HISTORY – PART 1
“You can’t calculate probabilities with just algebra. The geometry must be taken into account.”
Comte George Buffon, Essay on Moral Arithmetic
BRIEF SUMMARY
Here is the history of the original Buffon Needle Problem (1733) and its natural extension, “action at a distance.” These geometries reveal the random magic of pi and geometric probability as they deliver a random flat bet advantage over the quadrature of traditional random theory. These are the geometries that were effectively buried in the French Revolution. That burial now appears to have been the purpose of the French Revolution’s Terror.
If “action at a distance” is not used in measuring randomness, quadrature is the result. Quadrature is the mathematical foundation of modern science and traditional random theory. Quadrature is also the mathematical kiss of death for geometric probability and the flat bet advantage.
Three critical events in history have withheld these matters from scientific inquiry: 1) the suppression of “actio in distans” by the Vatican over 4 centuries ago 2) the infamous Laplace/Boskovic debate (1776 -1777) 3) the French Revolution’s Terror.
In assessing these matters, it may help the reader to keep in mind two common jury instructions: 1) circumstantial evidence is to be given equal weight with direct evidence. The reason is that many criminal and civil liability activities are committed in darkness or secrecy to avoid eyewitnesses or such other direct evidence. 2) Do not make up your mind until all the evidence is considered.
Action at a distance appeared first in the timeline. The original Needle provides the geometric matrix from which “action at a distance” is launched and makes mathematical sense of th whole process …all in a world of pi.
Both geometries were maliciously buried in the French Revolution as the result of backfired efforts by the officers of the Paris Academy of Sciences to end-run the Vatican. Their conspiratorial attempt (1770) was to secretly mentor an atheist into the Academy. The dupe’s name was Simon Laplace. He would have at least had knowledge of basic bookkeeping through his father’s business. He was also apparently capable of tutoring children in basic mathematics. His real value to the conspiracy was not mathematical knowledge but rather his atheism and willingness to front their fraud. He was taught basic calculus and quietly fed their own sophisticated scientific work which he was tutored to rewrite as his own.
Laplace was instructed to promote himself as the “greatest mathematician in France.” When his credibility was established, they would have him announce the values of “action at a distance.” That would free the dynamics of Buffon’s Needle. That would rewrite all aspects of actuarial science as well as traditional random theory. At the time, Buffon was Permanent Treasurer of the Academy.
The conspiratorial efforts were thwarted in 1776, by the Laplace/Boskovic debate. Then, for powerful political and economic reasons, the conspirators felt forced to have Laplace make a public show of attacking Rudjer Boskovic for using “action at a distance.” Despite what must have been an obviously bad taste, it in effect defended the Vatican’s position.
That rendered Laplace’s value down to …useless. For obvious political reasons, the conspiratorial secret concerning him was necessarily maintained. As a sop, he begged for and was given, the position of “Chief Examiner of Artillery” at the Ecole Militaire. The position did not require mathematical knowledge. The job of Chief Examiner was only to investigate and assure each cadet’s political reliability. He mentored his first student with very special attention and favors. His name was Napoleon Bonaparte.
The evidence is now compelling that Laplace was the shadow puppet-master behind the French Revolution’s Terror. It appears to be his successful effort to use Robespierre to kill the handful of remaining Academy conspirator’s who knew Laplace’s secret. Laplace succeeded by using his still fraudulent reputation as the “greatest mathematician in France” to feed Robespierre “mathematical certainties” that if certain laws were passed and certain people killed, France and the Revolution would be saved. These “certainties” were almost surely the nonsense that encouraged Robespierre to promote himself as “incorruptible.”
Buffon died a year before the Revolution. His papers were held in estate by his son, Buffonet …who was prominent on Laplace’s kill list. As each of Laplace’s victims was killed, his personal and professional papers were immediately seized and delivered to Laplace.
There was good reasons for Laplace to seize the papers of his victims. Had the truth come out about Laplace, he would have looked several times as ludicrous and ignorant as Jacques Brissot portrayed him.
Brissot was a prominent journalist and a contemporary of Laplace. He recognized Laplace as a barely competent (if at all) scientist/mathematician. While Brissot surely knew nothing of the conspiratorial reason for Laplace’s inexplicable presence in the Academy, he was insightful enough to write a book on the Academy’s apparently inexcusable conduct in condoning Laplace’s dismal presence and conduct. During the Terror, Laplace had Brissot killed as well.
Laplace was motivated. As soon as “action at a distance” was finally recognized and proven and accepted –from anywhere– Laplace would look extremely stupid.
Laplace was motivated to seize and destroy any work his victims may have had concerning the original Needle and “action at a distance.” Secondly, it was a not uncommon practice in the days of totalitarian governments for vulnerable men in dispute to leave papers and memoirs to be opened only after their deaths. Sometimes, such papers were even held sealed until many years after their deaths to avoid retaliation against their families. Laplace would have had a concern that the Academy conspirators would put the details of the conspiracy, including Laplace’s fraudulent background, in such papers.
Over a century later, Laplace and his right hand executioner, Joseph Fouche (the original “butcher of Lyon”) were the inspiration for Nazi terror tactics, including gas chambers (one of Laplace’s many unsuccessful attempts at anything) mass murders, public book burning and the modern police state. As well, the use of the tattooed skin of victims for ornaments. If Mein Kampf was the Nazi bible, Joseph Fouche’s autobiography was so popular with with Nazi officers it may be considered their Book of Psalms.
In his lifetime, Laplace was apparently the most despised “scientist” in history. The 20,000 people guillotined during the Terror were only a horrifying cover up. If Laplace had lived in the 20th Century, he and Fouche would almost certainly have been hanged for murder, mass murder and/or crimes against humanity.
