THE POLITICS OF PI

The French Revolution clearly had multiple causes with innumerable contributing factors and personalities. Yet it was not chaos. There were prime movers at the top. Democracy generally started well and peaceably through the Tennis Court oath. There was no serious violence until the tocsin rang to attack the Bastille.

By one report, it was Jean Paul Marat that rang it.

As Marat, the revolutionary journalist, the "Friend of he People," it was the start of his revenge for treatment he received, as Dr. Jean Paul Marat, a serious scientist, from the Paris Academy of Sciences a decade earlier.

Now, through the streets of Paris, the echoes of the tocsin were harmonized with rising cries of violence. They must have been all love whispers in the ear of this genius mad Doctor who would soon advocate killing hundreds of thousands.

When the Bastille was taken, the keys were first handed to Jacques Brissot. He was a journalist and political leader of the Revolution. A decade earlier, he had been Marat's foremost champion in the same matter that ultimately drove Marat. Then, Brissot, the journalist, had represented a reasonable person's point of view. In the notorious Brissot/Laplace interview, all Brissot had to do was ask what any critical journalist would ask in the circumstances ...and Laplace again arrogantly hanged himself and the Academy. The notorious Laplace/Brissot interview had followed the infamous Laplace/Boskovic debate. As a result of the interview, Brissot had even written a book (De La Verite) about the atrocious ignorance and damaging influence of Laplace. Brissot condemned the Academy for apparently following Laplace and adopting such a lax and prejudicial approach to science, not only regarding the Laplace/Brissot interview, but regarding the Laplace/Boskovic debate as well.

The Academy was embarrassed by Laplace, but its leaders were forced to defend him. Brissot would not know of the Academy's secret agreement with Laplace. Perhaps the truth gave him a peek four years after the Bastille as Brissot sat in a rumbling tumbril on his way to the guillotine. Brissot was perceived as leader of the Girondins. He would almost surely have heard that Robespierre and Couthon had alleged mathematical proof that Brissot and the Girondins were guilty of conspiring to murder Marat ...and mathematical proof that executing the Girondin's and a few others would ease the way for the Revolution!

Brissot may have easily figured out that Laplace was their mathematical source. However, Brissot would almost surely have never figured out Laplace's underlying motivation ...other than revenge for "De La Verite." It is doubtful if that knowledge gave him comfort.

Laplace was a front for Georges Buffon and Jean Condorcet. They had to conceal the truth of Marat's experiment because it led to the same conclusion of randomness and pi as Buffon's Needle!

Buffon and Condorcet used Laplace as a front to conceal their use and study of the Needle and its truth of pi. For the good of France (and their own coincidental best financial interests) they sacrificed both Laplace and their dedicated search in the Laplace/Boskovic debate. After the debate ...after using Laplace to condemn "action at a distance" ...after defending Laplace ...how could they (and/or Laplace) save face if their own commitment and studies using "action at a distance" was discovered or announced?

When examined in depth, "action at a distance" always leads to the same ultimate conclusion of pi as does the original Needle. Both "action at a distance" and the work of Buffon were suppressed and banned by the Roman Catholic Church. Starting in the early 1770's, Buffon and Condorcet, with the assistance of Jean Sylvain Bailly and Antoine Lavoisier, used Laplace as a front for their work to try and get around the Church. After the Boskovic debate and the embarrassing Brissot interview, they gave up actively promoting Laplace. They would occasionally give him some work, but he was generally kept in the background. Jacques Brissot was perhaps the most prominent journalist in Paris, if not all of France. The Academy couldn't afford another Laplace fiasco.

Sooner or later, those circumstances would come back to haunt the perpetrators. Laplace and the Academy leaders then had each other in a death grip. The truth that Laplace was a front, with marginal mathematical ability, would ruin Laplace ...especially after "De La Verite" appeared. In return, the truth of what the Academy had done would make the Academy a laughing stock ...especially after "De La Verite" appeared. This is to say nothing of the predictably serious political reactions of the Vatican ...which could generate an even worse response by the King. After all, France was a Catholic country by royal decree and it was the King's Academy!

