mike.appleby

ha maybe you are right, but hopefully you get my point. I say it again, i make no definite claim, only speculation based on my limited knowledge. I will take your point and adjust, thanks however, in my humble opinion, maths is not a physical property that can act on something, it is but a tool to explain something that acts on something, so all your , symmetry related stuff and other mathematical ideas for describing pi in my opinion do not explain the physical side of why we see it appear in the maths when describing physical events. I do understand and accept that for a circle that you draw or visualise though. and i do not mean that pi itself acts upon something (although the wording might be wrong) i mean that a physical action perpetrated in the vacuum results in us calculating pi.

haha, i love this.. non negotiable, best argument ive seen in a while...

i cant give examples if i dont know of any, what he just said was posted just today and i did not read it before writing this theory. i could change that line but i already posted the theory in a new topic thread

here is the first part of my updated theory.. thank you 'Exchemist' for the tip..... let me know what you think guys .π and why it must have a dimensional partnerLet us first begin with laying out the problem that we are trying to solve. When analysing (π) and considering the fundamental concept behind it, there becomes a conundrum. By studying the relationship between the curvature of an object within the vacuum and its surrounding influence, it seems as though (π) has a direct physical effect on the object (if you ignore the fact that it is considered dimensionless). This makes it difficult to explain with any clarity why an object becomes a circle for example or why a wave curves. Sure, there are theories that tackle the mathematical issue and give us somewhat explanations, but none of them explain what the underlying reason is that all curvature (no matter where observed) is governed, or at least connected through this dimensionless constant. Its like the vacuum just arbitrarily choose a number and declared it would be the result of all curvature. This then leads into the question: if we don’t believe that (π) is random, then what within the vacuum ensures that it is always the result of proportionality of a circles radius to its circumference (without exception)? This is the question we will attempt to answer in this paper. Let us first propose the use of the following symbol: tw_θ to represent the twist within a 3 dimensional space (x,y,z). it is chosen and prudent to represent the x,y axis as a combined 360 degree twist. This allows for 2d representation of circular motion. The z axis reflects the lateral twist in a 3d system and is representative of the frequency as it determines the space between lead loop and trailing loop. Due to the fact that in normal calculations of a circle and curve, we choose to set x,y to a value 1 (unity). Therefore we will refer to tw_θ π as equal to the value of (1 × π). Setting the value of tw_θ as a normalised unit of 1. Further, the decision has been made to assume some form of magnetic relationship between tw_θ π and space-time. This decision has been made due to the relationship between space-time and quantum fields (quantum field theory), with the electric and magnetic fields being of the most important (prominent). It will be also assumed that the magnetic field will experience a resistance from the electric field (in accordance with electromagnetism laws) and thus, will in fact follow a curved path (path of least resistance). This brings us to a central question: is there a physical necessity for π to possess dimensional units? An indisputable reason must be given for (π) to require dimensions. This can only be achieved by attaching a second element to it that carries such units but normalises to 1. A simple look at some of the fundamental properties of space-time (i.e., the constants), and attempting to ascertain the connection between the fundamental properties of space-time and (π) itself is as simple as searching for a connection between the permeability of free space and (π). By simply dividing the two attributes into each other (π / μ₀), the resulting calculation yields a striking observation — an approximate whole number, deviating slightly at around 3.1420, only veering off around 3.1420. This value is (2.5 × 10⁶) and as will be shown represents a frequency 1/s. Following this, if we then attempt to find meaning in the result we come to the realisation that the impedance of the vacuum multiplied by the derived number and divided by the speed of light yields the exact value for (π). Where: π = (2.5 × 10⁶ × Z₀) / C Where Z₀ is the characteristic impedance of vacuum, C is the speed of light and (2.5 × 10⁶) is the result of π / μ₀ (to be denoted as H_vrt from this moment on). If we now use the current accepted dimensional analysis of this equation (treating H_vrt as a dimensionless number as well as π), the following result would be obtained: π = (H_vrt × Z₀) / C → ((M²·KG)/(S³·A²)) / (M/S) = (M·KG)/(S²·A²) (which is the dimensions for μ₀) The result under current analysis would offer up (π) to be nothing more than the permeability at a stronger level. Since however μ₀ is a constant, and π is dimensionless, it is highly unlikely that (π), another constant, represent the same element of the vacuum without an additional