Through plagiarism and terror tactics, Laplace became the most prolific “scientific” author in history. Virtually all of it was stolen from the men he had murdered. He is most famous for his “Laplace Transform” which changes a straight line to an arc. Historians, especially American historians, have completely missed the point that the Transform is simply the twisted reverse of the Buffon Needle Problem which changes an arc to a straight line. As well, since Laplace’s name appears with Lavoisier’s on a study of temperature by Lavoisier, American historians have reached for achingly wonderful adjectives to describe Laplace’s fantastical but entirely imaginary contribution to chemistry. However, at that time, he was only allowed to have his name associated with Lavoisier as another sop. An exhaustive study by the French government of Lavoisier’s work does not even mention Laplace. In France, Laplace is not recognized as the “greatest mathematician in France.” He is only recognized as someone who said that.
The only greatness of Laplace is that he could arguably be described as one of the world’s greatest disasters. His fraud is particularly given life since he also stole and implemented and fundamentally changed the system of state run public education that was apparently designed by Jean Condorcet. Laplace removed any part that may have included the Needle and “action at a distance.” As the mentor of Napoleon, Laplace used his influence to implement Condorcet’s work (without credit) which would become the first state run system of modern education. It served and continues to serve –without the Needle and “action at a distance” or geometric probability– as a model for the entire world.
In assessing the history of Laplace, it must be kept in mind that virtually every document in France and, through Napoleon, much of Europe –especially including the archives of the Vatican– were under his control and manipulation and/or destruction.
His obvious targets were documents and papers indicating his embarrassing ignorance. As well, any and all documents or papers supporting the validity of “action at a distance.” Laplace knew that as soon as “action at a distance” was proven to be a legitimate geometry, he would look particularly double stupid for spending well over a year regularly, publicly and rudely attacking Boskovic’s use of the methodology.
On his death bed, Laplace’s dying words were a confession that didn’t begin to address his full crimes: “It was all smoke!”
How significant is Laplace’s legacy?
Profound!
The world has missed over two centuries of critical technological evolution in the actuarial sciences. Had the geometric truth been allowed to evolve, the gaming industry as now structured could never have gotten off the ground.
Laplace knew the geometric truth of randomness but successfully buried it by reliably using the Vatican’s equally disturbing suppression of “action at a distance” and promoting only quadrature in its place. In 1812, he twisted the original Needle out of all recognition by changing its length. Laplace succeeded since his manipulations matched our perceptions and our perceptions were backed by quadrature …(which Laplace knew was the kiss of death for geometric probability).
Laplace maliciously organized traditional gaming into what is now known as traditional random theory. All of it, like Laplace himself, is based on a mathematical fraud.
Action at a distance was not recovered until Werner Heisenberg’s theory of Quantum Mechanics.
The original Needle and its deeper significance of pi was only recovered in this website.
***********************************************************************************************
Action at a distance is the engine that drives the Quantum success in predicting random particle spin with a .08333…. flat bet advantage. The success has never been understood by the scientists who achieve it. Many of them do not even recognize or understand the term “action at a distance.” Many are unfamiliar, or only barely familiar, with the Needle. Few indeed appear familiar with the original Needle.
The quantum success can be predicted and demonstrated but cannot be resolved with traditional random theory. The mystery has been variously attributed to such vague terms as “hidden variables” or “wave functions.” The quantum advantage has also been wrongly described as unique to micro-phenomena. To put it in proper perspective, the same methodology was long ago theorized by Newton to predict the orbits of comets …which delivers the same 08333…. flat bet advantage over traditional random theory and expectation as Quantum Mechanics.
All of this only points to the ignorance of western education and science as a result of Laplace’s machinations.
Buffon’s original Needle Problem has never recovered until CRACKING Pi CRACKING RANDOM. What is generally promoted on the web and throughout western science as the “Buffon Needle Problem” is not the original Buffon Needle Problem. It is a long way from it. In its original format, the Needle’s immutable length of relative 1/4 pi provides the universal random unit of measurement. It is the original Needle –and only the original Needle– that makes mathematical sense of “action at a distance.”
Laplace’s inexcusable warp of the original Needle only offers a needle of any length whatsoever …which replaces geometric probability with algebra and makes true geometric probability appear meaningless and mathematically impossible.
CRACKING PI CRACKING RANDOM extends the methodology of the original Needle (and quantum theory) to every series of random measurements of anything. The original Needle provides the correct unit of measure. The result is a flat bet .16666…. advantage over all traditional random theories.
All of it is with simple 8th grade geometry and 5th grade mathematics.
GETTING DOWN WITH PI AND GRAVITY …AND ALL THE WAY DOWN WITH LAPLACE
Towards the last half of the 18th Century, the Paris Academy of Sciences was effectively the world’s center for the study of physics. However, since “action at a distance” was suppressed by the Vatican, Buffon’s Needle was effectively blunted. Since France was a Catholic country by royal decree, and almost all the Academy’s major players were Catholic, they had a serious situation. Action at a distance promised a grail …but any attempt to work with it would create significant political problems between the Vatican, the King and the Academy. The perceived solution for the Academy officers was to covertly mentor an atheist into the Academy who could promote “action at a distance” without fear of religious or royal retaliation.
Interestingly, there is some evidence the King may have been a part of the conspiracy. While there is no other existing evidence (any such evidence would have been seized and destroyed by Laplace) the timeline and circumstances of the charges and guillotining of the king fits a solid possibility that the king may have condoned the conspiracy. Certainly, the benefits of “action at a distance” to the royal purse would have royal appeal. Certainly, the conspirator’s would be literally taking their career/fortunes/lives in their hands if they also attempted to end-run the king and their attempts failed and became known.
The conspirators would have been led by Buffon. He was the Academy’s Permanent Secretary. His Needle Problem was the first random proof of pi as it provided the matrix of geometric probability for the flat bet advantage of “action at a distance.” Buffon was also Intendent of the Royal Gardens. Under his care, it was and remains the most popular tourist attraction in Europe. It is now the Museum of Natural History. Buffon was expected to meet expenses out of his own pocket and be reimbursed by the king (at the king’s convenience). The factor of reimbursement was also surely a factor in Buffon’s pussyfooting around his Needle and “action at a distance.” If Buffon riled the Vatican and embarrassed the king, “reimbursement” could be slow. It is worth noting that at the time of his death, the government owed Buffon several hundred thousand francs.
