Consider one quadrant or a fourth of the circle of radius r. The length of the chord is √(2)*r. If we bisect the quadrant, the length of each of the two identical chords is √(2-√2)*r. If we further bisect these two quadrants, the length of each of the four identical chords is √(2-√(2+√2))*r. If we further bisect each of these 4 quadrants, the length of each of the 8 identical chords is √(2-√(2+√(2+√2)))*r. So the length of each of the chords obtained by continually bisecting a quadrant of a circle of radius r, is the following sequence , √2*r , √(2-√2)*r , √(2-√(2+√2))*r, √(2-√(2+√(2+√2)))*r,.... So the limiting case as n tends to infinity, 2^n*√(2-√(2+√(2+....√(2+√2))))*r =(π/2)*r, So π can be very very accurately measured for even fairly modest values of n. Also given a geometrically measurable distance x, the length of the hypotenuse of the right triangle whose two sides are x is √(2*x). If this length of the hypotenuse is halved then the length of the hypotenuse of the right triangle whose length of the two sides is this halved length of the hypotenuse is √x. So given a geometrically measurable distance x, √x is always geometrically measurable. Also the area of the square inscribed in a circle which circle is further inscribed in a square is half the area of the larger square.
I'd like to see how you got root phi as GH! I feel like that is actually the *most* important part of this whole thing because otherwise it looks like you've assumed the answer beforehand and made the square rootphi. I'm 100% willing to go with you on this, just show how GH is root phi through this 9x9 grid, I'm a little lost on that tiny bit.
@ShutEyeCinema there is no such thing as a "proper way". All ways are equally valid and bring with them their own context and implications. If you marry yourself to your chosen implications and context, then there appears to be no other way to figure the world because you need those methods in order to figure it according to your desired implication. "Some follow rules, and the others change the world." If you want things to be the way they have always been, don't change anything. Only, never to change is to be at odds with an ever-flowing, ever-changing existence. There is no proper way, there is only way. Dao.
Thank you for your explanation but you're missing the most important part, which is how did you calculate GH without using our approximated value for Pi?
In any circle, Circumference, C = π*diameter. In this circle, diameter = GH, so C = π*GH. In a squared circle, inner square perimeter = Circumference, so → 4EF = C = π*GH 4EF = π*GH If EF = 1, then 4*1 = π*GH, so 4/π = GH ≈ 1.273
@@jake.presents I pasted you proof a couple of times in this thread to help with some questions. The square root of theta is 1.272 not 1.273 so it would seem this video is bull like a lot of others say. What do you think?
You will also benefit from this exercise - add and subtract with pi. Subtract 3.10 and then slowly subtract .01 and watch what happens. Pi-pi is not the same as pi-(pi*1). Math is fun 10000 decimal calculator is the best place to see that. Square root 3 +square root 2 - pi leaves a remainder that you can’t subtract out unless you enter the number manually and then it will likely error your calculator. You have to add pi to the value and divide by 2, over and over in order for it to regulate. The .00467171 remainder is the excess value of the non-combination ability of the square root of 3 and 2 and it’s the principle that both pi and Euler’s number are based on. If you take pi minus 4 and write down the decimals, then add them to the constant manually you will get 3.99999999999 and you should notice how and why pi can not be divided by 3. This is where the confusion about the decimals stems from. Also you will enjoy exploring 500/165. Or .5/.165. The decimal location does not matter. You just need the zeros in the whole number expansion is all. I have a personal affinity for 29/.319 as well. This represents the quarter decimal of the pi mathematical construct.
I uploaded short. I just quickly drew up a pi square and showed how it can be done without the circle, although this does fit perfectly in to the circle it is not technically square. It is 11.5 * 10 for this particular diameter 15 display. The exact same ratios always apply. For a 10 diameter 5 radius it is 10, 8.484 and and 13.1114606, total of 31.4914606. That’s just the triangle, then you use that, if you deem it necessary, to complete the square. That 13.1114 is the result of a^2+b^2 = c^2. I did not just sit around and conjure these numbers up. Archimedes and others are more than happy to assist in this if you allow it. Takes some time but eventually, it becomes enjoyable and absolutely hilarious once you realize just how duped we have been by our educational system. Lol.