reason. We therefore make the assumption that H_vrt and thus (π), along with it, would need other dimensions. To determine the substance of these dimensions, we now look closer to (π)/ μ₀, determining if there is a supplementary way of calculating (π). While considering alternatives, it has been found that: π = μ₀ × H₀ see sidebar for dimensional analysis ⟹ It is also found, however, that μ₀ is equal to: μ₀ = π / (H₀ × Z₀ × ε₀ × C) In terms of current dimensional analysis, both (π) and H_vrt should be ignored as simple magnitudes, thus we get no dimensions for μ₀: μ₀ = 1 / (((M²·KG)/(S³·A²)) × ((S⁴·A²)/(M³·KG)) × (M/S)) = 1 / 1 → Cancels out, so ≠ (M·KG)/(S²·A²) Since the previous equation is obviously not the reality of the situation, as μ₀ has the dimensions of (M·KG)/(S²·A²), we must once again assume that (π) needs to be coupled with some property that has dimensional units. Further, it is found that: C = (H₀ × Z₀) / π → ((M²·KG)/(S³·A²)) ≠ M/S C² = (H₀² × Z₀²) / π² → (M⁴·KG²)/(S⁶·A⁴) ≠ M²/S² Since none of the above dimensional analyses are correct, the question remains: What then are the dimensional units that could be applied to (π) and H_vrt? The simplest option to find the dimensions would be to use μ₀. Finding its relationship with (π) offers up a direct solution to the investigation. Since: π = μ₀ × H_vrt and thus μ₀ = π / H_vrt Then the following dimensions can be proposed. That H_vrt will have the units 1/S and (π) will be (M·KG)/(S³·A²) (temporarily, for purpose of analysis). Consequently, the following must therefore be true: μ₀ = π / H_vrt → ((M·KG)/(S³·A²)) / (1/S) = (M·KG)/(S²·A²) where μ₀ × H_vrt = π π = (H_vrt × Z₀) / C → (1/S × (M²·KG)/(S³·A²)) / (M/S) = (M·KG)/(S³·A²) H_vrt = (π × C) / Z₀ → ((M·KG)/(S³·A²)) / ((M²·KG)/(S³·A²)) × (M/S) = 1/S C = (H_vrt × Z₀) / π → (1/S × (M²·KG)/(S³·A²)) / ((M·KG)/(S³·A²)) = M/S As a further test of the validity of such an assumption, that (π) could be assigned the dimensions suggested, we find that: ε₀ = π / (H_vrt × Z₀²) → ((M·KG)/(S³·A²)) / (1/S × (M⁴·KG²)/(S⁶·A⁴)) = (S⁴·A²)/(M³·KG) When searching for meaning in the aforementioned equations, the commonality of (π) and (H_vrt) together leads to a suggestion that they are each part of a complex system of interacting properties. As such, it is found that as Z₀ is the impedance of the vacuum, then (H_vrt) would be the Vacuum frequency of oscillation and (π) is there for (temporarily) portrayed as the constant of vacuum curvature. The three parts must therefore play a role in providing a viable model for curvature control within the vacuum. Consequence of a dimensional (π)If π is to be given the dimensions (temporarily) let us then ask the obvious question, what will that do to the Planck scales? Does it make it easier to find other missing variables that have so far been elusive? If π = (M·KG)/(S³·A²) and C = L_p / t_p then: L_p = C × t_p → (H_vrt × Z₀ / π) × t_p = M t_p = L_p / C → L_p / ((H_vrt × Z₀) / π) = S If Planck’s constant (ħ) is e × 2ϕ (thus no π necessary), then dimensionally, this means that nothing changes for Planck’s constant, the Planck length, or the Planck time. The problem remains however that in order to calculate either the Planck length or Planck time from the gravitational viewpoint, the dimensional values of both (G) and (ħ) must be known, as the equations are: t_p = √(ħ × G / C⁵) and L_p = √(ħ × G / C³) Since the gravitational constant can be obtained through the Planck scales, simplicity dictates that (ħ) should be the best point for the investigation to continue. We therefore find that: ħ = h / 2π ≈ (e × 2ϕ) / 2π → ((KG·M²)/S) / ((KG·M)/(S³·A²)) = (KG·M²·S³·A²) / (S·KG·M) = M·A²·S² Analysis of the above equation leads to the determination that (ħ) is in actual fact a charged field in motion and that under the influence of that motion (in conjunction with 2π), an electromagnetic interaction (h) is produced. This then leads to the design of the Photon (when coupled with a frequency). In knowing the dimensions for (ħ), the dimensions for the Planck Energy (E_p) can now be calculated, such that: E_p = ħ / t_p = (M·A²·S²) / S = M·A²·S And the Planck mass (M_p) is: M_p = E_p / C² = (M·A²·S) / (M² / S²) = (A²·S³) / M If we now stop using units for π and instead use them for our proposed replacement product of tw_θ π such that: tw_θ = (M·KG)/(S³·A²) = 1 and π = standard dimensionless 3.141 Then: M_(p × tw_θ π) = ((A²·S³)/M) × ((M·KG)/(S³·A²)) = KG tw_θ = (M·KG)/(S³·A²) = ((A²·S³)/M × 1) / (S³·A²) = 1 So tw_θ is cancelled if you choose to substitute KG, leaving no units The Gravitational constant can now be derived from the above equations, such that: G = (ħ × C⁵) / (E_p²) = ((M·A²·S²) × (M⁵ / S⁵)) / (M²·A⁴·S²) = M⁴ / (S⁵·A²) Equivalent to: G = (t_p² × C⁵) / ħ = ((S² × M⁵) / S⁵) / (M·A²·S²) = M⁴ / (S⁵·A²) Since Gravity is yet to be deciphered with regards to the physical aspects of space-time, the proposal above that the constant of Gravitation would have the dimensions stated allow for a fresh look at the origins of this fundamental force (still to be determined). We will investigate such origins later in this paper and evaluate the validity of the dimensions attained. The last step for this segment is to define the dimensions of the remaining Planck scales with regards to (π), i.e., Force and Momentum: F_p = ħ / (t_p × l_p) = (M·A²·S²) / (S·M) = A²·S ≈ E_p / l_p = (M·A²·S) / M = A²·S p_p = F_p × t_p = A²·S × S = A²·S²