In 1770, the Academy’s Permanent Secretary was seriously ill and not expected to recover. The position was temporarily covered by his assistant, Jean Condorcet, a rising genius mathematician. Condorcet is the father of actuarial science and the modern stock market. With aspirations to becoming Permanent Secretary, Condorcet would have been sensitive to the fact that his wildest dreams could only succeed with the support of Buffon. Let it be given that Condorcet would have been wide open and willing to help Buffon find an atheist who was ready to sell his integrity. It just so happened that Condorcet knew a childhood acquaintance who might fit the bill. His name was Simon Laplace. Throughout the conspiracy, it appears Condorcet was the interface between the conspirators and Laplace.
In piecing together the historical indicators, there were at least two others in the conspiracy. Jean Sylvan Baily was the Academie’s leading astronomer. He was the first to correct the orbit of Haley’s Comet. Since, at that time, the only known use of “action at a distance” was Newton’s use of the methodology to predict the random orbits of comets, Bailey’s presence in the conspiracy would have been considered essential.
Antoine Lavoisier was the father of modern chemistry and recognized as the world’s leading physicist. He too would have been an essential conspirator. France had a tax franchise system. Lavoisier had his own tax franchise and ran his father-in-law’s as well which was the largest in France. In other words, since Lavoisier may have been the largest contributor to the king’s coffers …and since his father-in-law was also counsel to the king’s administrative court, Lavoisier would have had access to the king’s ear.
Others in the conspiracy may have included Gaspard Monge, the father of descriptive geometry. He had designed a military fort configuration that was a military secret. It may have been based on the geometric probabilities of the Needle and “action at a distance” in anticipation of the ultimate randomness of artillery bombardments.
Laplace reportedly briefly studied mathematics at the Caen university, but all reports of Laplace are now problematic. In that regard, he at least appears apparently able to teach basic mathematics to children.
It took three years to get Laplace into the Academy. During that time he submitted 13 papers. Membership in the Academy was limited. Most unusually, each time a member died, Laplace immediately submitted a paper.
In 1772, while still politicking for Academy membership, Laplace expressed that he had “discovered” that the second degree of every equation necessarily lies in quadrature.
That, of course, is one half of the original Needle. That is: the average of two random tosses or measurements tends to match a quadrant of the circle or field being randomly measured. That average is a Cardinal pole or the distance between two Cardinal poles (ex: South to West). That is one fourth of a circle. That is: 1/4 C. That is a quadrant. The algebraic average of a quadrant is the basis of quadrature. It recognizes the 4 poles of a circle as legitimately random.
However, also by the proof of the original Needle, 1/4 C is also relative 1/4 pi, relative to the diameter of the field. This sets up “action at a distance.” At no point in his career did Laplace discuss that. Which is to say, Laplace was undoubtedly instructed not to mention that until the time was ripe for him to announce the values of “action at a distance.”
That moment was the entire point of the conspiracy. For the historical reasons discussed herein, that moment never arrived.
Relative to the geometry being measured in a series of random measurements, the first toss of the original Needle (or any other random event or measurement) is the first degree of its own equation. Let it be called South.
The second toss is the second degree of the equation. Relative to randomness and the first toss, the second toss tends to averagely complete the distance of one quadrant of a circle relative to the first toss. That is: 1/4 C. That is the original Needle. It is an average. It is an unpredictable statement of algebra. This is the basis of quadrature. As an average, it is just a mathematical perception. Let that point of relative geometric probability be called West, relative to South.
The algebra of a random quadrant is the basis of random quadrature. In 1772, Laplace’s “discovery” of quadrature had almost certainly been surreptitiously given him by Buffon and Condorcet. Laplace naturally did not credit Buffon or mention the Needle or the fact that the average of random quadrature and 1/4 C was also the original Needle’s random proof of relative 1/4 pi.
The second toss of the Needle is the second degree of its own equation. Its value is 1/4 C, relative to the circle. This is the basis of quadrature. It is an average. An average is just a mathematical perception. Relative to the geometric reality of gravity’s straight line pull along an object’s diameter, a mere perception may be legitimately disregarded as it is finessed through with “action at a distance.” Laplace’s announcement concerning quadrature was part of the set up for the time when his credibility was established. Then he would announce the mathematical values of “action at a distance” and the Needle over quadrature.
Laplace was finally admitted into the Academy in 1773, a month after Condorcet was appointed interim Permanent Secretary.
Meanwhile, Rudjer Boskovic had published his own work on predicting the orbits of comets with three random measurements (shades of Isaac Newton!!)! Boskovic had been a prominent Jesuit before the order was dissolved by the Pope. He had also published work on determining the equator of planets (shades of Buffon’s Needle which determines the equator of a circle!!)!
Boskovic is also the father of atom theory.
When the Needle was first presented in 1733, Boskovic was the rising mathematical star of the Jesuit system of education. The Colegio Romano was the apex. It is likely Boskovic had quick access to the original Needle when it was published in 1734. It is entirely possible he was even asked to review its mathematical nature for coherency with Church doctrine.
Boskovic also had a rocky relationship with the Colegio and may have been fired for expressing favorable views concerning “action at a distance” and/or the original Needle. Certainly Boskovic was using “action at a distance” when the great debate started in 1776.
It is the true intent of that “debate” that historians have entirely missed. Reaching for anything that was at hand to explain its unusual nature, most historians have concluded it was from resentment at Boskovic being inserted into the Academy’s senior membership by the wishes of the king. Such admissionwas usually by vote.
With wider perspective, there appears a far deeper reason.
When viewed in full context, the ostensible issue the of the debate’s “academic” disagreement was as fraudulent as Laplace himself. The covert intent of the “debate” was apparently to publicly embarrass Boskovic in the eyes of Ben Franklin.