I have actually worked on this problem myself and your answer is really close. The ratio is a decimal itself because no matter how much you divide the square, the number you're looking for is transient like Pi and Phi. ;)
You’re on the right track with 1.44 but there’s no three. You have to divide with pinto multiply it, that’s how you engage the decimals properly. Your circumference is the diameter measurement DIVIDED by .9. Hit equals. Then, divide by .3535. That is your precise circumference. Now if you divide by pi constant you will see the proper decimal layout. They are percentages of degree spots. The decimal values are never a single plaice. You read them as 2 and 3 digit whole numbers. You should only see the constant when you click the button and it pops up on your phone. It is not a static numerical value. It is one diameter times .98, then that value times 3.21. It is 32 percent of the 3 diameter lengths, times 107 percent just like an equation that collapses numbers to a tighter difference like .8 versus 1. 2 becomes 1.87 and 1 becomes 1.07. Same thing with pi. It is the root of the circular circumference, nothing else. If you have questions feel free to email or comment and I will leave my email. You do not need a circle to find the exact pi ratio, if is a triangle and I will gladly explain this if you would like 🙏 Jameson.b.garnett@gmail.com I just uploaded an image it is in my short file if you would like to see the Pythagorean proof of the pi circumference. No circle needed, just the length of the diameter and the rest is formulaically simplistic and never changes! 😊
The ratio between the width of two squares is not nine eighths. It is closer to ten eighths or approximately 10.185916. I think its cool to seek spiritual beauty in math. You don't have to make stuff up though; unit_square_perimeter = 4 circle_perimeter = 4 circle_perimeter = diameter × PI divide both sides by PI circle_perimeter ÷ PI = diameter 4 ÷ PI = diameter 4 ÷ 3.141593 = diameter 1.27323... = diameter This means the "diameter of a circle with the same perimeter as a unit square is about 1.27 units, or that the circle is 27% wider than the square" To see how many eights of the unit square that would be, just divide by one eighth of one unit: 1.27323 ÷ (1÷8) = 10.18584 eights
Love this video. I found in a book on Islamic Architectural Motifs a step by step construction of different diagrams used to construct their interlocking patterns. One of them comes very close to squaring the circle for area, although I cannot finish the final proof. To draw it: Draw a circle. Draw a diameter of it. Draw the perpendicular bisector of the diameter. Where the two diameters at right angles to each other intersect the circle, draw four more circles of same diameter as first, and centered on each of those four diameter endpoints. The over lapping circles will create somewhat elliptical shapes very similar to vesica pecis in appearance, but not in area, and which extend beyond the first circle. Connect these external points of circumference intersection with their adjacent points (the exterior points of the vesica pecis like shapes) and you draw a square outside the first circle which the circle touches at exactly the midpoints of its four sides. Now, draw the diagonals of this square. Where the diagonals cross the original circle, connect these points with their adjacent similar points and you get a second square, inside the circle and nested within the first square. Somewhere between these two squares is a square with the exact same area as the first circle, but I do not know how to finish it.
Nope ! GH is in fact "approximately" root phi... there is no "new pi" ! Another error : that thing about 8 and 9 has nothing to do with the perimeter. It is the approximation of squaring the circle (i.e. similar area -not perimeter-) by ancient egyptians as indicated in the Rhind Papyrus (-1600). A 8x8 square has nearly the same area to a 9-diameter circle. Egyptians approximated pi with 256/81. GH = 4/π GH ≠ 9/8 GH ≠ √φ
Why GH ≠ √φ ? I have made a drawings in computer vector graphics program INKCSAPE and this length perfectly match to the whole diagram. In assumption I have EF length equal to 100 mm the GH is exactly 127.2 mm. I have zoomed the image to check the nodes. Everything align perfectly.
The grid is completely misleading as jain himself is just a con-actor. If you want REAL sacred geometry, check out Knee Geometry. Know this, if you round the true pi value correctly, it's actually 3.145 because the extended is 3.1446. You see jain fails even the most basic rounding?