i agree somewhat, my new definition uses co-ordinates to enable the dimensions for pi. ie pi is dimensionless but in physical applications is accompanied by a magnetic torsion field twist factor in 3 dimensional space. when we look at a circle, we are looking at a flat plain ie x,y co-ordinates. this adds up to 360 degrees, by setting this to a value of 1 (1 loop of 360 degrees) we can then dictate that the z axis portrays the Longitudinal twist of a helix. thus giving rise to the ability to couple it with pi and assign units to the pair (carried by the twist). this then allows me to use pi in the way i did without declaring it to be anything other than it is.. more is coming from this how do you insert all these equations? or do you type them? i have decided to start a new conversation with my new and improved theory called - VRT - a Pi based twist reality, this was done to clear the air and start fresh.. hope you guys dont mind, hopefully ill see you there

yes i now agree, as i have explained. i found the flaw in my thinking and am correcting it now, thank you for your imput, i will be updating soon (no units for Pi) so i hope you will keep popping in and contributing..

Hi all, after taking the advice posted, I took another deep look at the theory. I realised to my amazement that the suggestion to couple pi with something else normalised to 1 actually already exists within the theory. The twist factor already does it.. if you apply the twist factor to the equation over 3 dimensional space xyz, then normalise xy to =1(at 360 degrees) then z (which represents the tangential twist is shown between 0 and 1 0-360degrees). This provides the same outcome as my initial theory without the need for pi to have units..rather I give the twist factor the units... i will post the updated work once it is done..thank you all. Hi maybe we could collaborate once I nail down the most important error. As I said earlier, I am putting this out open source so that we can advance science not to claim credit (if it's worth it) so I don't mind if we work together.. that goes for everyone....

Hi, i am currently adjusting it to show that pi does not need to be dimensional, but the whole thing will remain as is just there will be something added to clarify.. apparently they don't like it if you mess with pi, and now I see the error. I will keep you updated.. thank you for your comment.

