Kryon and pi in base-12

I was reading the "The Message" forum and it got me thinking. I used to read Kryon channellings. I believe that the channellings are genuine. Kryon (Lee Carroll) has channelled many new scientific and mathematical theories. I have always thought that this kind of information will make or break the channeler.

I came across one of his channellings that mentioned base-12 math system that shows up in everything in the universe. He mentioned that pi is rational when converted to base-12. Here's the quote:

For instance, does it make sense to you that one of the most profound equations that you have, being that of the circle - called pi [π] - is an irrational number? [An irrational number in math is one having an infinite and nonrecurring expansion when expressed as a decimal.] It goes forever! Does that make sense for one of the most profound formulas of the Universe? We happen to know that on one of your spacecrafts to communicate with anybody who might find it, you put that number pi right on the plaque on the spacecraft. It’s like a communication in math, in case any intelligent life-force should find it, they would then say, "Oh, Humans have pi! Therefore, they must be intelligent." Let me tell you what an intelligent society will know when they see that. They will look at it and say, "These creatures are flying in space, and they don’t even have base-12! Look what they think pi is! They must still be in base-10." It’s like finding an advanced society with black and white TV. π as expressed in base-12 is not an irrational number.

Source: www.kryon.com...

This has bothered me so much. Can anyone help me with this? Maybe confirm this or debunk it? I have converted pi to base 12.

PI in base_12 = 3.184809493b9186459aaa3a83 (approximation)

Thanks

For instance, does it make sense to you that one of the most profound equations that you have, being that of the circle - called pi [π] - is an irrational number?

A circle is a shape, defined by an equation in polar or cartesian form - but it doesn't involve pi. Perhaps, when defined parametrically, pi is needed to evaluate the sin and cos functions.

The area and perimeter of a circle are defined in terms of pi.

Does that make sense for one of the most profound formulas of the Universe?

Formula or constant? I'm not sure what the author is trying to push here?

Pi as expressed in base-12 is not an irrational number.

If pi can be expressed as a rational number in base 12, then what is it? Why did the author inform us that it can be done, but not show us the result?

Read all about Pi. If pi was rational in any base, I'm pretty certain that it would be mentioned in the link...

reply to post by tezzajw


Thank you.

I found this in en.wikipedia.org...

As for irrational numbers, none of them has a finite representation in any of the rational-based positional number systems (such as the decimal and duodecimal ones); this is because a rational-based positional number system is essentially nothing but a way of expressing quantities as a sum of fractions whose denominators are powers of the base, and by definition no finite sum of rational numbers can ever result in an irrational number.

pi in decimal = 3.14159265358979323...
pi in duodecimal = 3.184809493B9186645...

pi is irrational in any base system.

Im kinda disappointed. I really like kryon channellings. They are really good. I am thinking about sending Lee Carroll an email about this.

Originally posted by itisibrian

pi in decimal = 3.14159265358979323...
pi in duodecimal = 3.184809493B9186645...

pi is irrational in any base system.

Hehe, well a friend of mine in HS once tried to make a base-pi number system.

You only imagine this post to be one line long...

Jon

Originally posted by itisibrian
Im kinda disappointed. I really like kryon channellings. They are really good. I am thinking about sending Lee Carroll an email about this.

Don't bother. He's already proven that he'll make some crackpot theory about numbers when he really has no idea.

If he knew that pi was rational in base-12, then he would have made an important discovery that would have made mainstream media news.

When Andrew Wiles proved Fermat's Last Theorem, it made headlines around the world.

Based on the crap that he has published on his webpage, Lee Carroll is a fraud.

reply to post by Voxel


NOW Im interested lol. Im off to study irrational-base number systems Thanks.

Maybe, instead of changing the irrational number pi into a base 12 number....someone should start at the beginning and figure out the real number for pi in base 12

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Maybe, instead of changing the irrational number pi into a base 12 number....someone should start at the beginning and figure out the real number for pi in base 12

Ok, so are you prepared to wait around forever?

Pi, regardless of which base it is being expressed in, will have a non-terminating string of decimals that occur without a pattern.

Even if you do wait forever, you'll still have to wait another day, then another, then another until you continue waiting forever for your result.

Note, that Kryon doesn't tell that PI should be rational. He tells that PI is not irrational in base-12 system. What if there is a third type of number that we don't know yet, and that is not rational AND not irrational?

Nonsense?

TV was nonsense too some time ago...