This video was right under the search result for the Numerphile squaring the circle video. A revelation I find hilarious since I bothered to watch both things 😅
This is from Jake B. also on this thread, I pasted it below: In any circle, Circumference, C = π*diameter. In this circle, diameter = GH, so C = π*GH. In a squared circle, inner square perimeter = Circumference, so → 4EF = C = π*GH 4EF = π*GH If EF = 1, then 4*1 = π*GH, so 4/π = GH ≈ 1.273
I was surprised by your video because I have the same views, some slightly different but consistent. I knoς something different more about them and you offered me more and confirmations. Thank you, I will be happy to hear from you.
Damn you know what will blow your mind? That Von Lindeman proved pi was transcendental in 1882. That’s 140 years ago. All that work and human labor over millenia. Incredible.
Look mate pi is 3.15... the only constant. These people you read about Arnt REAL. And there maths is WRONG. The truth is hidden and EVERY THING you read is FALSE. It has to be.. because we are not Worthy
I was studying the harmonics and geometry of light when it lead me to certain numerical values. These numbers had been brought up in a few books you wrote when I searched. So I believe you when you say they are related to the mathematical expressions of light speed.
This video is wrong. Almost nothing you say is correct. And I see that many people are thanking you for such a good explanation. I really hope they are joking. The diameter of the circle is 4/π. It’s not hard to show that this is not the square root of the golden ratio. Furthermore, the 8:9 ratio implies that 4/π equals 9/8 which is also not true. Lastly, the calculation at the end proves that all of this is nonsense because π=3.1416(approximately) and you wrote 3.144. What are you trying to accomplish?
You’re also wrong. Diameter 10 is your base and your ratios, go diameter side A, .848 diameter side b. A2+b2=square root 61. That’s 13.1114606. It’s the same no matter what. I just provided you the actual proof, go check it. Diameter DIVIDED by .9, divided by .3535. That’s the circumference in pi terms. Never use the constant if you want it to work and explore the actual mathematical wonder of it. Another one- diameter divided by .130111 is the pi short hand for the correct area of the circle.
You’re also wrong. Diameter 10 is your base and your ratios, go diameter side A, .848 diameter side b. A2+b2=square root 61. That’s 13.1114606. It’s the same no matter what. I just provided you the actual proof, go check it. Never use the constant if you want it to work and explore the actual mathematical wonder of it. Another one- diameter divided by .1281 is the pi short hand for the correct area of the circle.
actually this video is wrong and you can't square the circle or circle the square, this was proved in 1882 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squaring_the_circle?wprov=sfla1
I initially thought that you would go to approximation using Jordans measure using smaller and smaller squares. But then you just jumped to circumscribed square and postulated that ratio to inner square must be 9/8. In general your proof us far from rigorous and approximation has quite poor accuracy. If numbers 144 occur it doesn't make it good by default. Not meant to be harsh. Consider continued fraction approximation of pi.
well done and I love it...being the speed of light it eludes to the power of human connectivity...now we only need to figure out how to mystically round the square and then heaven will be harmonious on the earth plane :)
Hi jain, your proportion ratio 8:9 are really confusing... if i take a 9x9 circle into a 8*8 grid it's a factor 1.125 x EF to get GH. not 1.272. So pi=4/1.125= 3.555.... We need more details to find explanation to get the correct assomption of GH.
There is no correct assumption. Your math is right, he pulled 1.272 out of nowhere because he needs to pull 3.144 from somewhere. Never trust someone whose most important argument hinges on something they "don't have time to show you." Math isn't based on stuff we're pretty sure is true, we have to prove everything from the basic axioms or it can't be considered true.
Go to geogebra.com and actually do what he's doing step by step. Verify for yourself whether what he's saying is true or not. You'll find that the length between G and H is not the square root of phi as he claims. It's actually 1.111111... But even if you were to create a circle with a diameter of the square root of phi, how do you establish the "fact" that the circumference of that circle equals 4? How do you go about proving that? Just because you draw a square that has a perimeter of 4 doesn't establish the "fact" that the circumference of the circle also has to equal 4..
I thought that Squaring the Circle had more to do about its surface than it's circumference. Now I'm a bit confused despite having red a few google pages and watching some videos about this topic :-/
There really ARE practical applications of this!---in the design of free-energy devices; levitation devices, healing and repair devices, faster-than-light travel; cosmic wormholes, etc.