A decade earlier, Boskovic was not only a prominent Jesuit, but also a diplomat for both the Vatican and Ragusa (that part of Yugoslavia now known as Croatia). As a diplomat, he brokered a peace between France and England. He was also a corresponding member of the Royal Academy in Britain. At a dinner in his honor at the Royal Academy, he was toasted as the “greatest mathematician in Europe.” Ben Franklin was also a corresponding member and present. Franklin was in England negotiating trade matters on behalf of the Pennsylvania Assembly. Impressed with Boskovic, Franklin quickly published an article, purportedly written by an old Jesuit, “On the Meanes of Disposing the Enemie to Peace.” Franklin later admitted the hoax authorship, but the agreeable point was well made and agreeable to Franklin.
In 1776, France’s economy was in exceptionally bad shape, including food riots. Franklin was in Paris to borrow money to finance the American Revolution. He was also a corresponding member of the Paris Academy of Sciences. His stay in Paris was hosted by the Academy.
France desperately wanted to make the loan. If America won the war, France would get America’s valuable trade agreements. That would help put the economy on track. However, if America lost the war, France would never see the loan repaid and the trade agreements would go to England. That would be economic disaster for France.
The French strategy was to keep Franklin on ice and entertained until France could be certain America would win. That wait took almost a year and a half until word came of the American success at the Battle of Saratoga.
In the meantime, Franklin and British agents were continuing to secretly meet. It was known that England would give in to all of American demands, including letting America set its own trade agreements …except …just don’t ask for independence.
Franklin was willing to end the war and give England the trade agreements …just give America its independence.
Only that single issue separated them.
It was feared in France that Boskovic would influence Franklin to make peace. In perspective, Boscovic already had a one hundred percent track record of success in bringing England to the peace table …and in bringing Franklin to his side.
The very last thing France wanted was peace between England and America.
Boskovic was vulnerable with his use of “action at a distance.” He had to admit that his three random measurements was “action at a distance” but he couldn’t admit there was an advantage. He could only say it was just a different way of measuring something. Boskovic was no longer a Jesuit since the order was dissolved, but he was still a priest. Had he admitted the whole geometric truth and its flat bet advantage, he would have risked the wrath and discipline of the Vatican, including excommunication.
To protect France’s economic vulnerability from any possible influence by Boskovic upon Franklin, the Academy conspirators decided to exploit Boskovic’s vulnerability and publicly embarrass him in the eyes of Ben Franklin. All they had to do was sic Laplace on Boskovic at the Academy’s popular twice monthly public debate. There were no complicated mathematics involved. All Laplace had to do –reading from prepared notes since he lacked the wit and mathematical knowledge to do otherwise– was repeatedly accuse Boskovic of using “action at a distance.” Laplace had only to continually repeat that: if there was no advantage, Boskovic’s use of “action at a distance” was useless. It was arguably useless since, if there was no advantage, the .25 average of quadrature and traditional random measurements was more precise than the .33333…. geometric probability of “action at a distance.” Since Boskovic couldn’t admit there was an advantage, he was in a lose/lose situation.
Afterthe first session, Boskovic immediately complained to Condorcet about Laplace’s rude conduct. A committee was formed that concluded Laplace was technically correct and they should take their differences back to the public forum. That, of course, was exactly what the conspirators wanted.
The Laplace/Boskovic “debate” lasted almost a year and a half before Boskovic finally left France.
That left the conspirators in a conspiracy without a purpose but with a continued and absolute demand to maintain utter secrecy (especially if the king was also involved). By having Laplace attack “action at a distance” instead of promoting it, Laplace was then without value to the conspirators. He was put on a back burner given the two sops noted above.
It was here that Jean Paul Marat inserted himself into this history. It is covered in History Part 2.
********************************************************************************************
After killing the conspirators who knew his secret, Laplace immediately obtained their papers and continued what they had taught him to do: rewrite their work as his own. He became the most prolific scientific “author” in history.
Modern historians have not understood the black truth and have generally been left shaking their heads at the scope and range of his “work” while scratching their heads at the quality.
The next mathematical question in the science of randomness must necessarily be the starting mathematical value of “1.” in a series of random measurements. Therein is nested the mathematics of Laplace’s fraud.
Traditional random theory is based on quadrature. It allows a radius to be valued with any unit of measure: microns or inches or meters or light years or “1.” This matches what we perceive. For the past two centuries, as a result of Laplace’s inexcusable conduct, for scientific purposes, a randomly measured field or object or game’s radius is generally and commonly valued as: “1.”
The original Needle geometrically proves the value of a randomly measured field or object or game’s radius to necessarily and inevitably be: .50 .
No further study of randomness –OF ANYTHING– can have credibility until the mathematical differences between the algebra of quadrature on the four poles of a circle …and the geometric probability on three poles on a diameter (or “pi-angle”) are clear. That clarity will determine the correct random starting value of: “1.”
This is a matter of education. The answer to the truth of randomness must begin with the original Needle. Therein was the problem for Laplace. The original Needle proves the value of a diameter as: “1.”. As discussed elsewhere in this site, that conclusion ultimately leads to “action at a distance.” If Laplace wanted to keep his reputation, he had to avoid “action at a distance” as well as keeping others from using it. To that end, he twisted the original Needle to value a radius as: “1.”
Jean Baptiste Biot (1774 – 1862) was a student of Laplace. In 1800, Laplace used his influence to have Biot named to the mathematics chair at the College of France. This quote of Biot, from Laplace’s major scientific biographer, reveals more than Laplace’s teaching style. It is a clue that reveals one of Laplace’s fundamental motivations. His major biographers have not pursued this in regard to Laplace’s need to cover up his usurpation of the Needle and avoidance of “action at a distance” in the very mathematics he was teaching and upon which they are commenting. Above all he had to promote quadrature. “‘He looked after us so actively …that we did not have to think of it ourselves.’” (Gillispie, Charles Coulston; ed. Dictionary of Scientific Biography, Vol XV, Supp. I, Laplace. Scribner’s, 1990. p.347).
