446… This is easily calculable and one of the simplest method is Riemann sum (wiki/Riemann_sum). You can verify it by yourself. Riemann sum is a method to approximate area underneath certain curve by dividing it into numerous strips. First we define a function f:[0,1] -> R with f(x) = sqrt(1-x^2). Area under this function’s curve is exactly pi/4, i.e. a quarter of a circle with radius 1. So, if we multiply the region by 4 we get the value pi. There are different approximations for this method, two of them are left and right Riemann sum. In this case left sum gives the upper bound of the area, i.e. the exact value cannot exceed this approximation, and the right sum gives the lower bound of the area, i.e. the exact value cannot be less than this approximation. I wrote this simple program in C you can try it. (TBC)

#include

#include

long part = 10000;

double f(double x) {return sqrt(1-x*x);}

double leftsum(double w) {

double res = 0;

long i;

for(i=0;i<part;i++) res = res + f(w*i);

return 4*w*res;

}

double rightsum(double w) {

double res = 0;

long i;

for(i=1;i<=part;i++) res = res + f(w*i);

return 4*w*res;

}

int main(int argc, char *argv[])

{

double width = 1.0/part;

double r1,r2;

printf("Number of partitions = %ld\n", part);

r1 = leftsum(width);

r2 = rightsum(width);

printf("Upper value = %1.12lf\n", r1);

printf("Lower value = %1.12lf\n", r2);

return 0;

}

Using 10,000 partitions we get upper value of pi = 3.141791477611 and lover value of pi = 3.141391477611. As we can see the upper value is less than 3.1446… so the conclusion is 3.1446.. CANNOT be the value of pi since the upper value always exceeds the exact value. If you want more precise approximation try to change partitions to 100,000. You will get LOWER upper value and GREATER lower value. The exact value of pi lies between these two.

the first #include is stdio.h and the second is math.h

goytile

Thank you for your detailed response. I would like to try to verify your numbers before making any further comment on the approach using the Riemann sum. Keep in mind that my analysis used the circumference/linear relationships of a circle and square, not area ratios, as in your method. Areas and circumferences are two different functions. I am offering/defending the proposed new pi for circumference dimensions and relationships only at this time. If my measuring technique and final proof are both flawed, then it should be demonstrable without using other functions which may or may not be valid comparisons. The main point of this article is to challenge all of our assumptions in the light of conflicting evidence.

Thanks again!

Mark W

Absolutely Delightful.

I will post it on the fridge (the actual erso value).

This makes me feel so stale,

I have been doing forensics and drinking too much beer,

I so love this kind of stuff (and a Good Job I Say!).

John

I think there’s something wrong with the expansion into the 8-degree polynomial. First, try as I might, I can’t get anything like that expansion. Second, putting the polynomial into either a calculator or spreadsheet and using a Newton’s Method type approximation yields values for the “new π” that are sufficiently different from the suggested 3.1446 number that the difference cannot be attributed to approximation error.

There are no mathematical circles in the material world. Nor any mathematically straight lines either. Mathematicians know that and so should scientists and engineers. Given that fact the empirical pursuit of Pi will at best given an empirical value but not a mathematical one. I am surprised that no one including the author seems to be aware of this most important fact. In the material world there are also no constants. Simply variables that stay close enough to a given value. For example the speed of light apparently varies somewhat but of course you and I don’t notice that.

Warsev, there was an error in the first citation of the 8th degree polynomial, (second one was correct) as pointed out by Elling H. Disen on facebook (many thanks to Disen for alerting us) which escaped final edit. we are working on correcting that image. The term 16 pi squared should have read 16 pi to the 6th. I’m sorry for the confusion. Thanks for your detailed analysis!

Mark Wollum

Final reflection: You may have discovered something about the world, an empirical fact; but you have not discovered a mathematical truth. The value of the transcendental number Pi is certain in a way that even quantum theory is not. If you will use the polygonal method at some point you will find a nearly circular polygon such that C/d will yield 3.144, but this polygon will not be a circle mathematically speaking. You would have to refute the various methods for finding Pi in order to establish you idea. You will find this impossible. Probably you have determined that circles in the material world are not true mathematical circles and that our methods of measurement are not perfect. If you will try the polygonal approach you see just how it works and why it is not flawed and giving wrong value. I hope you will. Good luck.