The death of Brissot would at least partially protect Laplace from further embarrassment and risk of ruinous exposure through Brissot and "De La Verite" and the political power Brissot now wielded in 1793. That was half of Laplace's primary motivation behind his instigation of Robespierre to pass the Law of Suspects and generate the Terror.

It would also be of immense value to Laplace to have the execution of Condorcet and Bailly and Lavoisier and Buffonet and apparently Monge and very possibly more specific individuals. As well on Laplace's list was the Duc d' Orleans. The Duc was Buffonet's protector (and cuckold).

Obtaining the papers of his slaughtered colleagues would also help protect Laplace from future embarrassment and risk of ruinous exposure through diaries to be opened in so many years or circumstances after the death of the writer. This is discussed below. This is the other half of the motivation behind the Terror. Collecting the papers was apparently the job of Joseph Fouche.

Apparently, the alleged mathematical proof that the men known as the Girondins were traitors who should be outlawed and executed ...was what Robespierre and Couthon used to justify outlawing them and passing the Law of Suspects and executing them! Such "mathematical proof" was not only the motivation behind the Law of Suspects, it was the start of the Terror!

Georges Buffon died in 1788. His papers were passed to his son, widely known as Buffonet. If there was a single focus for Laplace to use Robespierre to initiate the Terror, it was killing Buffonet and obtaining the estate papers of his father, Georges Buffon. The papers of Condorcet, Lavoisier and Bailly were naturally all a close second in importance to Laplace. However, the entire matter of Laplace now appears to have started from Buffon, through Condorcet. From an academic standpoint, Laplace started by being handed Buffon's Needle (or not) with its geometric probability of pi. If he wasn't given the Needle, then he was only fed the probability studies he was to either share or rewrite and publish under his own name.

The pivot points of the Revolution were shaped by seven men in overlapping sequence. Each had a unique connection with Simon Laplace and the original Needle and its random geometric probability of relative 1/4 pi!

The Revolution’s lead in all matters came from Paris. The involvement of the Paris Academy of Sciences was the Revolution’s political center of rotation. In the middle were the Academy’s key officers and an extremely small handful of senior members. Dead center was secret knowledge of the original Needle and its point of relative 1/4 pi.

The evidence now points to Simon Laplace and his connection and treatment of the Needle as the hitherto unseen motivating cause of the Terror.

“My name is Buffon!” These were the last words of Buffonet as the blade fell. Let his words echo on.

Fouche's men, who were given civic awards for what they were about to do, immediately seized the estate and papers of Buffonet and his late father, Georges Buffon.

In terms of time line, Buffon's son was the last of Laplace's apparently intended original six victims.

That moment of horror completed Simon Laplace's initial intent and generally ended the French Revolution’s year of Terror. All that remained was for Laplace to use Fouche to clean up. The further guillotining, in the time known as Thermidor, appears as the clean up of witnesses against Laplace. Fouche had already had Robespierre and Couthon guillotined. The rest included close guards and friends of Robespierre and Couthon and other witnesses of Laplace's involvement, including witnesses to Laplace's mathematical contribution to the Revolution.

An overview of the French Revolution’s ten year period (between the Tennis Court and Napoleon) displays a series of apparently disjointed critical events wrapped around apparently loosely associated people. These circumstances include the leaders of the Academy and their successive confrontations with Jean Paul Marat, Jacques Brissot and Maximilian Robespierre.

In sequential order of generally accepted history, the pivotal power brokers of the Revolution appear to be: Antoine Lavoisier, Jean Sylvan Bailly, Jacques Brissot, Jean Paul Marat, Jean Condorcet and Robespierre. The evidence now appears to pin Robespierre as merely a medium for the dark power behind him. Let Simon Laplace’s name now be appended.

