I really enjoy your videos. And I must point out, your voice has the same smooth eerie tone of HAL 9000.

I love your videos, always food for thought! Thank you.

Also, Riemann and Hilbert did a great job on non-Euclidean geometries

This is my most recent contribution to the problem. (ATIa) = (number of sides x 180) - 360 = (4 x 180) - 360 = 360 degrees The inside angle of a square (Ia) = ((ATIa)/360) x (Oa) = 90 degrees. Apparent Total inside angle (ATIa) = 90 x 4 = 360 degrees. (M) = (ATIa)/360 = 360/360 =1 (M) = (Ia)/outside angle (Oa) = 90/90 =1 (Oa) = 360/number of sides 360/4 = 90 degrees (Oa) = (iA) X 360)/(ATIa) (90 X 360)/360 = 90 degrees Total inside angle (TIa) = (ATIa)/(2M) = 360/(2 x 1) =180 degrees (ATIa) = (5 x 180) - 360 = 540 degrees (Ia) of a pentagon = (540/360) x 72 = 108 degrees. Apparent Total inside angle (ATIa) = 108 x 5 = 540 degrees. (M) = 540/360 = 1.5 (M) = 108/72 = 1.5 (Oa) = 360/5 = 72 degrees (Oa) = (108 x 360)/540 = 72 degrees (TIa) =540/(2 X 1.5) = 180 degrees (ATIa) = (6 x 180) - 360 = 720 degrees (Ia) of a hexagon = (720/360) x 60 = 120 degrees. Apparent Total inside angle (ATIa) = 120 x 6 = 720 degrees. (M) = 720/360 = 2 (M) = 120/60 = 2 (Oa) = 360/6 = 60 degrees (Oa) = (120 x 360)/720 = 60 degrees (TIa) =720/(2 X 2) = 180 degrees (ATIa) = (8 x 180) - 360 = 1080 degrees (Ia) of a octagon = (1080/360) x 45 = 135 degrees. Apparent Total inside angle (ATIa) = 135 x 8 = 1080 degrees. (M) = 1080/360 = 3 (M) = 135/45 = 3 (Oa) = 360/8 = 45 degrees (Oa) = (135 x 360)/1080 = 45 degrees (TIa) =1080/(2 X 3) = 180 degrees The inside angle of any polygon always equals 180 degrees. The outside angle of any polygon always equals 360 degrees. I left the triangle for last. (ATIa) = (3 x 180) - 360 = 180 degrees (Ia) of a triangle = (180/360) x 120 = 60 degrees. Apparent Total inside angle (ATIa) = 60 x 3 = 180 degrees. (M) = 180/360 = .5 (M) = 60/120 = .5 (Oa) = 360/3 = 120 degrees (Oa) = (60 x 360)/180 = 120 degrees (TIa) =180/(2 X .5) = 180 degrees The following demonstration of the circle should clinch my hypothesis! (ATIa) = (1 x 180) - 360 = -180 degrees (Ia) of a circle = (-180/360) x 1 = -180 degrees. Apparent Total inside angle (ATIa) = -180 x 1 = -180 degrees. (M) = -180/360 = -.5 (M) = -180/360 = -.5 (Oa) = 360/1 = 360 degrees (Oa) = (-180 x 360)/-180 = 360 degrees (TIa) =-180/(2 X -.5) = 180 degrees BOOM!!! if this didn't solve the problem, nothing will! The true total inside angle of every polygon in existence is always 180 degrees as demonstrated by my work. A single straight line that bisects any circle is equal to zero degrees: (ATIa) = (2 x 180) - 360 = 0 As for the triangle maintaining all it's angles in curved space, the triangle would move freely with any gravitational waves. I postulate that the triangle would not resist the flow of energy, so it would not be