Thanks to you (and everyone!) for feedback thus far,

There are no proofs that the circle defined by an infinite-sided polygon using the calculus, is the same circle as that defined by the circle’s relationship to a square, as in the squared circle depiction, the true geometric circle. Absent such proof, there is no reason to have to debunk those derivations which use the calculus. One does not have to disprove something that was never proven. I have offered three proofs of a new pi which is demonstrably consistent with the circle that is defined by its relationship to a square, and consistent with empirical measurement. We have demonstrated that the old transcendental pi is not consistent with the geometry, (both mathematically and empirically). This alone debunks the calculus approach. If you want to argue that the transcendental pi is the correct pi to use in this geometry (that is, real life applications, in physics models, both practical and theoretical), then you will need to debunk my proofs, or offer some of your own. The new pi is the one you need when you are doing precision machine work with round objects, or when you are calculating trajectories of orbiting bodies or calculating mass/energy relationships in rotational systems.

The old pi simply does not survive geometric analysis. We have demonstrated that the hypothetical circle defined by the transcendental pi is not the same circle as defined by a circle’s relationship to a square, the basic geometry which defines a true circle. Transcendental pi is only an approximation to a real geometric circle. The pi based on the Golden ratio is the exact one.

An infinite-sided polygon is a nice exercise in math, but there is little use for something not grounded in reality, which loses accuracy at the fourth digit.

So far, no one has attempted to directly address my math or measurement technique. My last proof is more conventional, and uses only basic algebra and geometry with well-established principles. If it is wrong, then debunking it should be a piece of cake….er, pi!

Thanks again!

Mark Wollum

Professor Wollom- Congratulations on and Thank You for your intelligent, moving & thought provoking presentation. This Really Is some earth-moving stuff, If I may politely say, and I really thought that I was the only one who’d tried & failed using disks and measuring devices. I could think of no other way to come up with the numbers to divide, and questioned my own sanity when I couldn’t make the numbers work…Your precise and logical descriptions are astounding to me and I wonder– If this argument Had been made previously, Why had I not heard of it yet. Because it had NOT been made yet, that’s why!

I try to learn something new every day, but your work will sustain me for the next several weeks in digesting the information well enough to present and disseminate adequately in my own sphere. I’ve suspected some connection to the 1+root 5 for some time and your cogent and thoughtful work will lead to further discoveries in the physical description you’ve presented relating pi & phi.

pi=4/root(phi), who’d a thunk it? I hope to have more to contribute in the future, but for now I’ll just say Thanks again! Great Work! DANIEL

After several hours of reflection I have concluded that what you are doing is something different from what mathematicians do. The use of the polygonal method easily sets an upper and lower boundary. And by increasing the number of sides gradually comes closer and closer to the value of C/d or Pi. Logically speaking this method does work and is sound. One polygon is outside the circle and the other is inside. One is always larger and one is always smaller. The larger has a circumference greater than the circle’s and the smaller has one less than the circle’s. The actual circumference of the circle must be somewhere between. This is irrefutable and does not end up supporting your Pi calculation.

There have been too many great mathematicians along the way; and they do not get away with lying. Not in their mathematics at least. What works in the physical world though may be different from Pi which is an ideal form. So perhaps your Pi is the secular Pi which for reasons unknown works better than the one logically deduced mathematically. Remember that Maya implies and works by illusions.

I just thought of an easy way to calculate pi

Just grab a square and divide it into n little squares. For every sqaure, take x and y value of its centre, and get sqrt(x^2+y^2) if this is less than r, count the area of this square, otherwise don’t add it. This should give you the area of a circle without using polygons. Take this to (close to) infinitely small squares in a computer program and it should give you the value of pi.

Even if this phi version of pi isn’t 100% it’s still an interesting approximation which was probably known in the ancient world (hence the nazi symbol).

