Tau-ism: Pi is wrong

Discussion concerning the first major re-evaluation of Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal System of theory, updated to include counterspace (Etheric spaces), projective geometry, and the non-local aspects of time/space.
Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 1373
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am

Tau-ism: Pi is wrong

Post by bperet » Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 am

I ran across an in interesting concept, quite by accident, saying that π is "wrong," in the sense that our use of it as a "datum" is incorrect.

The Tau Manifesto

If you ignore all the propaganda on the site (which was done to make it go "viral"), the concept is this: we should treat the unit circle as a unit, with a circumference of "one tau," rather than "two pi." This has an interesting consequence of eliminating the "2" or "1/2" used all over the place and putting equations back in line with a conceptual basis.

On the surface, it does not seem to make a whole lot of difference, as π=τ/2, so mathematically, it is of no relevance. BUT, conceptually it makes a huge difference when trying to understand concepts in the Reciprocal System.

Conventional physics bases all their notions on the concept of charge, which we know to be a vibration. Pi is a measure of a "unit of vibration," from one zero crossing to the next on a sine-wave plot. To get a full cycle, 2 units of vibration are required.

The Reciprocal System, however, is based on rotation, so it would make sense to use a unit of measure that equates to a "full unit" of rotation: tau. (Larson's work is usually 1-dimensional, so tau would be appropriate. Nehru and myself use n-dimensional, so I am adding Ω, the datum of solid rotation, as a counterpoint to π):

π = datum of charge
τ = datum of electric rotation = 2π
Ω = datum of magnetic rotation (solid angle) = 2τ = 4π

It is also interesting if you redefine area... normally, A = πr2

But when using tau:

A = ½τr2

Which looks a LOT like...

y = ½gt2
u = ½kx2
k = ½mv2

So we can see a conceptual relationship connecting analogous concepts in other disciplines.

If you have read my paper on Quantum Pi, you will know that in a discrete, quantized system (no curves--only stepped lines), π=4. But this does not seem to correlate well with known, RS concepts... let's take a look at Quantum Tau, where τ = 8.

The number "8" shows up all over the RS, particularly in the context of 1D, electrical motion. A 1D electric rotation is equivalent to 8 linear units of motion... in other words, we "unroll" a circle into 8 pieces--a unit of Tau, τ=8.

When you subdivide a circle, you end up with simple fractions, 1/2τ (180), 1/3τ (120), 1/4τ (90)... and when you include the τ=8 relation, you get the series of 8, 45-degree angles, which is the framework used by Eric Dollard in all of his advanced, electrical relations.

Most of the datums used in the RS are the center of a system of measure, for example:

Unity: 0 ← 1 → ∞
Motion: s/t ← 1/1 → t/s
Displacement: (x) ← 1 → x
Inverse: 1/2 ← 1/1 → 2/1

So why use:

π → 2π → 4π

When conceptually we can duplicate the center datum:

π (1/2 τ) ← τ (1/1) → Ω (2/1 τ)

There are also some interesting "imaginary" concepts:

e = -1 ...but... e = +1

A single unit of tau brings you full circle.

When thinking about these concepts, it also occurred to me that it may solve the conundrum of Larson's "specific rotations" in Basic Properties of Matter. Larson, in his other books, pounds into your head that there are NO fractional units--the minimum is ONE. Then you pick up BPOM and see it full of ½-units, called "specific rotation."

What I think happened here is that Larson picked the wrong datum of measurement (again, as demonstrated by his charge model, negative/negative*, positive/positive*). And electric rotation has 8 units associated with it. But the specific rotation is not electric--it is magnetic, and the datum has shifted from τ (8) to Ω (16), so now he is trying to express 16 magnetic units (two, magnetic dimensions of 4 units each, 42 = 16) in terms of electric units--and does not have enough, so he had to resort to a half-unit notation.

For example, a 4½τ specific rotation is actually a 9Ω solid rotation. It seems that he never realized that "specific" is actually "magnetic."

I was thinking of using these π, τ and Ω datum concepts in future papers, as it helps to distinguish if you are working with charge, electric or magnetic rotation. Right now, with everything expressed in terms of π, it tends to get mixed together. Thoughts?
Every dogma has its day...

User avatar
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

Re: Tau-ism: Pi is wrong

Post by Horace » Sat Jan 06, 2018 8:31 am

Good idea.

Posts: 20
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 4:04 pm
Location: Southern New Mexico

Re: Tau-ism: Pi is wrong

Post by wsitze » Sat Aug 04, 2018 10:19 pm


User avatar
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:53 am
Location: P3X-774

Conceptual basis behind Tau

Post by daniel » Sun Aug 05, 2018 9:59 am

Here's a good example of the conceptual problems with math and science. You are taught to memorize these simple formulas, but they never explain how they work:

circumference = 2πr
Area = πr2

Let's change to Tau...

c = τr

which is the "equation" for the length of a circle. To get an area "under the curve," we integrate:

A = ∫ τr dr = ½τr2

This behaves just like all the other equations, mathematically and conceptually. What we are taught is basically "hidden" with π -- but obvious with τ. I like this because as we further develop RS2, it is getting simpler to understand... "KISS -- Keep It Simple, Stupid!" The Universe should be a simple place.

Now consider something like E=mc2, where Larson was saying that c2 was just a "factor" to make the units come out right, but I disagree--every component of an equation should have an associate concept and physical reason for being there. No "universal constants" allowed, just to make an equation's units balance.

This would indicate that the mass term is analogous to π. If we make a similar adjustment, m=w/2:

E = ½wc2

And there's the same equation form, again, dealing with integration. To find out what is underlying the concept, we can differentiate it, and this shows up:

ρ = wc

Where ρ is momentum, making E the energy of that momentum--not a "mass-energy equivalence."

This is where I find conventional science and math truly FAIL--the inability to connect similar concepts together across disciplines. Mathematicians reduce things to make writing them down simpler, but in the process, destroy the "continuity of consciousness" that gets you from point A to point B. End result is that science has become very difficult to understand, since these folks erased all the roads on the map. By adding those paths back in, the system becomes much simpler--many "side streets" merge into superhighways, just because you don't need 10 equations to do the work of one.

Post Reply