There was a single unspoken thread of cause and effect that joined these men. It shaped the Revolution from before the Bastille to Napoleon. The fiber in the thread was the original Needle’s relative geometric probability of relative 1/4 pi. During the Terror, approximately 20,000 people were guillotined as the result of Laplace’s apparent efforts to conceal his involvement with the original Needle and its random truth of pi and relative geometric probability.

Of the six power brokers preceding Laplace, the death of each was a direct benefit to Laplace. Their deaths --and concealing the true motives and forces behind their judicial murders-- was what the Terror and Thermidor now appears to have been all about. It was a bonfire of cold blooded evil that went out of control.

Lavoisier and Bailly were friendly working colleagues. They were senior members of the Academy, and each would serve as President of the Academy. These are the men who politically started and led the French Revolution. They were also committed to silence concerning the Needle and the circumstances surrounding the Laplace/Boskovic debate, including their own participation.

Jean Paul Marat was a loose cannon who threatened to light off real canons. Over four years, he used his newspaper/journal to increasingly advocated killing more and more people ...and never lost focus on Condorcet. Intentionally or otherwise, Marat's scientific experiment with light silently but geometrically matched the original Needle. Laplace would perceive that as threatening to expose the truth of relative 1/4 pi. That would bring up the Needle ...and that could unravel the Academy's entire fraud. After many visits to Marat's studio/laboratory, Laplace and the Academy abruptly and rudely rejected Marat's work.

Marat immediately responded. His work was a serious study and he felt he deserved more than an offhand dismissal. Marat was initially championed by Jacques Brissot.

Brissot was a dedicated journalist. He is perhaps best known as the man who ended slavery in France (noting this demonic institution was reinstalled under Napoleon). Brissot asked to interview Condorcet, but was referred instead to Laplace. The outcome was the mind numbing Laplace/Brissot interview and the resulting publication "De La Verite." Ten years later, as the Revolution progressed, Marat and Brissot appeared on opposing political sides, with Brissot standing with Condorcet. Marat couldn’t admit his motivating focus was on the death of Condorcet. This is surely why he included Condorcet in a larger group of elected officials who, along with Condorcet, were politically aligned with Brissot. They were known as the "Brissotins." As the Assembly disbanded to reform as the Convention, the “Brissotins” inexplicably became known as the “Girondins.” The evidence now points to this change perhaps originating with Laplace and anonymously passed to his enemy, Marat, by Robespierre. If indeed, Laplace was the instigator, the name change was to take public focus off the name “Brissot” which was so embarrassing to Laplace. If indeed true, it was also an intentional misdirection of public attention to the "Gironde" area of southern France, while continuing to include the same people, many of whom, including Condorcet, were from the Caen area to the North.

It is worth noting that Laplace and Charlotte Corday were also from Calvados in the Caen area.

Since the shift from "Brissotins" to "Girondins" was only a name change, it politically allowed and encouraged Marat to continue setting his sights dead center on Condorcet's neck.

It was in the best interests of Laplace to have both Marat and Condorcet dead. Charlotte Corday's assassination of   Marat did not kill Marat's allegations against Condorcet and the Girondins. However, it did stop the allegations against Laplace, from Marat, that would surely come if Marat continued his significant political influence. If Marat did not die, it would not be long until Laplace's name was at the top of Marat's death list. If Marat ever politically succeeded in getting Condorcet executed …Laplace's life was in immediate danger.

At a certain point in the Revolution, Brissot reached his peak as perhaps the greatest political influence in the Assembly. On this point it must be noted that Robespierre's greatest influence was not political, but rather came from Hanriot's pointed artillery and threats to use it if the Girondin's were not immediately expelled from government.

Brissot had published De La Verite (see within) a decade earlier. It was an indictment of Laplace and the Academy with a pointed finger at Laplace. In the early years of the Revolution, Brissot remained a distinct danger to Laplace’s career and reputation. That danger would become a reality if Brissot and the Brissotins succeeded in controlling the National Convention ...and ultimately the nation's education system.