Mathematically speaking a circle is composed of extensionless points . . . and therefore distinct from what we see in geometry books. So if we now imagine a square enscribing a circle, we notice that each of the four sides touches the circle at one point which it shares with the circle. As the sides increase in number they also shrink until they can hardly be distinguished. By pushing the matter the sides eventually disappear and only a circle remains, as all the sides have degenerated into points. But as you can see we are mixing the circles in the world with the mathematical ones. Still, the difference is not such as to make a difference in the value of Pi. The circle simply represents the limit of the polygon; it can never have so many sides as to enclose a smaller area than the circle.

Thanks Mark, great article.

I have found that the division operator can lead to strange solutions depending on the base number system used. One example is 1/2 in binary and base-10: 0.4999… does not equal 0.50. This was a quirk in early BASiC programming languages on personal computers. I appreciate your hard work

KSP,

You are right, but a large enough sphere, carefully enough constructed, could still help solve the debate between which of several number values is more correct.

Old pi is 22 divided by 7, ask a cooper. Coopers figured out pi before mathematicians existed. They need to plane the angles of the staves at a precise angle in order to create the shape of the barrel, and make it water tight.

From Mark Wollom:

Kevin,

I have a response to wjabbe:

Thanks for feedback.

Regarding measuring with high tech equipment-

The point I’m making is that you can bet people with access to high tech equipment have already done this, and have not disclosed the results. (NASA for example, which needs the exact value)

I’m telling people that the old pie can be debunked with cheap equipment readily available, using diligent technique at home. I didn’t set out to debunk calculus, which has a purpose. My point is that when academics are confronted with evidence (even outright proofs) that confronts their long-held established beliefs, they cannot accept it. (9-11 is a great example, as is pi). In these cases, we have contradictions. I use the lesson my brother taught me (the smartest and toughest dude I’ve ever known) that when things don’t make sense, you must always challenge your assumptions. What are the inherent assumptions used in determining pi? We have always assumed that successive approximations turn into a circle. Assumptions don’t make good arguments.

Empirical evidence proves otherwise. My math also proves otherwise, unless you can find flaws in all of my presentations, and measuring technique. I am satisfied with the last geometric proof. Can you find any errors in it?

Mark Wollum

In the example of the two polygons, one without and one within, we are using the infinity illustrated by the positive integers. With points on the circle we are dealing with a larger one, the continuum. However, this is pretty subtle and should not effect the value of Pi. On the other hand the appearance of Pi with respect to the circle is only one of its appearances. It also turns up a in ratio as when one spills a box of toothpicks and finds it between the number of toothpicks which do and those which do not end up on each other. I believe there are other, perhaps many, instances of Pi appearing in our world! So Pi should be considered as an interesting number that plays some very important role in the realm of forms and not simply the ratio C/D.

Sorry for the typo. Meant 3.144 in all cases.

If you use MSExcel to calculate a value for the series described above, I.e., 1-(1/3)+(1/5)…., you will drop below 3.144 by the 1000th term in the infinite series. If you keep going, the value drops even more – but slowly. The Excel exercise proves that if the infinite series is a valid way of calculating the value of pi, then the ‘true value’ cannot exceed 1.44. Excel calculates each cell to15 significant figures, so after 1000 calculations for a running summation, the result is good to at least 12 significant figures. In other words, good enough to conclude that the series will converge below 3.144.

Very cool. Sometimes people who have not been overtaught rules of constants, are the ones to find advances in all sorts of things. Using evidence of massive lists of inventors and their education levels, clearly indicates that any R&D pool should include equal numbers of educated and non-educated minds.

Also, the dream factor. Mendeleev received the periodic table in a dream.

There is huge data showing that intuition and dreams are an integral part of the advancement of life. The only point I disagree with is the accurate measurement of time. We are not close but it is getting closer. Periodicity is the basis of all separation and perpetual expansion.

http://www.timeskool.com/

The book “Sacred Geometry” might have some answers on the math conspiracy.

Why not get a perfectly spherical shot and put it in water, measuring the amount of water it displaces, then divide it by the radius cubed and 4/3 to give the pi?

Can’t make a perfect sphere here on planet due to gravity.

KSP,

You are right, but a large enough sphere, carefully enough constructed, could still help solve the debate between which of several number values is more correct.