Ancient Geometry - A Revelation 

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

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...

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

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

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.

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?

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

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.

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".

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

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.

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

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?

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

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?

What is the song you used in the backround?

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

First appearing in Ancient Greece?! Lies.

Owe my ears 4:12

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."

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 .

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.

Voces estao ficando lokos

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

Sacred geometry, the creator got it perfectly!

Does the obvious have to be proven?

10thdim

Riveting

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