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Note, that Kryon doesn't tell that PI should be rational. He tells that PI is not irrational in base-12 system. What if there is a third type of number that we don't know yet, and that is not rational AND not irrational?
Nonsense?

Yes, it's nonsense.

Complete, utter nonsense.

reply to post by itisibrian


To Lee Carrol and team:

Kryon says that pi in base 12 is a rational number. My question is what
is the base 12 number and how do you calculate it?

Reply:

Philip:

I wish we knew! Kryon's comments are an invitation to discover a math that shouts that ours is a bit 3D (smile). So it's an invitation to discover more...

Blessings,

The Kryon team

We have told you for many, many years that the elegant science of physics should be base-12. It is an interdimensional math that includes a zero that doesn’t mean nothing or infinity. A zero in universal base-12 math means the potentials of all the answers probable. It’s not an empirical math as in 3D, yet this math will bring you some realizations when you begin to use it. For instance, does it make sense to you that one of the most profound equations that you have, being that of the circle - called pi [π] - is an irrational number? [An irrational number in math is one having an infinite and nonrecurring expansion when expressed as a decimal.] It goes forever! Does that make sense for one of the most profound formulas of the Universe? We happen to know that on one of your spacecrafts to communicate with anybody who might find it, you put that number pi right on the plaque on the spacecraft. It’s like a communication in math, in case any intelligent life-force should find it, they would then say, "Oh, Humans have pi! Therefore, they must be intelligent." Let me tell you what an intelligent society will know when they see that. They will look at it and say, "These creatures are flying in space, and they don’t even have base-12! Look what they think pi is! They must still be in base-10." It’s like finding an advanced society with black and white TV. π as expressed in base-12 is not an irrational number.

PI in base-12

Here I introduce some interesting facts about PI in base-12 when arranged in triangular form.

PI in base-12:

3.184809493b918664573a6211bb151551a05729290a7809a492742140a60a55256a0661a03753a3aa54805646880181a3682353


I use the visualization as an triangle, arranged in 12 rows:

...........3...........
..........1.8..........
.........4.8.0.........
........9.4.9.3........
.......B.9.1.8.6.......
......6.4.5.7.3.A......
.....6.2.1.1.B.B.1.....
....5.1.5.5.1.A.0.5....
...7.2.9.2.9.0.A.7.8...
..0.9.A.4.9.2.7.4.2.1..
.4.0.A.6.0.A.5.5.2.5.6.
A.0.6.6.1.A.0.3.7.5.3.A


What I have done with this triangle:

1. count all sides (sum)
2. use the numerological count of each side (e.g. 15 is numerologically condensed 1+5=6)

First some notes:

Note 1: All calculations are done in base-12.
Note 2: Reading left side: first 3 numbers are 3,1,4 and this is interesting also (first 3 digits of PI base-10).
Note 3: First 3 numbers of PI-base12 are: 3,1,8. Numerologically: 3+1+8=1 (in base-12). Same is true with PHI (the golden number) in base12: (PHI, base12: 1.74BB67728) --> 1+7+4 = 1.
Note 4: Sum of all the edges: 3+A+A = 1B = 1.
Note 5: Take the small triangle from all the edges and use numerological sum: TOP: 3+1+8=1, BOTTOM LEFT: 4+A+0=12=3, BOTTOM RIGHT: 6+3+A=17=8. As you note, these numbers are same as in the top triangle (3,1,8).

1. Counting all sides:

3+1+4+9+B+6+6+5+7+0+4+A = 56 --> numerologically = B
+0+6+6+1+a+0+3+7+5+3+a = 99
+6+1+8+5+1+a+6+3+0+8 =139 --> numerologically (base-12 ofcourse) = 11 = 2

2. Numerological sums:

Left: 3+1+4+9+B+6+6+5+7+0+4+A = 56 --> numerologically B
Bottom: A+0+6+6+1+A+0+3+7+5+3+A = 51 --> numerologically 6
Right: 3+8+0+3+6+A+1+5+8+1+6+A = 51 --> numerologically 6