Robespierre was apparently a puppet. It now appears Laplace contrived the “Terror.” Laplace apparently provided Robespierre with the alleged mathematics and social statistics that allowed Robespierre to justify and encourage the Terror. Laplace convinced Robespierre to start it ...with Hanriot to make it happen at the point of artillery ...and Fouche to be on the ready with police and secret police ...and Napoleon to back it up.

Napoleon almost certainly assured Robespierre (and Laplace) that if Paris --and the Revolution-- erupted, Napoleon would return. In the meantime, Robespierre would have the protection of the National Guard with Hanriot surely under the steady quiet guidance of Laplace.

Buffonet was Georges Buffon's son. Buffonet’s protector was the king’s cousin, the Duc d’ Orleans. The Duc had joined the Revolution and even joined the howl to execute the king. The Duc had also cuckolded Buffonet, who was a captain in the Duc’s guard. When the Duc was being judged for his life, one trumped up charge was that of loose living and frequenting prostitutes. Despite the Revolution, the Duc’s friends were powerful people who could still protect him, at least temporarily. Those friends also temporarily protected Buffonet. He was repeatedly arrested ...and released ...and arrested ...and released ...and arrested ...until there was no more release but the hiss of the blade and the blink of death.

The papers from the slaughtered scientists, most particularly the papers and memoirs of Buffon, Condorcet, Bailey and  Lavoisier appear to have been Laplace’s penultimate target. Of particular interest, the papers and memoirs of the late Buffon would contain original work on the Needle. As well, they might contain the story of how he used Laplace as a front for the Needle.

Fifteen years earlier, Dr. Jean Paul Marat had been in a losing confrontation with the Academy. It started well on the surface. In 1777, Marat’s living quarters/laboratory were, like the library meeting rooms of the Academy, on Royal grounds. Marat started a series of half a dozen scientific experiments. He was meticulous and each each experiment took approximately a year or more to conclude. He began with fire/heat.

In 1777, the Laplace/Boskovic debate was still in full swing and Marat was paying close attention to the Academy. He hoped his work would pay off with a membership offer. For starters, Marat became friends with Ben Franklin who admired Marat’s work. Franklin honorarily led the Academy’s blue ribbon commission to review Marat’s experiment. As physician to the guard of the king's brother, Marat had pulled his own backroom strings to get the Academy's blue ribbon commission appointed and Franklin to head it. It was an end run move that the Academy leaders resented.

By deduction and inference, and by coincidence or otherwise, the conclusion to be drawn from Marat’s next experiment (discussed below) with light (circa 1779) was a reflection of the unspoken original Needle’s random geometric probability of relative 1/4 pi. Of course Laplace saw the geometric truth in Marat’s work ...or at least reported it to Condorcet. However, Marat’s work would soon be publicly and rudely rejected by Laplace as he represented the Academy in place of Condorcet in the Brissot interview.

Marat’s work with light silently, deductively and inferentially supported, and was supported by, the original Needle. During the Revolution, if Marat had not been assassinated and had continued increasing his influence, he would almost certainly have reasserted his scientific work ...after executing Condorcet and almost surely executing Laplace as well.

Marat’s very continued existence (like that of Brissot and Condorcet and Lavoisier and Bailly and Buffonet) threatened to expose the random geometric truth that Laplace was concealing ...and therefore ultimately exposing the circumstances and agreements concerning Laplace's entry to the Academy as the "greatest mathematician in France."

Here, this history of pi requires another digression.