@@Clomwellschimdt Sacred Geometry, of God, can be used to build a wide variety of different devices. But they can all be enhanced, or augmented, by building the devices out of materials that belong to the Kingdom of God, rather than the Kingdom of Darkness. For example, gold, silver, copper, and chromium all belong to the Kingdom of God, and using them to build the devices will greatly improve the performance of whatever you are building. But iron, lead, zinc, aluminum, nickel and uranium all belong to the Kingdom of Darkness, and using them will weaken the devices, or even cause them to not work at all. Also, there is something called "The Nine Code" that has to be put together with the Sacred Geometry for the devices to work; and because God created the universe using a wide variety of infinite series---incorporating as many of them as possible in the design will enhance power and performance. The US Air Force knows all about all this, because after WW-2 they began building "UFOs" based on captured German designs that could pass through solid rock and ocean water, could levitate, could travel back and forth through time, and do several other things.
Good day. My name is Hynek Nechvátal. I have a solution for you. I solved the quadrature of the circle. From a mathematical and scientific point of view, I have proved that I can solve a solution. So I can solve problems. That means I can be useful to you. If you want to contact me, then only in Czech. To understand you.
8:9???? according to exact measurements is more like 8:8 and 10.+ x 10.+,... ( bit more than 10 squares ) THIS IS FALSE just by the first glance at it! "Circle fits neatly into a 9x9 Grid?" NOPE IT DOES NOT!!! ( just by looking at it with common sense there are 2 little squares of that grid from each side, 1+8+1 =10 ) you need to study the material better before presetting in to people
You knew what? Your right, and I'm sure your being so sarcastic and at the same time, endearing. Looks like you've been teaching and bleeding this for decades, God bless you mate!I just found out about spirit science in 2010, I was 23, it took me a while to find myself as I was brought up Baptist! Not the worst, but I knew something was wrong with bloody religion ya know? Jesus just would not stay in my heart! Lol no matter how many times I asked I always felt enough empty :'(
![What is Infrared Radiation & Electromagnetic Spectrum? - [4]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/PHDiXiEc9ro/mqdefault.jpg)
Consider one quadrant or a fourth of the circle of radius r. The length of the chord is √(2)*r. If we bisect the quadrant, the length of each of the two identical chords is √(2-√2)*r. If we further bisect these two quadrants, the length of each of the four identical chords is √(2-√(2+√2))*r. If we further bisect each of these 4 quadrants, the length of each of the 8 identical chords is √(2-√(2+√(2+√2)))*r. So the length of each of the chords obtained by continually bisecting a quadrant of a circle of radius r, is the following sequence ,
√2*r , √(2-√2)*r , √(2-√(2+√2))*r, √(2-√(2+√(2+√2)))*r,....
So the limiting case as n tends to infinity,
2^n*√(2-√(2+√(2+....√(2+√2))))*r =(π/2)*r,
So π can be very very accurately measured for even fairly modest values of n.
Also given a geometrically measurable distance x, the length of the hypotenuse of the right triangle whose two sides are x is √(2*x). If this length of the hypotenuse is halved then the length of the hypotenuse of the right triangle whose length of the two sides is this halved length of the hypotenuse is √x. So given a geometrically measurable distance x, √x is always geometrically measurable.
Also the area of the square inscribed in a circle which circle is further inscribed in a square is half the area of the larger square.
Very enjoyable video. You're clearly passionate about this subject. 👍
I'd like to see how you got root phi as GH! I feel like that is actually the *most* important part of this whole thing because otherwise it looks like you've assumed the answer beforehand and made the square rootphi. I'm 100% willing to go with you on this, just show how GH is root phi through this 9x9 grid, I'm a little lost on that tiny bit.
Same here!
@@CemilSinasiTurun still no word... reckon it's bullshit?
The assumption is that the GH is square root of Phi. This is a good assumption but the proof is not shown here, in this video.
Me too. I exactly wanted to ask the same. I did not get the relation of this 8x8 9x9 squares and how to know the distance of GH.
@ShutEyeCinema there is no such thing as a "proper way". All ways are equally valid and bring with them their own context and implications. If you marry yourself to your chosen implications and context, then there appears to be no other way to figure the world because you need those methods in order to figure it according to your desired implication.