distorted in any way... i was incorrect in my original postulation. Although, the outside angle does always equal 360 degrees and 360/2 = 180' However, this does not prove anything conclusively, but what follows does. This is my most recent contribution to the problem. (ATIa) = (number of sides x 180) - 360 = (4 x 180) - 360 = 360 degrees The inside angle of a square (Ia) = ((ATIa)/360) x (Oa) = 90 degrees. Apparent Total inside angle (ATIa) = 90 x 4 = 360 degrees. (M) = (ATIa)/360 = 360/360 =1 (M) = (Ia)/outside angle (Oa) = 90/90 =1 (Oa) = 360/number of sides 360/4 = 90 degrees (Oa) = (iA) X 360)/(ATIa) (90 X 360)/360 = 90 degrees Total inside angle (TIa) = (ATIa)/(2M) = 360/(2 x 1) =180 degrees (ATIa) = (5 x 180) - 360 = 540 degrees (Ia) of a pentagon = (540/360) x 72 = 108 degrees. Apparent Total inside angle (ATIa) = 108 x 5 = 540 degrees. (M) = 540/360 = 1.5 (M) = 108/72 = 1.5 (Oa) = 360/5 = 72 degrees (Oa) = (108 x 360)/540 = 72 degrees (TIa) =540/(2 X 1.5) = 180 degrees (ATIa) = (6 x 180) - 360 = 720 degrees (Ia) of a hexagon = (720/360) x 60 = 120 degrees. Apparent Total inside angle (ATIa) = 120 x 6 = 720 degrees. (M) = 720/360 = 2 (M) = 120/60 = 2 (Oa) = 360/6 = 60 degrees (Oa) = (120 x 360)/720 = 60 degrees (TIa) =720/(2 X 2) = 180 degrees (ATIa) = (8 x 180) - 360 = 1080 degrees (Ia) of a octagon = (1080/360) x 45 = 135 degrees. Apparent Total inside angle (ATIa) = 135 x 8 = 1080 degrees. (M) = 1080/360 = 3 (M) = 135/45 = 3 (Oa) = 360/8 = 45 degrees (Oa) = (135 x 360)/1080 = 45 degrees (TIa) =1080/(2 X 3) = 180 degrees The inside angle of any polygon always equals 180 degrees. The outside angle of any polygon always equals 360 degrees. I left the triangle for last. (ATIa) = (3 x 180) - 360 = 180 degrees (Ia) of a triangle = (180/360) x 120 = 60 degrees. Apparent Total inside angle (ATIa) = 60 x 3 = 180 degrees. (M) = 180/360 = .5 (M) = 60/120 = .5 (Oa) = 360/3 = 120 degrees (Oa) = (60 x 360)/180 = 120 degrees (TIa) =180/(2 X .5) = 180 degrees The following demonstration of the circle should clinch my hypothesis! (ATIa) = (1 x 180) - 360 = -180 degrees (Ia) of a circle = (-180/360) x 1 = -180 degrees. Apparent Total inside angle (ATIa) = -180 x 1 = -180 degrees. (M) = -180/360 = -.5 (M) = -180/360 = -.5 (Oa) = 360/1 = 360 degrees (Oa) = (-180 x 360)/-180 = 360 degrees (TIa) =-180/(2 X -.5) = 180 degrees BOOM!!! if this didn't solve the problem, nothing will! The true total inside angle of every polygon in existence is always 180 degrees as demonstrated by my work. A single straight line that bisects any circle is equal to zero degrees: (ATIa) = (2 x 180) - 360 = 0 As for the triangle maintaining all it's angles in curved space, the triangle would move freely with any gravitational waves. I postulate that the triangle would not resist the flow of energy, so it would not be distorted in any way...