It is worth noting that Gillespie wrote the biography after taking over from another scientific biographer who was having apparent trouble reporting on Laplace with the same positive enthusiasm as Gillespie.
Biot’s quote is enough. Laplace’s fraud succeeded on that basis alone. Random quadrature spread throughout France and the world. It now rules the world’s science, commerce and gaming industries!
Laplace was called the “Newton of France” by his special protege, Simeon Denis Poisson. This man would rise to mathematical heights only through Laplace’s political pull. However, Laplace appears to have been the Newton of little more than a fig in Poisson’s diet of good Parisian life. Poisson’s judgment must be questioned beyond simply being a mirror-image of Laplace. Poisson is frequently cited as exclaiming: “Life is good for only two things, discovering mathematics and teaching mathematics.” It is historically significant that Poisson and Biot and Laplace’s other followers, reportedly enjoyed Paris’ restaurants and salons under Laplace’s generosity. It was perhaps Laplace’s major attraction for them. Laplace’s followers (and Laplace) have also been considered second rate mathematicians.
Under Laplace and his followers, France led the world into modern science and our modern system of state run public education. That system and curriculum came complete with Laplace’s random quadrature …and warp of pi and “1.”.
That curriculum also came completely without “action at a distance” or the original Needle or relativity or geometric probability or the random geometry of pi or the true random value of “1.”!!
Shockingly, Laplace’s twist on pi and randomness has generally remained unchanged and unchallenged for two centuries. The world’s academics and scientists and historians have responded like victims of a fraud who refuse or are unable to see or admit the truth.
How could this be? How did Laplace succeed so far and so profoundly?
First and foremost, he had the mindless help of the Vatican.
Secondly, between himself, Fouche, and Napoleon, Laplace had the best evidence destroyed.
Everything that follows is couched in the above.
Laplace is considered a political mathematician with ”a tendency to swing with the political pendulum’.’ (Grattan-Guinness, Ivan. Convolutions in French Mathematics, 1800 ‘ 1840. Birkhauser Verlag, 1990. p.110).
Grattan-Guinness does not associate Laplace’s political life with Laplace’s need to conceal his apparent academic misconduct between 1770 and 1776. Nor is Laplace’s need addressed as to the cover-up of his apparent criminal conduct during the French Revolution.
Are simple politics enough to explain Laplace in the face of the obvious fact that most politicians, elected or appointed, have at least some degree of popularity?
“…few men have been so disliked either by their contemporaries or by their biographers.” (Foundations of Statistical Mechanics: Equilibrium Theory [citing David ((1965))] Grandy, Walter F., Jr. D Reidel, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 1987, Vol I, p. 33). In the face of Laplace’s lack of likability, Grandy doesn’t reconcile Laplace’s unusual political success with Laplace’s apparent hard core need to murderously conceal the truth of his deadly involvement in the very circumstances Grandy is critiquing.
Grattan-Guinness recognizes Laplace as the dominant force in physics and education in the formative years of modern science and education. In his discussion, Grattan-Guinness points to Laplace’s opportunism as gaining power and leadership in the Institute [Institute of France which replaced the Paris Academy of Sciences] in the Bureau of Longitudes, in the Paris Observatoire, in his appointment to the post of Minister of Interior under Napoleon, and his appointment as a permanent member of the Conseil de Perfectionement [from which he controlled the curriculum of the Ecole Polytechnique and France’s education system in general]. Again, Grattan-Guinness does not discuss Laplace’s drive for political control as it regards Laplace’s need and intent to conceal his fraudulent academic conduct and the mass murders for which he and his legacy must now answer.
‘For if Napoleon could make himself Emperor Napoleon in December 1804, why could not his former Ministre de l’Interior now become the Napoleon of Science?’ (Grattan-Guinness, Ivan. Convolutions in French Mathematics, 1800 ‘ 1840. Birkhauser Verlag, 1990. p.441).
If Laplace was the Napoleon of science then let Laplace also be recognized as the Napoleon of Terror. From 1793, onward, Laplace apparently succeeded by murder and Malfeasance of Office. These matters are not addressed by Grattan-Guiness. Yet, it must be recognized that murder and fraud appear at the very root of mathematics entering the 19th century …right down to the very misshaped and bloodstained value of: “1.” on which modern mathematics is based and which Grattan-Guiness is analyzing.
Laplace did not succeed by academic merit. He contributed nothing original. His only apparent significant contribution with anything approaching substance is called the “Laplace Transform.” It is the center piece of his life’s work. It is also the focal continuation of his fraud. It channels random linear measurements (the subject of this study) into Laplace’s stolen quadrature from the original Needle. It now appears he may have been handed the Transform, by Buffon, at the outset of his integration into the Paris Academy of Sciences. If not handed to him by Buffon, he obtained it from the papers held in estate by Buffon’s son …whom Laplace had murdered.
In short, it appears Laplace contributed absolutely nothing original and only promoted quadrature. The books and works he authored were based almost entirely on the stolen memoirs he seized from his murdered victims.
There is nothing wrong with quadrature per se. It matches life’s perceptions. However, that is all it does. What is missing is the simultaneous geometric truth of the randomness of gravity …which Laplace concealed.
What is Laplace’s random quadrature worth without the random geometric truth?
Laplace worked hard to justify his (the original Needle’s) random quadrature. So too, Laplace’s biographers have worked hard to justify Laplace.
”it was the first full time study completely devoted to a new specialty, building out from old and often hackneyed problems into areas where quantification had been nonexistent or chimerical. Later commentators have also sometimes castigated the obscurity and lack of rigor in many passages of the analysis. Once again, it may be so.” (Gillispie, Charles Coulston; ed. Dictionary of Scientific Biography, Vol XV, Supp. I, Laplace. Scribners, 1990. p.369).
Here again, Gillispie does not address the point that Laplace was attempting to apply his mediocre talents to a spectrum of advanced scientific possibilities by using his stolen quadrature of the Needle. Such work by Laplace appears as a desperate response to justify quadrature out of his embarrassment from 1776. As well, there appears no analysis of Laplace’s need to credibly justify himself (and the impossibility of doing so) after De La Verite appeared and exposed him as a fraud in 1782 (see HISTORY: PART 2).