Ok understood. I am now going to take the advice given Understood, sorry. I am going to take exchemists advice (which i think is brilliant and insightful) and re assess the theory from a new angle. That was exactly what I was looking for in the criticism and challenges to it. I will return when I have adjusted it.. until then thank you all No problem, I do apologise if I came across as a tad rude, I have had this kind of ridicule my whole life and I can get a little defensive about it.. as I tried to say the whole time, I do respect and appreciate all the criticism and advice from everyone Thank you

Very interesting angle, never thought about that.. I will look at that tomorrow. Thanks

i was referring to hf not h. in hf one of the s2 cancels out due to the 1/s. it was an error on my part to say h. I used E. I then used the full form based on a frequency of 2.5X106 (with ought following through with the cancellation to isolate what the time factors where so that i could find a value for Kg. Then i tested the value with other dimensions until i found a value that worked mathematically for all the dimensions (equations) in other words i can take a dimensional equation (in si units) for anything that is based on plank units and swap them for values to get the given value for that equation. this was pivotal in deriving other aspects such as the Ampere and G and as usual i wasnt clear, i didnt mean it made it independent of time Yes english is my first language but I am borderline dyslexic.. And as far as removing the claim that I gave pi dimensions, that would just end up being click bait, dishonest title. People would be more annoyed. The whole theory is based on that premise. The fact that people reject it on principle rather than content just shows how bad the community is.. they believe that they know everything and yet don't have answers to everything. It has always been that way unfortunately. I am only hoping that someone will be curious enough to look. Oh and they should also learn a little humility while their at it. Even prominent theories have floors and some get proven wrong after bieng initialy accepted, because new ways of thinking show mistakes. Maybe I am wrong, but until someone shows me a mistake (that changes the outcome drastically) in my math, I will continue to believe what I have

i made the same mistake (defining h in terms of energy(hf)) in the paper with-ought explanation, although it does not change any other results.. i have reduced the paper to its main principle (deriving pi and plank scales) to make it short and easy to read, however, unless i re-write the whole thing, it is not possible to post it here other than as a pdf. so a quick and easy read but it is an external paper.. hope someone reads it. otherwise its going to be a long chat trying to explain everything

yes.. i made the mistake

sorry was thinking of energy, hf. so E. but h = (kg⋅m2/s2.) / 1/s

since no one wants to read the paper and some are just intent on attacking me, let me clarify something. I started this paper to prove Pi has dimensions, During my journey, i realised that pi does not govern curvature in the vacuum (oh how i can hear the teeth grinding now) . Rather i found that Z0 does. this is realised due to the fact that nature does not provide perfect circles. (again teeth grinding). just read the paper and at least look at the logic/non logic that i used, then you can attack my idea and not me. Everything up until deriving Gravity and explaining what it is, is on me, after that is when ai used my theory to answer other questions and solve issues (again based on my theory, weather right or wrong) such as the de broglie wave (later called particle duality) and the 2 slit experiment. again, please just read it if you want to debate, there is no point in arguing with stubborn people who wont entertain the idea of change. thank you for proving my point

the first three aspects are what i set out in the paper, the last ones (as i noted) are an ai summery of my theory

when calculating planks constant (which by the way remains the same in my theory) the full equation is (kg m2 / s2 ) . s thus the 2 scancel and A is Ampere

i believe i have a good grasp on dimensional analysis, but as I have not been to uni myself, i evaluate my knowledge of physics as no better than a collage student. i did not do too bad with maths in school and have studied (at home) basic calculus. this is why i used ai to check and explain a lot of the later maths in the later part of the paper. I have been learning/studying physics for the last 15 years but again, not a physicist 'One thing is that different sets of both base units and/or base dimensions may be chosen which will make the actual values different.' - this is basically how i was able to identify some of what ive done. for example, when looking at planks constant, it is almost always shown as the factored version (cancelling the 2 time aspects) i did not, the reason, when i was trying to find the meaning of the units, one of the time units was a higher value than the other but the units themselves cancel out leaving just a number. This helped me derive values for Kg and A in all due respect (as you are no doubt far more educated than me) i am at liberty to point out that there is a situation that i believe (note the word believe) dictates units. as i said, maybe it is not pi in this situation, and not to sound ignorant or rude, but you are not at liberty to tell me what to think. I am not here to tell you how to think or demand that you believe anything i say, but if your not even going to read my theory and give it a chance, then please let other people make their own minds up instead of acting like you are the god of knowledge in this topic. You may ultimately be right, or wrong, but closing the door on a thought simply because you know better is exactly why progress is stifled. and again, i do not intend to offend and respect your opinion.