Deep in the heart of Laplace was a reason for his apparent need to kill six people and obtain their papers. His purpose was to bury their knowledge of his connection with the original Needle. His motive was to assure continued concealment of the truth of his usurpation of the Needle. Particularly its tacit truth in the “debate” of 1776/1777. The unspoken random geometric probability of the original Needle and its relativity leads to the same “action at a distance” that Laplace attacked in the “debate.” Laplace (and his backers) knew this but also knew he was safe since Boskovic couldn’t admit the truth any more than could Laplace. Mathematically, Laplace’s attack backfired. The public didn’t understand that …but Laplace’s backers did. In fact, it may have been intended from the outset.

Two years after the debate, Marat’s work with light silently supported the original Needle.

The Terror is generally attributed to Robespierre. The evidence now points to Robespierre as little more than the medium through which Simon Laplace apparently killed his own colleagues to continue the concealment of his involvement with the Needle. The Needle may have been a gift from Buffon with the proviso that Laplace use the Needle's geometric probability, but must never mention the Needle or pi. The arguments of random geometry Laplace pretended were his concerning a universal natural random mean ...appear completely based on the Needle ...without mention of the Needle. The foremost condition upon Laplace was that he never mention Buffon or the Needle. He was also to avoid pi unless absolutely necessary.

Beyond Robespierre was a power far greater than his infamous and dubious oratory. In 1793, that power included Hanriot's pointed artillery. Even that now appears to have been probably controlled by Laplace!

The evidence suggests that in 1770, Laplace usurped (or was covertly given) the original Needle’s random proof of 1/4 C. It was even a warp on the usual usurpation, since it appears he was quietly handed the Needle by Buffon. From the outset, and thereafter, Buffon appears to generally politically distance himself from Laplace. His motivations surely were to cover his rear, in case of political backfire from the Vatican or the King.

In 1776 and 1777, during the Boskovic “debate,” Laplace was supported by his small group of political backers. They may even have set up the “debate.” The set up would come from Buffon and Condorcet. Since it was a matter of astronomy, they brought in Bailly. Lavoisier may have been the underlying force (since he had the most to gain and lose).

In 1793, Laplace apparently used Robespierre to instigate the Terror. Laplace’s general intent was to kill the Girondins. His specific intent was to murder six men. They included the remainder of that small group of backers from 1770 and 1776. His motive was to make as certain as possible the embarrassing truth of his fraud and the original Needle’s geometric randomness stayed buried!

The murder of his colleagues allowed Laplace to rise to the top of the power pyramid of science. It was not, of course, by merit. Rather, by default and deceit and murder. Three of the men he targeted were his colleagues: the officers and leaders of the Paris Academy of Sciences. In 1793, with their imminent arrests and deaths, the Academy was closed. After their deaths, the newly organized Institute of France, led by Laplace, led the world of science into  the promising horizon and industrial age of the 19th century. It was a universal calamity from which the world has never recovered. It must be noted again ...the world was warned about Laplace in 1782, in Jacques Brissot’s “De La Verite.”

Like many revolutions (if not all) but perhaps more than others, the French Revolution was shaped by a web of conspiracies: real and discovered; alleged and true but unproven; alleged and false and but mis-perceived; real and undiscovered.

While really targeting Condorcet, Marat used his newspaper to concoct a conspiracy against a political group that included Condorcet. Marat essentially created and named them “Brissotins.” There are mixed reports on how and when the name was changed to “Girondins.” Marat argued the the Girondin's were counter revolutionaries and should be expelled from government, outlawed and executed. Marat's wildest dreams started to come true with the  threat of artillery by the National Guard.

The National Convention caved in and expelled the Girondins from their elected seats. A few weeks later, Marat was working on getting them executed when he was assassinated by Charlotte Corday.

There now appears a line of conspiracies involving Laplace. After (and apparently even before) Marat’s assassination, Laplace apparently used Robespierre to support Marat’s deadly policy of calling for the deaths of the “Girondins.”

Laplace’s conspiracy did not succeed simply by being clever. Only one party thought he was in a good faith conspiracy. By appearances, when the six were dead and the Terror was over …Laplace had Robespierre and Couthon and other witnesses guillotined. They would have included any guards and witnesses to secret meetings between Laplace and Robespierre and Couthon.