"Some follow rules, and the others change the world."
If you want things to be the way they have always been, don't change anything. Only, never to change is to be at odds with an ever-flowing, ever-changing existence. There is no proper way, there is only way. Dao.
Bro that noise in the back is from a pressure cooker. This guy grows something 😎
Thank you for your explanation but you're missing the most important part, which is how did you calculate GH without using our approximated value for Pi?
In any circle, Circumference, C = π*diameter.
In this circle, diameter = GH, so
C = π*GH.
In a squared circle, inner square perimeter = Circumference, so →
4EF = C = π*GH
4EF = π*GH
If EF = 1, then
4*1 = π*GH, so
4/π = GH ≈ 1.273
@@jake.presents I pasted you proof a couple of times in this thread to help with some questions. The square root of theta is 1.272 not 1.273 so it would seem this video is bull like a lot of others say. What do you think?
You will also benefit from this exercise - add and subtract with pi. Subtract 3.10 and then slowly subtract .01 and watch what happens. Pi-pi is not the same as pi-(pi*1). Math is fun 10000 decimal calculator is the best place to see that.
Square root 3 +square root 2 - pi leaves a remainder that you can’t subtract out unless you enter the number manually and then it will likely error your calculator. You have to add pi to the value and divide by 2, over and over in order for it to regulate. The .00467171 remainder is the excess value of the non-combination ability of the square root of 3 and 2 and it’s the principle that both pi and Euler’s number are based on. If you take pi minus 4 and write down the decimals, then add them to the constant manually you will get 3.99999999999 and you should notice how and why pi can not be divided by 3. This is where the confusion about the decimals stems from. Also you will enjoy exploring 500/165. Or .5/.165. The decimal location does not matter. You just need the zeros in the whole number expansion is all. I have a personal affinity for 29/.319 as well. This represents the quarter decimal of the pi mathematical construct.
I uploaded short. I just quickly drew up a pi square and showed how it can be done without the circle, although this does fit perfectly in to the circle it is not technically square. It is 11.5 * 10 for this particular diameter 15 display. The exact same ratios always apply. For a 10 diameter 5 radius it is 10, 8.484 and and 13.1114606, total of 31.4914606. That’s just the triangle, then you use that, if you deem it necessary, to complete the square. That 13.1114 is the result of a^2+b^2 = c^2. I did not just sit around and conjure these numbers up. Archimedes and others are more than happy to assist in this if you allow it. Takes some time but eventually, it becomes enjoyable and absolutely hilarious once you realize just how duped we have been by our educational system. Lol.
I have actually worked on this problem myself and your answer is really close. The ratio is a decimal itself because no matter how much you divide the square, the number you're looking for is transient like Pi and Phi. ;)
You’re on the right track with 1.44 but there’s no three.
You have to divide with pinto multiply it, that’s how you engage the decimals properly.
Your circumference is the diameter measurement DIVIDED by .9. Hit equals. Then, divide by .3535. That is your precise circumference. Now if you divide by pi constant you will see the proper decimal layout. They are percentages of degree spots. The decimal values are never a single plaice. You read them as 2 and 3 digit whole numbers. You should only see the constant when you click the button and it pops up on your phone. It is not a static numerical value. It is one diameter times .98, then that value times 3.21. It is 32 percent of the 3 diameter lengths, times 107 percent just like an equation that collapses numbers to a tighter difference like .8 versus 1. 2 becomes 1.87 and 1 becomes 1.07. Same thing with pi. It is the root of the circular circumference, nothing else.
If you have questions feel free to email or comment and I will leave my email. You do not need a circle to find the exact pi ratio, if is a triangle and I will gladly explain this if you would like 🙏
Jameson.b.garnett@gmail.com
I just uploaded an image it is in my short file if you would like to see the Pythagorean proof of the pi circumference. No circle needed, just the length of the diameter and the rest is formulaically simplistic and never changes! 😊
The ratio between the width of two squares is not nine eighths. It is closer to ten eighths or approximately 10.185916. I think its cool to seek spiritual beauty in math. You don't have to make stuff up though;
unit_square_perimeter = 4
circle_perimeter = 4
circle_perimeter = diameter × PI
divide both sides by PI
circle_perimeter ÷ PI = diameter
4 ÷ PI = diameter
4 ÷ 3.141593 = diameter
1.27323... = diameter
This means the "diameter of a circle with the same perimeter as a unit square is about 1.27 units, or that the circle is 27% wider than the square"
To see how many eights of the unit square that would be, just divide by one eighth of one unit:
1.27323 ÷ (1÷8) = 10.18584 eights
The most brilliant explanation ever !!!!