In the 20th and 21st centuries, the empty nature of Laplace’s work has become more and more apparent.
Relative to life’s perceptions, the orbit of a comet, or anything else, may be described in quadrature. It is similar to graphing something on Cartesian co-ordinates. However, it does not address gravitational nature or relativity. In fact, geometric relativity is impossible to achieve with just the algebra of quadrature and without “action at a distance.” Rather, relative to the very geometric randomness being sought, random quadrature is just an incestuous way of measuring something using algebra to measure something that is just a perception of more algebra.
Laplace tried to make his stolen quadrature into something more. He tried to make the algebra of quadrature relative to the random geometry of what he called the “universal gravitational mean.”
Laplace’s problem began with the “universal gravitational mean” (by this or any other name) geometrically set in stone as the quadrature he usurped from the original Needle. The original Needle’s random proof of 1/4 C identifies a quadrant as the universal random gaming average on a circumference or circle. This is the foundation of the random quadrature that Laplace used to promote himself. The original Needle was already the universal gravitational mean …and Laplace and his conspirators knew it.
The continuing problem for Laplace was that the original Needle also proves the quadrature of 1/4 C to be just so much algebra that is also, gravitationally, the geometric probability of relative 1/4 pi. It is a point of convergence.
Over three random measurements with “action at a distance,” the geometric probability of relative 1/4 pi becomes the relative geometry of 1/2 pi and/or 1/6 pi (users choice: same answer either way). That spooky gravitational switch delivers the flat-bet advantage: .16666… .
The flat bet advantage is the mathematical difference between perception and gravity. It comes directly from geometric probability and the randomness of gravity. It shatters Laplacian quadrature, our perceptions and traditional random theory.
The random geometric relativity of relative 1/4 pi, relative to a pi-angle of three poles, mathematically and gravitationally overwhelms the very algebraic foundation of traditional random theory and its quadratic nature as one of four poles on a circle: 1/4 C.
The original Needle’s quadrature of 1/4 C is what Laplace built his reputation on. However, he had to divert attention from its dual nature as relative 1/4 pi. That is obviously why he revised the original Needle. His revision still allowed for 1/4 C but made relative 1/4 pi a geometric impossibility.
Concealing the original Needle and his theft of it …and concealing the embarrassing geometric truth of relative 1/4 pi that repeatedly appeared as a spectre between 1776 and 1782 …is what Laplace apparently killed for.
It did not bury the problem however. The “random universal gravitational mean” is geometrically immutable. Its truth is set forever at relative 1/4 pi, relative to a field or circle or game’s pi-angle (or diameter). It is a statement of relative geometric probability with a tendency to form a mathematical average that is an inevitable geometric probability that demolishes quadrature. If the universal random average is not relative 1/4 pi, the game is either not fair or the possibilities are not equal and require a Bayesian adjustment.
To avoid the universal gravitational geometry of the Needle, Laplace used algebra and the fractions of “analytical geometry” to try and come to the same point of geometric probability as the Needle. This is what he was brought into the Academy to do. However, after the debate and the Terror, his mathematics were no longer geometry that reflected the randomness of gravity. His mathematics were, inevitably, just the algebra of perception that reflected the algebra of a perceived “game.” His unit of measure was arbitrary. That is quadrature. It is anything other than the original Needle’s geometric probability of relative 1/4 pi.
This is why Laplace exerted repeated major efforts to have “descriptive geometry” removed or restricted in the first curricula of the Ecole Polytechnique. When descriptive geometry meets randomness, the door is opened to the geometric probability of the original Needle. That was what Laplace needed to conceal from everyone. Descriptive geometry draws diagrams on paper and are easily seen. Laplace used analytic geometry which consists of fractions …the convolutions of which could even leave Einstein dizzy.
The problem for Laplace still didn’t go away. Algebra justifies nothing. It is just a measuring tool. Laplace tried to make his algebra look like it was reflecting a deep insight into the geometry of the universe. It worked for some students and observers, such as Biot and Poisson and the sycophants with whom Laplace surround himself and whom he successfully seduced with introductions to the good life of Paris.
Laplace got away with his usurpation of the original Needle by using political power to keep the original Needle and its random proof of pi out of science and education. He disguised it with a convoluted curriculum of fractions and algebra.
“Laplace’s proofs are well stocked with dubious arguments and assumptions.”(Grattan-Guinness, Ivan. Convolutions in French Mathematics, 1800 to 1840. Birkhauser Verlag, 1990. p.409).
Grattan-Guinness does not associate Laplace’s dubious arguments as being the result of Laplace’s need to cover up the geometric probability of the original Needle and his theft of its quadrature.
Gillispie’s observations appear to identify how Laplace managed this, but do not explore the reasons, such as Laplace’s need and efforts to conceal his theft and wrongful use of the original Needle and its geometric probability. “(It later became a distinctive characteristic of Laplace’s physics that the phenomena he analyzed should occur in the realm of the unobservable.)” [original parenthesis] (Gillispie, Charles Coulston; ed. Dictionary of Scientific Biography, Vol XV, Supp. I, Laplace. Scribner’s, 1990. p.288).
These were also the complaints by Brissot in his book that condemned Laplace, De La Verite (see History Part 2).
“Laplace frequently indulged in the practice of specifying some peculiarity of the world in highly abstract terms in order to make it appear to follow from a general analysis.” (Gillispie, Charles Coulston; ed. Dictionary of Scientific Biography, Vol XV, Supp. I, Laplace. Scribner’s, 1990. p.296).
Here is an example of what Laplace’s quadrature is worth. “In fact, there is no ‘reasoning’ here at all. The whole paragraph is nothing but a bald assertion that the probability curve is a straight line, dressed up to resemble an argument.” (Langton, Stacy; reviewer. The MAA Online book review column: Pierre-Simon Laplace, 1749-1827: A Life In Exact Science by Charles Coulston Gillispie).