Laplace's tool in eliminating Robespierre was a man named Joseph Fouche. He led the Committee for General Security, which basically ran the police. This differed from the Committee for Public Safety which was primarily concerned with government policy and controlled by Robespierre.

Like Laplace, Fouche started as a mathematics instructor. He was also a friend of Robespierre ...until they had a fist fight. The timeline also fits that Fouche was brought aboard Laplace's deep cabal at the same time as Robespierre and Napoleon. Over 40,000 people were killed during the Terror. Approximately 20,000 were guillotined. The rest were butchered in ways that would make a hard core nazi or communist blush. Leading the pack was Fouche, known as the Butcher of Lyons. He was also apparently the only man in France that Napoleon feared. Fouche is also credited as the father of the modern police state.

Both communism and nazi fascism have their roots in the French Revolution. Communist roots are in the communes of Paris. The skins of many guillotined victims were tanned into garments and articles. Under Laplace, with the Institute of France specifically led by Laplace, and the chemistry division specifically led by Laplace, the real chemists were asked if they could develop the means of using gas to kill large numbers of people. This was also the time when the modern police state developed under Fouche and Laplace.

Laplace emerged from the Revolution with a tattered reputation. From scattered writings, he apparently inspired more contempt by onlookers and his contemporaries than he received respect from his few followers. He succeeded by murder and political and administrative power. Most withheld criticism out of fear. From the shadows, the Terror appears to be his from start to finish …and beyond. The Thermidor reaction also appears to carry his stamp. There are also some particular assassinations that invite much deeper review as to his possible involvement, including two members of the Committee of Public Education.

The assassination of Marat seeded the Terror. The fuller circumstances included the last pivot point in the French Revolution until Napoleon. The “Terror” lasted a year. Yet, after it ended, the guillotining continued in a period known as the “Thermidor Reaction.” This was accompanied by the “White Terror.” It was apparently Fouche, encouraged by Laplace, who organized gangs of armed thugs as police, through the Committee of General Security. They started work with lists and schedules of their victims. They started the clean up by guillotining Robespierre and his associates and witnesses.

When the organized guillotining ended, that didn’t stop the police and organized gangs. This rough state of affairs continued under an ineffective government by “Directory” for approximately five years until Napoleon.

In 1799, on seizing power as First Consul, Napoleon immediately named Laplace as Minister of Interior. Although only lasting six weeks before being fired, the position allowed Laplace to have a law passed that gave him permanent control of what was effectively a Ministry of Education. With that, he was able to set the science and mathematics curriculae. That cemented over his usurpation and control of "action at a distance" and the original Needle and its embarrassing geometric probability of relative 1/4 pi.

This overview generally sums up the political involvement of Paris Academy of Sciences in the pivotal points of the French Revolution.

The beginning of the Revolution was clean, with good Academy leadership. In 1788, Antoine Lavoisier was France’s leading franchise tax collector. As well, he was the Academy’s world-famous leading scientist. He was also a director on the government’s financial council. France was then still a kingdom based on a feudal economy. There were also frequent food riots. France was in desperate need of economic overhaul and Lavoisier urged the king to widen the tax base. He argued that the clergy and nobility should no longer enjoy a tax exemption. It would also make the king look good politically if he spread some democracy in response to America’s wildly popular new Constitution and government. After all, the American Revolution had been financed and militarily assisted by France. French blood had flowed!

The King agreed agreed to a bit of democracy and called the States General. At immediate issue for the common folk was their limited voting power as the Third Estate. With the idea of democracy now flourishing, the streets of Paris soon echoed with America’s old war cry: “No taxation without representation!”

Jean Sylvan Bailly was a respected astronomer and senior member of the Academy. He was elected President of the new National Assembly that quickly emerged from the Third Estate.