Thank you ....I understand this finally
Love this video.
I found in a book on Islamic Architectural Motifs a step by step construction of different diagrams used to construct their interlocking patterns. One of them comes very close to squaring the circle for area, although I cannot finish the final proof. To draw it: Draw a circle. Draw a diameter of it. Draw the perpendicular bisector of the diameter. Where the two diameters at right angles to each other intersect the circle, draw four more circles of same diameter as first, and centered on each of those four diameter endpoints. The over lapping circles will create somewhat elliptical shapes very similar to vesica pecis in appearance, but not in area, and which extend beyond the first circle. Connect these external points of circumference intersection with their adjacent points (the exterior points of the vesica pecis like shapes) and you draw a square outside the first circle which the circle touches at exactly the midpoints of its four sides. Now, draw the diagonals of this square. Where the diagonals cross the original circle, connect these points with their adjacent similar points and you get a second square, inside the circle and nested within the first square. Somewhere between these two squares is a square with the exact same area as the first circle, but I do not know how to finish it.
Hmmmm
Thank you for this. The world needs more people like you.
can you square a circle not fitting the circle in the square but squaring a circle
By Conceptualizing the Initial Edges as Flipped/Folded you could just Measure the Intersecting Points as Straight Lines since a Hexagon is Produced.
Nope ! GH is in fact "approximately" root phi... there is no "new pi" !
Another error : that thing about 8 and 9 has nothing to do with the perimeter. It is the approximation of squaring the circle (i.e. similar area -not perimeter-) by ancient egyptians as indicated in the Rhind Papyrus (-1600). A 8x8 square has nearly the same area to a 9-diameter circle. Egyptians approximated pi with 256/81.
GH = 4/π
GH ≠ 9/8
GH ≠ √φ
Why GH ≠ √φ ? I have made a drawings in computer vector graphics program INKCSAPE and this length perfectly match to the whole diagram. In assumption I have EF length equal to 100 mm the GH is exactly 127.2 mm. I have zoomed the image to check the nodes. Everything align perfectly.
@@martebest
4/π=1.273239544735....
√φ=1.272019649514....
4/π ≠ √φ
BEAUTIFUL! THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS SIMPLE TO FOLLOW PRESENTATION, THE BEST I HAVE SEEN
simple but bullshit, do it yourself, it is NOT a 9x9
The grid is completely misleading as jain himself is just a con-actor. If you want REAL sacred geometry, check out Knee Geometry. Know this, if you round the true pi value correctly, it's actually 3.145 because the extended is 3.1446. You see jain fails even the most basic rounding?
If you could start with the crazy up front, I wouldn't waste my time watching.
This video was right under the search result for the Numerphile squaring the circle video. A revelation I find hilarious since I bothered to watch both things 😅
GH = 4/π
GH ≠ 9/8
GH ≠ √φ
This is from Jake B. also on this thread, I pasted it below:
In any circle, Circumference, C = π*diameter.
In this circle, diameter = GH, so
C = π*GH.
In a squared circle, inner square perimeter = Circumference, so →
4EF = C = π*GH
4EF = π*GH
If EF = 1, then
4*1 = π*GH, so
4/π = GH ≈ 1.273
Indeed this video is a joke and so are the people in the comment section.
I was surprised by your video because I have the same views, some slightly different but consistent. I knoς something different more about them and you offered me more and confirmations. Thank you, I will be happy to hear from you.
Damn you know what will blow your mind? That Von Lindeman proved pi was transcendental in 1882. That’s 140 years ago. All that work and human labor over millenia. Incredible.
Look mate pi is 3.15... the only constant. These people you read about Arnt REAL.
And there maths is WRONG.