@francesshealingpoemsfortwo5734

3 жыл бұрын

Wow, I still don't understand, but here is my contribution to solving what makes Jesus Christ the greatest healer of all time 🕊💖🕊 Blessings Jesus Christ is coming quickly...Our body is The Temple for God's Love to be made whole and One in us through Jesus Christ, The One anointed with the whole spirit of God's Love for twofold peace:Jerusalem for New Jerusalem for healing All Nations and Heaven on Earth as promised by God who is Love. God's #Loveisnotacortisol 🕊💖🕊We wlll all be changed 'just as in the twinkling of an eye' - because the change is a nervous system change from stress and fear to Love. Love is always positive. Love is not a cortisol but an endorphin blood made whole in us for Healing for All Nations and Heaven on Earth as promised by God who is Love through Jesus Christ, Amen, Ameen, Shalom, Namaste, twofold peace to All Nations in accord with God's promise to wipe away every tear and to remove pain and suffering from man and woman to make them kind in His Love, Amen Ameen, Shalom, Namaste, twofold peace to All Nations, there is no division with God's Love, we are all One with and in God's Love made whole in us through the whole spirit anointed, namely Jesus Christ, Amen. Blessings, Jesus Christ is returning Quickly. Check out this sun, the fulness at 3 mins 50 seconds. kzread.info/dash/bejne/fKdsk82daZSne5c.html Jesus Christ said the stones would cry out. This the cry I hear kzread.info/dash/bejne/Z4V2s7Sqodi3pZM.html Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ who is coming quickly for Healing for All Nations. Love is not a cortisol but an endorphin blood made from God's Love made whole in us. Amen. Ameen. Maranatha. Shalom. Namaste. Twofold Peace and Healing to All Nations... Maranatha. Parousia. Come Lord Jesus Christ Come 🕊💖🕊💖🕊💖🕊💖🕊💖🕊💖🕊💖🕊💖 Peace One Day kzread.info/dash/bejne/mHiXkpt_n8W1d9I.html Building Bridges One Love kzread.info/dash/bejne/qaaft4-pp86zpMo.html The End kzread.info/dash/bejne/iHukpMdqitubhtY.html Love is not a cortisol but an endorphin blood made whole in us for Healing for All Nations for twofold peace and Heaven on Earth as promised in Revelation. Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ Amen. Ameen. Shalom. Namaste. Peace to All through the spirit of Love made whole in us. Thanks be to God who is Love. 🕊💖🕊💖🕊💖🕊💖🕊💖🕊💖🕊💖🕊💖 Amen. Ameen. Shalom. Namaste. Peace for All Nations for Heaven on Earth...🕊💖🕊 A New Heaven Revelation 21 kzread.info/dash/bejne/eaF_lriBoK3dms4.html

Actually, Euclid's Fifth Postulate has two equally valid alternative postulates, each alternative postulate working to give a new Non-Euclidean Geometry. Mathematicians Bolyai, Riemann, and Lobachevsky in fact worked out the alternative Geometries.

Fractal Geometry is one of my favorite queries.

Mathematics majors we call them Axioms and postulates Law majors call them Axioms. But Non Euclidean Geometry still have to have postulates but it seems the extend as a variation or negation at times of Euclidean Geometry

Does this mean that the 180 degree theory is true in Euclidian 2D space but not in non Euclidian 3D space? Is there a formula for a curved triangle in non Euclidian space? It would be fascinating to see 3D printed structures using non Euclidian space, no?

What is the song you used in the backround?

4:04 a planar triangle inscribed in the snow at the North Pole and expanded equally on all three sides to encompass Earth becomes more and more a spherical triangle as it proceeds and becomes a single straight equatorial line half way down - though taking a large circular form! The underlying question not mentioned here is where the sexegisimal numeration for spatial considerations is derived from and how the 360 degrees of a circle are constructed. The route is into sacred number and geometry. A planar triangle is a straight line wrapped up into a ‘least-system’ - is it not? And a straight line is 180 degrees of a circle.

Euclid's 5th postulate is based on 2d parallel lines. As the curvature expands in space it's no longer 2d nor parallel.

i would be curious to know, if we are given any triangle mapped onto a sphere- does the sum of all three angles always equal 9 if you reduce them down ? for example if we have an angle of 77.019101+x.xxxxxx+x.xxxxx you would take each of those, 77.09101= 25=7. so reduce them all to a single digit number, add them up and reduce that to a single digit number. i have a hunch it will always be 9 or 9.99999repeating with a single random digit at the end.... well its not really random... anyone care to check for me?

I would argue that there is no problem with the fifth postulate. It simply provides rigor for our intuition about how parallel lines differ from non-parallel lines. What is a problem is that Euclidean geometry leaves many basic concepts undefined, relying entirely on our intuition. Note that there is no postulate or proof defining the measures of angles, for instance. The given proof depends entirely on our intuition that an "angle" of 180 degrees forms a straight line. Nowhere in Euclid will you find a proof that there are 90 degrees in a right angle, or 180 degrees in a line, or 360 degrees in a complete circle or any other definition of how angles are to be measured, and in fact there are alternative ways of measuring angles, radians, for instance, also gradians. If you're using radians or gradians then the interior angles of a triangle *do not* add up to 180 degrees.