Sum of all sides numerologically: 1

Note 6: summing the base-12 numbers: 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+A+B = 56 (equals the left side of the triangle, numerologically = B)
Note 7: It seems that with PI, Base-12 (trivially also base-2 and base-3) are the only (small) bases where the numerological sum of the first 3 numbers produce 10, i.e numerologically condensed 1.
-----------------------
base2: 11.0010010000111111011010101000100... --> 10
base3: 10.01021101222201021... --> 1
base4: 3.0210033312... --> 11
base5: 3.0323221430... --> 11
base6: 3.0503300514... --> 12
base7: 3.0663651432... --> 12
base8: 3.1103755242... --> 5
base9: 3.1241881240... --> 6
base10: 3.1415926535...--> 8
base11: 3.1615070286...--> A
base12: 3.184809493... --> 10 --> 1
base13: 3.1AC104905... --> 11
base14: 3.1DA75CDA8... --> 13
base15: 3.21CD1DC4... --> 6
base16: 3.243F6A8... --> 9
base17: 3.26FAG57... --> B
base18: 3.29FDEH0... --> E
base19: 3.2D2398... --> i
base20: 3.2GCEG... --> 11


Conclusions: base-12 is nice system to play with

Nothing deeper can be said at this point, just to provoke some ideas.

PI in base-12 Here I introduce some interesting facts about PI in base-12 when arranged in triangular form.

Interesting stuff but I'm concerned at how you found PI in a base-12 math system. I don't think you could just convert PI from base-10 to base-12. If you actually did the hand work to figure out PI in base-12 then bravo, for the post! I would think higher based math is something a converter can't give us a correct answer on.

The ultimate question is if using this formula:


wouldn't PI in base-12 still be the same as it is in base-10 when referring to circles with a circumference of 9 or less?

The only thing I can think of is that 4*pi = 12.56637.., so in that base pi would be 2.5.

a reply to: itisibrian

I believe it's possible that Mr. Carroll's mistake could have been in saying 'Pi' when he should have said 'Phi'. Somewhere I read about an ancient (Turkish?) mathematician that wrote about this, but now I can't find the reference. However, Icarus from Dozens Online said this regarding the representation of phi in base 12:
1.6180339887498948482045868343656 decimal
*1.74bb6772802a46a6a1865307149 dozenal

Note how nicely that ratio can be approximated by *1.75? Very nice.

*1.75 is a very good approximation for phi, much better than three significant digit decimal approximation of pi (3.14) or corresponding dozenal approximation of pi (*3.18) (I use *3.1848 for dozenal pi).

I also think he may have been talking Phi, it makes more sense.

Additionally, Pi is irrational, I don't care what base you use. Using a different number system does not improve the accuracy as long as you supply enough digits. In this context, the accuracy of the the math that involves using Pi, is only as good as the number of bits you use in the registers, as all computation is done with computers anyway. Perhaps quantum computing will allow us to do an analog simulation... which would be about as accurate as you could ever get.

Here are some amazing results of super computer calculations of Pi.

The string 666,666,666 occurs at position 45,681,781. This string occurs 1 times in the first 200M digits of Pi.
counting from the first digit after the decimal point. The 3. is not counted.

The string 777,777,777 occurs at position 24,658,601. This string occurs 1 times in the first 200M digits of Pi.
counting from the first digit after the decimal point. The 3. is not counted.

The string 888,888,888 occurs at position 46,663,520. This string occurs 1 times in the first 200M digits of Pi.

There is some significance of this that mathematicians have yet to discover, but are hidden in here somewhere.
These are all 9 digit repeats, but only of the numbers 6,7 and 8. Solving why this does not occur for other numbers will be a breakthrough that may uncover other hidden relationships in base 10 Pi.

originally posted by: YoYosarefun

PI in base-12 Here I introduce some interesting facts about PI in base-12 when arranged in triangular form.

Interesting stuff but I'm concerned at how you found PI in a base-12 math system. I don't think you could just convert PI from base-10 to base-12. If you actually did the hand work to figure out PI in base-12 then bravo, for the post! I would think higher based math is something a converter can't give us a correct answer on.
The ultimate question is if using this formula:

wouldn't PI in base-12 still be the same as it is in base-10 when referring to circles with a circumference of 9 or less?

No, the actual measurements are of no consequence. What matters is the proportion C/d. Usually the radius of a circle is 1. If the diameter is 9 all the measurements increase but the proportion, C/d remains the same.

turner.faculty.swau.edu...

Pi is irrational in multiple different number bases. The only case it isn't, is if you base your number system off of Pi itself. However number systems based on irrational numbers are really freaking complicated, as you can see in this thread:

www.everything2.com...

I can't even understand the one post in that thread where Sylvar tries to explain it. It's all over my head.