Langton doesn’t address Laplace’s probability curve as Laplace’s warp of pi. Others do.
The impact of Laplace’s deceit concerning pi continues, even into the web …even into the instincts of these stereology researchers. “Although already Newton felt that if an irregular body is thrown on his circle, the hitting probabilities could be found from an experiment and hence the hitting frequency must reflect some properties of interacting objects, almost nobody in XVIIIth and XIXth centuries proposed to reverse the problem, namely to obtain some information concerning the interacting objects from repeated hit or miss events. Instead of it, the mathematical description of object interaction was developed by P.- S. Laplace, G. Lam’, I. Todhunter, J. J. Sylvester and, in particular, by M. W. Crofton, whereas repeated experiments were carried out only in order to meet Laplace’s somewhat rash proposition to determine that way a more accurate value of pi.” (Saxi, Ivan, Magdalena Hyksova; abstract. ORIGINS OF GEOMETRIC PROBABILITY AND STEREOLOGY, 2009).
It must also be noted the excellent work of the stereology researchers in tracing Buffon’s inspiration for the Needle back to Newton’s involvement with a similar experiment in 1664. Here it must be noted that this time frame was co-incident with the distribution of Dulauren’s (see within) finesse from which Newton surely developed his “action at a distance” theory of predicting the orbits of comets. It is worth noting that it also appears that Leibniz and the finesse of his Arctan series may have been influenced by Dulaurens.
Other than his questionable Transform, the only work Laplace did which appears to have significance (it was only an appearance …and intended as such) was his reported assistance to Lavoisier in designing the ice calorimeter. Yet, the most extensive and meticulous studies of the French Revolution come from the Annales Historiques de la Revolution Francaise. In an article with deep analysis and good discussion of the ice calorimeter and Lavoisier’s invention of it, there is not even mention of Laplace.
Laplace was apparently secretly handed the original Needle’s point in 1770, forty years before he plagiarized and warped it in 1812. Academically, Laplace’s career successes also came from usurping the works of many of the major scientists of his time. His practice was to make small changes to the work of others and present it as his own. The Needle is an example. Not unexpectedly, Laplace was repeatedly accused of usurpation and plagiarism.
“Apparently Laplace was not beyond occasional plagiarism and could readily reshape events to bring maximum credit to himself, merited or not.” (Grandy, Walter F., Foundations of Statistical Mechanics: Equilibrium Theory [citing David ((1965))] Jr. D Reidel, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 1987, Vol I, p. 33).
Grandy appears kind. Laplace’s plagiarism appears to extend far beyond “occasional.”
Hahn reports that when he was seeking admission, Laplace’s first paper to the Academy turned out to contain work taken from the very person, Charles Borda, who was assigned to the reviewing committee. Hahn does not relate Laplace’s seemingly (only apparently) abilities in using calculus, with Laplace’s relationship with the original Needle, which was one of the first working applications of calculus.
In that first paper, he was chastised by Condorcet for copying too much of the work of others.
“‘….It seems to us that M. Delaplace’s paper reveals more mathematical knowledge and more intelligence in the manipulation of the calculus than is ordinarily found at his age.’ The committee recommended publication, though Laplace was told to abbreviate the section that was not original.” (Hahn, Roger. Pierre Simon Laplace: 1749-1827: A Determined Scientist. Harvard, 2005. p.41).
In his career, Laplace succeeded academically by discrediting “action at a distance” and keeping it out of the public eye after 1776. He also succeeded academically through a series of notorious political power plays. He also apparently succeeded by Malfeasance of Office in both the emerging systems of modern education and science. His success also apparently came from murder and assassination.
As a result of Laplace’s dark success, relative to pi and the geometry of randomness itself, the world’s science and commerce industries, including the stock market and insurance and gaming industries, are missing two centuries of evolution.
More specifically, those very same industries could never have evolved as they have if the random geometric truth of pi and “action at a distance” and relativity and the resulting flat bet advantage had been revealed as they could have and should have in 1776! After all, that was the ostensible subject of the debate!
Perhaps no other leader of the French Revolution had a more perfect background than Laplace to co-ordinate back room activity between politicians, businessmen and thugs. His childhood, with conflicting reports, perhaps helps to explain him as an apparent sociopath. His father, with whom he reportedly did not get along, was apparently an innkeeper who may also have been mayor of the city at the center of the Calvados district. This is where the world famous Calvados Brandy is made. Laplace’s father was also reportedly a dealer in the critical apple cider from which the brandy is distilled. Each distiller requires cider from a precise and complicated combination of varietal apples.
if the reports are accurate, Laplace grew up with multiple working perspectives on politics and business. In the saloon he surely witnessed the drunkenness, weakness and savagery that so frequently attends. As well, he may have been exposed to the serious cut throat side of the apple cider business wherein intermediate cider dealers like his father can advantageously play off distillers and farmers and their crops while appearing to remain neutral. His father’s political status would have honed an edge to such unethical practices.
Laplace was also a day student at a nearby Benedictine school where his uncle taught mathematics until Laplace was about ten. The Benedictines were noted for their discipline. The school was sponsored by the Duc d’Orleans for whom the students were required to pray several times a day.
Was Laplace tough enough to make these things happen? In Paris, after hooking up with the Academy, from the age of 20 until he married, Laplace lived for eighteen years in a military school.
Albert Einstein was also a victim of Laplace’s fraud. By following Laplace and using quadrature, Einstein’s relativity theories were automatically made algebraically relative to life’s perceptions. The very quadrature Einstein was using made the geometric relativity that Einstein was searching for …mathematically impossible to find.
Like Einstein, the great modern physicist, Stephen Hawking, is also a victim of Laplace’s fraud. When relative 1/4 pi is substituted in as the random gravitational universal unit of measurement, gravity falls into place. This eludes Hawking since, like Einstein, he is following the algebra of perception rather than the geometry of gravity.