Jean Condorcet was Permanent Secretary of the Academy and also an elected representative. He accepted the position of Secretary in the new government and wrote France’s first Constitution (not adopted).

The King soon decided there had been enough democracy and ordered Bailly to disband the Third Estate/Assembly. Bailly tactfully responded he would pass on the King’s request for the Assembly's consideration. In the Tennis Court, locked out from their meeting hall and against the King’s wishes, the duly elected men took an oath not to disband until France had a Constitution. It was a continuum of what Lavoisier had started. It was the first of the three major pivot points of the Revolution. The next pivotal point was the appearance and activity of Marat. The final pivot point was the death of Marat and all that flowed therefrom.

In 1789, from the Tennis Court, Bailly was a hero and promptly made Mayor of Paris.

The King did not immediately agree but couldn’t stop the process. The National Assembly proceeded with the business of building a democracy.

On July 9, the National Assembly declared itself as also sitting as the Constituent Assembly. Three days later, 50,000 citizens armed themselves and formed a local National Guard to protect Paris and their new found democracy. The King finally agreed to consider a constitutional monarchy.

On July 14, 1789, the Bastille was stormed. It was apparently Marat who rang the tocsin that called the citizens.

It is carefully noted here that the keys to the Bastille were first awarded to Jacques Brissot. Ten years earlier he had published De La Verite. The book was motivated by Brissot’s interview with Laplace. In it, without mentioning names, Brissot expressed concern and dismay over the academy’s acceptance of Laplace’s behavior during both the Laplace/Boskovic debate and the Laplace/Brissot interview. The book publicly embarrassed Laplace and the Academy.

The Bastille began the second major pivot point in the Revolution as it introduced Marat as a significant factor. Thereafter, until his death in 1793, the political shape of the Revolution was molded by reactions to the increasingly radical demands of Marat. He was the father of the French Revolution’s most infamous conspiracy as he used his journal against the Brissotins (same as: Girondins). That fabrication was the stage on which the Terror ultimately played out.

Between 1789 and 1793, there was subterfuge in Marat’s conduct. As a journalist, he had to keep his attack appearing political while his personal focus was on Condorcet and his academic colleagues. This was his revenge for the confrontation years earlier.

In 1793, Condorcet was the only Academy member from the old Marat confrontation who was in public office. As a journalist, Marat could not admit his true motive without losing credibility. His solution was to include Condorcet in the larger group of politicians. In truth, the Brissotins were all independents.

Marat believed that years earlier, soon after the Brissot interview, Bailly and Condorcet had written to the King of Spain and squelched Marat’s opportunity to lead the newly forming Madrid Academy of Sciences. As far as Marat was concerned, that changed his confrontation with the Paris Academy of Sciences to something more than a mere unfriendly and unpleasant academic difference. It was war!

When the Revolution came, Lavoisier, Bailly and Condorcet took leading roles. Lavoisier soon dropped out of political sight. Bailly had to resign after two years due to public outrage (fueled by Marat) over his alleged responsibility for the Champs de Mars Massacre. Laplace wisely stayed out of political sight throughout.

As a journalist, Marat took his revenge on the Academy in an all out war of hot politics …with the guillotine for the losers!

In 1793, like Laplace and Boskovic in 1776, Marat could say nothing of his deeper motivations as he used his newspaper to accuse Condorcet and the Brissotins/Girondins of conspiring as counter revolutionaries. Therefore, Marat argued, they should be expelled from their seats in government (which legally protected them as elected officials) and declared outlaws and executed.

The National Convention finally caved in and expelled the Girondins …but the price came with an unrefusable offer.

On June 2, 1793, the expulsion –and Laplace’s rise to power behind the throne– was not by oratory and reason. It came from the pointed artillery of the National Guard and a threat to use it if the Girondins were not immediately expelled within the hour.

It is questionable if, three days earlier, Robespierre and the Jacobins and the Paris Commune would have delivered the artillery of National Guard –and a list of Girondins to be expelled and executed– to Francois Hanriot without the recommendation or involvement or assent or control of Napoleon and Laplace.