'So what about Reynolds Number ?' - i have not looked into it exactly but a i do now it is dimensionless according to fluid mechanics - but under my train of thought for this paper, if the number is derived from action then it must carry dimensions, but i state this with curiosity more than fact as i did with pi. to prove it, that is the challenge, and that is what i set out to do here. Now I do appreciate the curiosity, and I fully understand where you are coming from. There are lots of examples that could be quoted that 'Prove my thought' wrong. That does not change the fact that I chose to test the idea, to challenge the thought and see where it took me. So my motive is pure, i did not set out to find a new theory or to change the world, i just chose to challenge the high court of physics knowledge gods and see if anything else was possible. in conclusion, Although i made that statement, I in no way intend to suggest that all dimensionless numbers have to have units in reality. it was just the rule i set for myself for this particular theory because it did not sit comfortably with me that this number had no physical meaning/participation in the creation/manipulation of curvature within a mass filled universe. as an added note, my theory has thus far been unable to find a reason for the fine structure constant to have units even with the concept of pi having units. ( not through lack of trying). But that is the beauty of a theory, it can prove you right in one area and wrong in another, it is incumbent on us to accept the results either way, and if we really believe we are right to continue to look as i do.

no, we are agreed that it is the general conception of physics that there is no "Known" law that states it and therefore you are right in that respect, however I still believe it to be true for any constant that is a result of a physical action or reaction (my personal opinion).

as i said -"that is my out of the box train of thought" - this is simply the direction that i took as a postulate in order to find what i found, With any theory you need to start with a conviction and this was mine, sorry for the confusion..

hi guys, finally my 24 hour period is over so now i can reply to you (for those i didn't pm. here is my first summary for your interest. pleas comment, challenge or ask questions. - its a bit long but please make sure to read it all... Explanation of thought process Let me begin by expelling any misconception you might have of my intentions. I do not aim to replace π or to re-value it. My intention is to show that when we study the effects within the vacuum where curvature in any form is concerned, the fact that the value of π reveals itself (with ought exception, ie constant) dictates that some event within the functioning of said vacuum produces an effect that this constant describes. Now weather or not π has a physical effect on the vacuum or is just the result of action taken by the vacuum, it must still depict an event happening and thus must involve units (that is my out of the box train of thought). Again, I am not trying to change any known (well established and proven) theories or to suggest in any way they are wrong. I believe what I have found is an important side of physics that has been over looked. Now, it is to be determined if we indeed continue to call it Pi (when talking in this context) or if we decide to give it its own definition that is linked to Pi, that is not for me to decide. This paper is being offered open source in the hope that the community can work together to solve the issues. The use of Ai later in the paper was maybe a mistake, but I did limit what it could suggest by telling it what my idea was and rejecting a lot of solutions it came up with due to not complying with (what I know of) experimentally and mathematically proven theories and Overview Vacuum Resonance Theory (VRT) suggests that the use of π in physical applications must be due to causality. This simply means that when dealing with the calculations of curvature in the physical world (not in imaginary projects that have no physical meaning) it (the vacuum) does not do this for no reason as physics has suggested (that π remains dimensionless), rather just as all other constants, the vacuum does something that results in π as the middle ground. This is the basis of the theory, Pi must have a behind the scenes physical interacting reason for always being the value it is, otherwise it should be changeable. The theory also suggests (as a possibility) a reinterpretation of some fundamental constants, particle formation, and field interactions as emergent phenomena from the geometry and oscillation of the vacuum itself. Rather than modifying existing physical laws, VRT provides a geometric substrate behind established physics, offering a curvature-based origin for mass derivation, charge, and resonance. The theory shows how current maths fails (in relation to units) when confronted with certain equations, in these cases the reaction of most physicists is to say, even though the answer is correct, the units aren’t so it means nothing.. We strongly dispute that and show why Here is an example of one such calculation C = Hvrt Z0 / Pi = M2 Kg / A2 S3 which is not m/s where Hvrt and π are (according to physics) dimensionless. and Hvrt is a derived number in the theory of 2.5 x 106 (this is a known quantity within physics) In this, they would say that just because the resulting number is the same doesn’t mean its right? We are challenging all of that thinking and saying it does we just haven’t understood why yet. Core Principles Dimensional π (Pi): In VRT, π is assigned physical units: This dimensional form allows π to serve as a curvature-completion operator within the vacuum field. Vacuum Twist Tension (A²): A universal vacuum curvature constant: This tension defines the energy density needed to form stable field curvature structures. Unit derivision A and Kg: derived by first defining what A is in terms of units. Further, we solve for kg, and give reasoning behind what we do. Testable Predictions ( suggested by ai) Electron Mass/Charge Correlation: Predicts that all charged leptons possess the same internal twist-unit charge (545,590), differing only in curvature depth (mass). Resonant Decay Geometry: During beta decay, VRT predicts that the expelled energy forms an up-quark-like seed that is immediately captured into a vacuum twist, forming an electron. Predictable based on curvature energy profiles. π-Twist Completion Threshold: A particle acquires rest mass only once its twist geometry achieves a full π-radian closure — predicts why mass less particles remain mass less (e.g. photons). Experimental Suggestions (suggested by ai) Investigate geometric asymmetries in high-energy decay to test the emergence of twist resonance wells. Design Casimir-style torsion traps to observe spontaneous curvature formation. Test for twist-unit charge quantization via electron orbital perturbation under vacuum modulation. for anyone interested in the full theory, i will make it available.

