The Pi Code

[DaleSVP]

The Pi Code

Martin Gardner's fictional "Doctor Matrix" used to say that, properly interpreted, the number pi (the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, whose decimal expansion begins 3.14159265358979323846...) contains the entire history of mankind. In this article I give some results of looking at pi in a relatively new way: as an infinite string of letters derived from its expansion in base 26 or base 27.

http://www.members.aol.com/s6sj7gt/picode.htm

[buzz kimball]

this at first appears real interesting, but it really isn't base 26 math by a long shot, rather it is confusing it with a simple one on one letter/number substtution code...

anyway, in electronic school labs, i learned to use 3.14 for pi. anything else causes even larger errors than the typical 5% tolerances. so despite all the hoopla were no better off than the ancient egyptians 22/7 !

the point is, historically, depending on time and place pi has been equal to many numbers between 3 and 3.6.

i've actually come to believe that there are a variety of pi and phi values depending on the system and the application. (confused yet ?)

[DaleSVP]

I got so tired of writing about PI I quit writing about it. Here goes again, something I wrote many years ago:

"The mathematical relation of a circle's diameter to its circumference is usually taken to be 3.14159... This value however is an irrational number and contains an error which is simple to see when one realizes a whole diameter exists within a whole circumference. The true value of PI as given by Keely/Parker is 20612 : 6561 which must remain an integer ratio of two whole numbers and NEVER REDUCED to a decimal equivalent, which is where the error comes in. These numbers are to be regarded as whole parts of a whole relative to each other.

Whole numbers relative to each other is an accurate examplification of the Law of One in all three of its aspects." Dale Pond

For greater detail on this topic read
"The Quadrature of the Circle" by John Parker
"The Quadrature of the Circle" by George Hull (an expansion on Parker's take on PI)
http://www.svpvril.com/CATALOG/P0001691.html

[buzz kimball]

>>I got so tired of writing about PI I quit writing about it.

thanks for the info on keely/parker's 20612 : 6561, which, obviously, is news to me. anyway, i am much more familiar with w. russell and e. cayce than keely. nowhere does russell ever use 'pi'. what i implied, a bit haphazedly is that there is no reason to assume that the universe is 'isotropic' (ie water doesn't always boil at 212 degrees- change the gravity/pressure gradient and that changes things. what else can happen on other planets or other universes is another question). anyway, with more of a hegalian/platonic outlook than aristotelean rationalism, i don't have a problem working with multiple values for phi or pi, similar to that i have a variety of english and metric tools (not to mention the 'fit all' adjustable variety) and wrenches.

although, years ago i started using dick benson's 3.156565656..., which seems to work better in the organic world than the inorganic world of em, however, i still think it begs the question that euclideanism and euclids fifth postulate is thousands of years old, and shall we say the fabric of modern math is rooted in superstition.

in the past couple of decades the only time i've needed to use 'pi' is to cut a piece of rope to tie around a tree. anyway, 3 times the diameter and a 'hank' to ty or to hold on worked for me..... anyway, the 'multiple-hypothesis' or hegalian synthesis thinking does really seem to bother people who perpetually think in 'either or' 'yes or no' terms.