Could the discussion now under way about replacing pi with tau be an indication of what Billy Meier was talking about, back in 1995, when he wrote:
“These events coincide with many innovations and discoveries in technology and science; for 1995 and the ensuing years bring incredible breakthroughs that will change civilization. One contributing factor to these breakthroughs in the near future will be, finally, the exposure and rectification of an error in the Pi-number calculation.”
Contact 251 is only one of the many prophecy and prediction rich documents that Meier has published since 1951. In fact, there are so many, ongoing corroborations of Meier’s scientific information that we’ve fallen well behind in documenting them.
Of course, should you discover the Meier material, the skeptics and know-it-alls would like you to think that it’s all a “hoax”. But they can never explain just how he manages to be decades ahead of our best scientists. Perhaps you will discover the answers for yourself.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2008963/Why-mathematicians-campaigning-pi-replaced-alternate-value-tau.html?ITO=1490
It has long been regarded as the most important number in the world – but now mathematicians are suggesting that pi may have had its day.
Experts are claiming that the number – the constant which references the circumference of a circle to its diameter – is wrong, and should be replaced with an alternate value called tau.
And they have said that while 3.14159265, the number’s value, is not incorrect, the mathematicians making the claims say it is the wrong figure to be associated with the properties of a circle as a matter of course.
They are also campaigning for school textbooks to be rewritten using tau, which has a value twice that of pi of approximately 6.28 – and have even declared today, June 28, to be tau Day in its honour.
‘For all these years, we have been looking at the wrong number when we have been looking at pi,’ Kevin Houston, of the School of Mathematics at the University of Leeds told The Times.
‘Pi simply isn’t the most natural number that we should associate with a circle. The proper number is 2pi, or tau.’
The number has long been seen as being essential to many mathematical formulae as well as being vital to equations in science and engineering.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2008963/Why-mathematicians-campaigning-pi-replaced-alternate-value-tau.html#ixzz1R3jUpgYL
They did correct Pi in the future because 500 years from now we build beam ships that look like the Orion television show’s beamship. Billy: I know those from somewhere. I’ve seen those before. Wait, ah yes – you, they look remarkably similar to the fantasy products of spaceships, which I recently saw on television. It was the broadcast of a futuristic story by the name of Orion. The ship over there looks deceptively like that thing on TV. Now I do think that I’m dreaming. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJI4J92Btis
The video needs to be rewound to the very beginning in order to view the Orion beam ship. The link to the contact verse 359 is here… http://www.futureofmankind.info/Billy_Meier/Contact_Report_039
I cannot find a fault in the traditional calculation of Pi in the second video there on my personal FB page Finding Pi by Archimedes’ Method (see below).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zO0-QOcJQ0.
It seems perfectly accurate to me. I just have this nagging feeling that something is missing re the whole issue. I’m wondering if there are two pi, both relevant but for different purposes. Some say pi = 4/rootPhi is about 0.003 out, but I have never seen any proof of that. Could it be that pi = 4/rootPhi is for space calculations to do with pi and Phi because the universe is based upon the Creational frequencies and/or ratios making this the figure to use in such space and cosmological calculations? The other pi 3.14159… would then be the more arithmetical form for more mundane calculations?
Billy does say however that is the “exposure and rectification” of an “error” in the pi number, which suggests there are not two values; but we have not yet found this error, unless there is some slight difference in the German/English translations.