You need to add a variable that's constantly moving we're not stationary neither should are triangles.

please, that was very simple, 30 thousand visit just for this

I guess I'm confused, what more proof would anyone need? The math shows that 180 degrees is always the sum of the angles in the triangle... who is saying that it's not proven?

@robinrwilsonsauls

9 жыл бұрын

***** I suppose the mystery is what is accepted as proof.

@TannerKong

9 жыл бұрын

If 1+1=2 is proof that the sum of 1+1 is 2... I don't see how adding angles has some sort of mysterious loophole that requires some extraordinary magical evidence. The sum of the angles equals 180, that's proven through math.

@bloggervista

9 жыл бұрын

***** Sum of triangle is not 180 in non euclidian space It means there is flaws in 5th postulates . 1+1 is also not true in binary system .only in decimal system it is true :)

@TannerKong

9 жыл бұрын

binary is 0 and 1... not sure what you're getting at there. you can't just tell people that are intelligent.... shit that doesn't make sense lol.

@TannerKong

9 жыл бұрын

1 apple added to 1 apple would equal 2 apples... let's stop trying to apply metaphorical and, dare I say, religious points of view to math. Binary is true and false.

There is no life possible without flaws. Perfection is Death to creation. I wish people could understand this one day.

@publicalways

Жыл бұрын

that is some food for thought. thank you as i suddenly have a new found realisation of what perfection actually would mean 🙏

Owe my ears 4:12

It's not fair to call these results"flaws". That depends entirely on the context. The achievement of non-Euclidean geometries is to realize applications to other topologies such as a sphere or hyperbola. There is recent evidence that our universe appears to be hyperbolic in that triangles sum to less than 180 degrees. It's too soon to say if this is "flawed".

Voces estao ficando lokos

First appearing in Ancient Greece?! Lies.

@nickolas6664

4 жыл бұрын

Damn, I noticed that statement also.

@JustinBlastoff

4 жыл бұрын

Still, very interesting information

@LionofLight777

4 жыл бұрын

Alright folks...Say it with me now...The First appearance of sacred geometry?...Ancient Egypt!😲

@MEMORIES-OF-PSYCHONAUT

4 жыл бұрын

Why do you say that is the lie? You are talking to a Greek now. Also do you know how many words the world language has? Which is from greece? Do you know where the so-called democracies come from ?? I dont speak english Sorry for my bad english

@lilmike7467

4 жыл бұрын

AZRAEL because Europeans conquered the majority of the world. History is told from that perspective. We cannot ignore ancient Nile valley civilizations and there influence on megaliths and sacred knowledge around the globe. I overstand ancient Greeks went down to Egypt to learn sacred geometry/art do you?

It's good to call this ancient just about 2000 years, if you need to represent "true" ancient you should refer vedic texts in India, which would be true ancient 😊, anyway thanks for sharing

Does the obvious have to be proven?

@chicchi1682

4 жыл бұрын

Lol if you are a math major . You'd know the obvious answer to this is yes😂 Your professor can literally expect you to write a 3pg proof on why 1+1=2. But I think the proof in this case suffices it's just when we start going into space or other dimensions and hypothetical worlds but that's what math people are good at overthinking and trying to find absolutes in even dimensions they've never seen. Fantasy is the true nature of the discipline

Triangle is 180° 8+1 = 9 being a holy number 3 being the holy trinity. So many things that strangely leave hints at something deeper.

It doesnt fail , its you inserting a fail in to it , like Curved Space time , that does not exist , so if i take a Cube , and i draw it on paper , now i rip the paper apart , OMG there is no more 90 degree angles , yeah i ripped it apart . Taht is what you did there by introducing Curved Space time that you never observed , nor can you point where it is , nor do you know how it works because it doesn't , you might think it does , so that is a fail on top of a fail , and if we go like that then Geometry will fail , but actually its you that failed .

Sacred geometry, the creator got it perfectly!

You didn't disprove anything about basic Geometry. Where is your argument against Euclid's proof? Can you write it up and explain your math? You bent a 3D model of a triangle against SPACE.JPEG and concluded "Spacetime."

Riveting

10thdim

CHRIST HAS RETURNED. HIS NEW NAME IS BAHA'U'LLAH. HIS FAITH IS CALLED THE BAHAI FAITH.

Amenpeacebewithyou future present past in All dimensions for all eternity in the name of Jesus H Christ