The truth is hidden and EVERY THING you read is FALSE. It has to be.. because we are not Worthy
@@mrmaestrouk everything i ever read is false except your comment. Thanks!
@6:10 may facial expression went from 🙇🏻 to 😐🙄
I was studying the harmonics and geometry of light when it lead me to certain numerical values. These numbers had been brought up in a few books you wrote when I searched. So I believe you when you say they are related to the mathematical expressions of light speed.
Very interesting. In Baudhyana Sulbasutra, average of inside and outside square was considered. U may look into such earliest 600bce math of India.
Thank you.
This video is wrong. Almost nothing you say is correct. And I see that many people are thanking you for such a good explanation. I really hope they are joking. The diameter of the circle is 4/π. It’s not hard to show that this is not the square root of the golden ratio. Furthermore, the 8:9 ratio implies that 4/π equals 9/8 which is also not true. Lastly, the calculation at the end proves that all of this is nonsense because π=3.1416(approximately) and you wrote 3.144. What are you trying to accomplish?
A dream.
I feel bad for you as nothing seems right in your life ....
You’re also wrong. Diameter 10 is your base and your ratios, go diameter side A, .848 diameter side b. A2+b2=square root 61. That’s 13.1114606. It’s the same no matter what. I just provided you the actual proof, go check it.
Diameter DIVIDED by .9, divided by .3535. That’s the circumference in pi terms. Never use the constant if you want it to work and explore the actual mathematical wonder of it. Another one- diameter divided by .130111 is the pi short hand for the correct area of the circle.
You’re also wrong. Diameter 10 is your base and your ratios, go diameter side A, .848 diameter side b. A2+b2=square root 61. That’s 13.1114606. It’s the same no matter what. I just provided you the actual proof, go check it.
Never use the constant if you want it to work and explore the actual mathematical wonder of it. Another one- diameter divided by .1281 is the pi short hand for the correct area of the circle.
Remember the unit circle of 1 then the circle is 2 in diameter and the square is 2 in on each side. Unit of 1 around the the point of origin is a 2
So we can square the circle but can we circle a square?
actually this video is wrong and you can't square the circle or circle the square, this was proved in 1882
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squaring_the_circle?wprov=sfla1
I implore you to use look into the number 7. It's special.
I initially thought that you would go to approximation using Jordans measure using smaller and smaller squares. But then you just jumped to circumscribed square and postulated that ratio to inner square must be 9/8. In general your proof us far from rigorous and approximation has quite poor accuracy.
If numbers 144 occur it doesn't make it good by default.
Not meant to be harsh.
Consider continued fraction approximation of pi.
Loved it
well done and I love it...being the speed of light it eludes to the power of human connectivity...now we only need to figure out how to mystically round the square and then heaven will be harmonious on the earth plane :)
I love you, your life and your work! You sir are a planetary treasure and I wish I could be a student of your boundless wisdom.
I don’t know about boundless ma guy. He is also a learner, a student., so r u.
Pies aren't square . Pies are round! 🥧
8x8 ...9x9 ...???1.272 x8 =10.176 & not 9 ....? am i wrong ...8 being the 1 ...9 should be 1.272 ...,,,no ,,,
???
Oh so that if you wanted to you could build stone henge or the pyramid or something like anything
Hi jain, your proportion ratio 8:9 are really confusing... if i take a 9x9 circle into a 8*8 grid it's a factor 1.125 x EF to get GH. not 1.272. So pi=4/1.125= 3.555.... We need more details to find explanation to get the correct assomption of GH.
There is no correct assumption. Your math is right, he pulled 1.272 out of nowhere because he needs to pull 3.144 from somewhere. Never trust someone whose most important argument hinges on something they "don't have time to show you." Math isn't based on stuff we're pretty sure is true, we have to prove everything from the basic axioms or it can't be considered true.
Loving these videos Jain. Have you looked into the work of Frank Chester?
Go to geogebra.com and actually do what he's doing step by step. Verify for yourself whether what he's saying is true or not. You'll find that the length between G and H is not the square root of phi as he claims. It's actually 1.111111... But even if you were to create a circle with a diameter of the square root of phi, how do you establish the "fact" that the circumference of that circle equals 4? How do you go about proving that? Just because you draw a square that has a perimeter of 4 doesn't establish the "fact" that the circumference of the circle also has to equal 4..