thats not what i am saying. again if you read the theory, at least the first part, you would find that i do not change the meaning of pi when using for geometry as it is not needed (there are no units in maths (geometry). the units are only needed when dealing with physical curvature, and when you read what i wrote, even a circles circumference is a length, only it is attained by using physical (1st principle) equations. it is not as simple as saying, if we use pi to calculate an imaginary circular object we must have units, of course not because no forces or actions are being applied by the vacuum to produce the result. Just a note, I do appreciate your asking these questions, it will help me to better explain things in the future. So thank you and keep going

ok, i get your thought about it, but your overlooking the fundamental position, the number 2 is a number we add to something, if you read the theory you would see that i also tackle this, the vacuum (universe) does not see 2, it sees only 1, and many of them, each unit(object) is treated as such and cumulative results are what we add numbers to. This goes for pi also i agree, but if we did not give it a value then it would still have an effect (the same effect) and it is constant. the number 2 is not, it can mean different things, 2 of this 2 of that. All i want is an open mind to the idea that pi would be the result of actions within the vacuum as apposed to just a ratio (the vacuum is deliberate in what it does). The plank scales are still open to interpretation and not set in stone as to what they are. ok, i say that pi is kg . m / A2 . S3, and that in actual vacuum (physicality) no circle ever fully closes due to magnetic and electric influence (so it spirals). its all layed out in the theory. and by the way, the part about pi and the results of the dimensional changes, is all me, ai had no say in it, the rest of the paper is where i used ai, the first part on pi is the result of me working for 2 years and is also written by me

hi, thanks for your response, and yes the back end of the paper is written using ai to get the terminology right, however, the first part of the paper about pi and the plank scales is all mine. as for pi bieng a ratio between 2 numbers, i agree when you look at it mathematically, but when you see that nothing in the universe could exist with ought it and that it does not vary, then there has to be a reason why the value is what it is.. or you would have to think that we live in a matrix, where someone just imputed a number out of thin air and said "no matter what the universe does, this number will always apply". that is the premise of the theory, i am absolutely not trying to prove physics wrong, just trying to understand how we see what we see. as for the ai, that is why i placed it here, i told it how to treat certain aspects and then re write it in scientific terms, so no this is not an ai theory, it is mine , ai was used only to write and search for information that i needed to compare