“The only areas of physical science into which quantum mechanics has not yet been properly incorporated are gravity and the large scale structure of the universe.” (Hawking, Stephen W. A Brief History of Time. Bantum, 1988. p.56).
“Like any other scientific discovery… the real test is whether it makes predictions that agree with observation.”(Hawking, Stephen W. A Brief History of Time. Bantum, 1988. p.136).
Perhaps Hawking is missing the fact that quantum mechanics uses the same methodology of “action at a distance” that Newton used to predict the random orbit of comets. Also, that Boskovic, the father of atomic theory used the same methodology.
If Laplace was the greatest disaster in the history of science and education and commerce, it may be argued that Einstein, by virtue of his influence and likability, was the unwitting major force that promoted Laplace’s fraud right through the 20th century and into the 21st. Stephen Hawking appears to have unwittingly picked up and been infected by Einstein’s seemingly innocent baton …that carries the deadly Laplacian virus of quadrature.
Einstein’s misperceptions of Laplace and Laplacian theories have been furthered by feel-good publications from Princeton concerning Laplace. An example would be “Simon Laplace. A Life in Exact Science.” It assumes that almost everything Laplace published was original or close to it without carefully examining the fuller circumstances.
Approximately half of the most fundamental random matters in science are traceable back to the original Needle Problem. This half contains quadrature and traditional random theory.
The other half are traceable to “action at a distance” as it was first used by Newton and Boskovic to predict the orbits of comets. This half evolved into the Quantum sciences and Bell’s Theorem.
Laplace apparently usurped the original Needle’s quadrature and used it to ultimately become the “father” of traditional random theory.
In 1795, Laplace seized control of the world’s simultaneously emerging systems of modern science and state run education.
In 1812, Laplace plagiarized and blunted the Needle. In the interim, he apparently made his point stick by blood and Terror.
The pivotal point in these matters is the 1776 debate. There, Laplace attacked Boskovic’s methodology for predicting the orbits of comets. He accused Boskovic of using “action at a distance.”
Here again is another clue to Laplace’s apparent malicious conduct that has been overlooked. Let Boskovic’s finesse methodology of “action at a distance” be defined by Laplace through his biographer. “Treating the interval between the first and third observations as a first-order infinitesimal entailed neglecting second-order quantities.”(Gillispie, Charles Coulston. Pierre Simon Laplace, 1749 ‘ 1827, A Life in Exact Science. Princeton, 1997. p.97).
That is “action at a distance.”
Neglecting the second observation (but necessarily letting it occur) is precisely the value of the geometric finesse in “action at a distance.” It is precisely the finesse that leads to and allows the flat bet advantage.
Here is the same issue two centuries later. This is also what Einstein was attacking in his EPR. Yet, the author does not relate it to the debate from which the argument originally sprung in 1776. “The intervening measurement has no influence whatsoever on what obtains at any other time. It has influence on some probability measures but none on the relevant (original emphasis) probability measures.” (Mohrhoff, Ulrich. Objective Probabilities, Quantum Counterfactuals and the ABL rule–A Response to R.E. Kastner. Am. J. Phys., Vol. 69, No. 8, August, 2001. p.872).
Laplace is perceived as saying that with his screen of quadrature, the mean inclination of comets is 45 degrees. While he was wrong, it is strangely considered unimportant by his scientific biographer who only gave it a parenthetical note.
‘(Nor is it germane that no one had yet appreciated that the probability of an orbit is as the sine of the inclination, so that the mean should have been 60 degrees rather than 45 degrees.)’ (Gillispie, Charles Coulston; ed. Dictionary of Scientific Biography, Vol XV, Supp. I, Laplace. Scribner’s, 1990. p.292).
Gillispie’s observation does not associate the reason for Laplace’s error with Laplace’s apparent usurpation and mishandling of the original Needle’s universal random average.
By both quadrature and pi, 90 degrees of arc can be expressed as a 45 degree angle from a point of measurement, relative to a diameter base, with the Earth as the COR of the comet’s orbit, to the completion of a quadrant (ex: South to West). This is the original Needle’s relative length. Gillispie’s observation does not address the fact that 45 degrees of angle from the Earth as the COR of a comet’s orbit points directly to 60 degrees of arc on the very quadrant that Laplace was wrong about. The center point of that arc of 60 degrees also describes an angle of 67.5 degrees relative to the diameter base.
Therein is the descriptive geometry of “action at a distance.” The angle of 67.5 degrees is 22.5 degrees off a 45 degree angle. This is the pivotal angle in delivering the flat-bet .08333 advantage of Bell’s Theorem over three random measurements.
Although the issues appear similar, the author does not make the connection back to the 1776 debate. “The results may be described in terms of the angle …between the polarizers in the two wings …Quantum theory predicts …it should reach a maximum at …22.5 degrees.” (Whitaker, Andrew. Einstein, Bohr and the Quantum Dilemma. Cambridge, 1996. p.263).
The average of two random measurements is a 45 degree angle relative to a diameter base. This is the original Needle. This delivers quadrature.
The average of many random measurements is a 45 degree angle relative to a diameter base. This is also the original Needle. This also delivers quadrature.
Three random measurements of the original Needle extended with “action at a distance” is a 60 degree angle relative to the COR.
This delivers the grail when the angles are understood as relative degrees of arc and the difference in degrees of arc are made relative to the universal random average of 90 degrees of arc.
This appears to be comparing apples and oranges …but that is precisely the point of the original Needle as its linear geometry of relative 1/4 pi was simultaneously part of the circle of algebra.
That is: 60 degrees of angle minus 45 degrees of angle equals 15 degrees of angle.
Next: 15 degrees of angle divided by 90 degrees of arc equals the .16666 advantage.
That is: 15 / 90 = .16666…. .
As discussed elsewhere in this site, the .16666…. advantage may be narrowed to a point that increases to .27777…. by the effects of .11111…. from centrifugal force.
This is the far side of gravity.
Two and a half centuries ago, this should have been the starting point in the history of our science,