This only proves that spirit (circle) is always bigger that matter (square)
@@KnowThyFulcrum That's because geogebra use the erroneous archimedes PI.
@@KnowThyFulcrum After carefully recalculated, it is actually sqrt phi. Did you get a value wrong?
Thnx for sharing
How did you know the value was 9?
9 represent GOD
@@mrlance6038 Doesn't "God" hate gold?
I thought that Squaring the Circle had more to do about its surface than it's circumference.
Now I'm a bit confused despite having red a few google pages and watching some videos about this topic :-/
There are 4 opposed tetrahedrons that make the Cubeoctedron and that is the answer 😉👍 with a 🌟 in the middle
So why did they want to teach everyone that Mathematical equivalent an go around making them everywhere all over the world.
What a load of bollocks. Pi is not 1.44. GH in your diagram is 1.273239, not the square root of the golden ratio.
Rectifying the circle is NOT squaring the circle
What are some practical applications of this?
There really ARE practical applications of this!---in the design of free-energy devices; levitation devices, healing and repair devices, faster-than-light travel; cosmic wormholes, etc.
@@georgewolfiii1170 can you elaborate?
@@Clomwellschimdt Sacred Geometry, of God, can be used to build a wide variety of different devices. But they can all be enhanced, or augmented, by building the devices out of materials that belong to the Kingdom of God, rather than the Kingdom of Darkness.
For example, gold, silver, copper, and chromium all belong to the Kingdom of God, and using them to build the devices will greatly improve the performance of whatever you are building. But iron, lead, zinc, aluminum, nickel and uranium all belong to the Kingdom of Darkness, and using them will weaken the devices, or even cause them to not work at all.
Also, there is something called "The Nine Code" that has to be put together with the Sacred Geometry for the devices to work; and because God created the universe using a wide variety of infinite series---incorporating as many of them as possible in the design will enhance power and performance.
The US Air Force knows all about all this, because after WW-2 they began building "UFOs" based on captured German designs that could pass through solid rock and ocean water, could levitate, could travel back and forth through time, and do several other things.
Ok. How do you know GE is = to EF/8?
He doesn't because it's not. He made it up to trick you.
@@somecreeep
I know.
It was just a rhetoric question.
Using for 10th grade cirriculum 🌺
Should present a precise drawing next to the algebra
Ratio math could solve but not by the basic rules
G to Hach? Like triple Hach ? The game?
Good day. My name is Hynek Nechvátal. I have a solution for you. I solved the quadrature of the circle. From a mathematical and scientific point of view, I have proved that I can solve a solution. So I can solve problems. That means I can be useful to you. If you want to contact me, then only in Czech. To understand you.
If my intuition says anything, this guy is telling the truth.
@@limitisillusion7 You are solving the squaring of the circle.
I know the math solution. You want to know him.
8:9???? according to exact measurements is more like 8:8 and 10.+ x 10.+,... ( bit more than 10 squares )
THIS IS FALSE just by the first glance at it! "Circle fits neatly into a 9x9 Grid?" NOPE IT DOES NOT!!!
( just by looking at it with common sense there are 2 little squares of that grid from each side, 1+8+1 =10 )
you need to study the material better before presetting in to people
Square can never by circle
You knew what? Your right, and I'm sure your being so sarcastic and at the same time, endearing. Looks like you've been teaching and bleeding this for decades, God bless you mate!I just found out about spirit science in 2010, I was 23, it took me a while to find myself as I was brought up Baptist! Not the worst, but I knew something was wrong with bloody religion ya know? Jesus just would not stay in my heart! Lol no matter how many times I asked I always felt enough empty :'(
Your entire calculation is incorrect since your calculation of PI at the end doesn't equal to PI's actual values in decimals.
You know the people that like this doesn't like mathematics. It's a bit sad.
If you reply to this before the eclipse I'll give you the answer.
Nope.
Have got proof squaring the circle on me chanel
Nope !
Phi 🌀 Ra 🔥 El ⚡️ #huemanifesto
I thought lights resonance was 441