Let it be accepted as obvious that Laplace was near the top of Marat’s black list. Marat was power-poised as President of the Jacobins. The key people knew what Marat was doing and why. Marat was on the war path and Laplace was in his line of sight. For his biographers to think that during this time Laplace, Chief Examiner of Artillery, generally stayed out of Paris and practiced his calculus ...is naive.

Laplace’s reputation was for trying (with great success) to dominate and control every decision of every committee he was on. For years he was Chief Examiner of Artillery …with the strongest possible ties in that direction with Napoleon! He wisely had himself removed from duties to make it look he too was a victim, but he would soon be Chief Examiner of Artillery again. It is not credible to accept Laplace as quietly playing academic while Marat was getting ready to draw a deadly bead on him.

With the forced expulsion of the Girondins, the government’s authority effectively passed to the Montagnards …and the Jacobins …and the Committee for Public Safety …and Robespierre. The evidence now points to Laplace behind Robespierre.

It only remained for Marat to convince people to execute the Girondins. On July 13, 1793, he was reportedly reassuringly smug on this just heartbeats before Charlotte Corday knifed him.

It is the singular flow of events around Marat’s death that contain the last major pivot of the French Revolution before Napoleon. It is the continuum of this moment that makes no sense to historians. There is no apparent reason for what happened after Marat’s death. There was no apparent need to execute the Girondins after Marat was dead. Enough reasonable people recognized the ravings of Marat as coming from hot madness and cold blooded revenge. Yet, Marat had excited the passions of the Parisian populace. For that reason, he and some of his rantings were adopted by the Jacobins for political convenience. They succeeded. They also destroyed France’s new democracy in the process.

After Marat’s death, there was no one else to so rouse the common folk and no reasonable need to continue Marat’s unreasonable call to slaughter the Girondins.

After Marat’s assassination, Robespierre and Couthon inexplicably snatched up Marat’s banner and called for the execution of the Girondins. This is the sticking point for historians.

This was the seed of the weed that sprouted into the Terror. Why execute the Girondins? The Revolution had already succeeded! The Rights of Man had been proclaimed! The King was dead! Marat was dead!

Until the Girondins had been expelled from their duly elected seats at the point of artillery, France was a democracy with a working government! Up to that point, a democratic infrastructure was still in place. From an Historical overview, there was no apparent sufficient reason, political or otherwise, for the Terror! Why did Robespierre and Couthon insist on executing the Girondins …and then continue with more executions?!

The Terror now appears to be the brain child of Laplace. He had the identical subterfuge as Marat ...keep the real sights on Condorcet. Laplace used Robespierre to make certain that six names on the list of Girondins to be executed …were executed! The two at the top were Laplace’s mentor, Condorcet …and Laplace’s nemesis, Brissot!

The ever more stringent laws of the Terror were the repeated attempts to broaden the net and bring in Condorcet and Buffonet after Condorcet initially escaped capture and Buffonet was repeatedly taken and released. Those laws got out of hand and led to the Terror.

On September 17, 1793, the Law of Suspects was passed. It provided for the execution of those suspected of being counter revolutionaries. Some consider it the historical beginning of the Terror as the arrested Girondins were outlawed and many, including Brissot, executed.

It is the nature of the expulsion and execution of the Girondins that is the true arena of these matters. Besides executing the Girondins, the Jacobins had just effectively executed a coup d’etat! Who was behind it besides Robespierre?

Laplace was behind Robespierre ...with Fouche and Napoleon to back him up!

Who came first …Simon Laplace the stage master …or Simon Laplace the opportunist?

Thereafter, government authority was increasingly surrendered to the Committee of Public Safety, which was controlled by Robespierre. The Committee of Public Safety then wrote and applied the laws of the Terror. These were rubber stamped by the Convention …which was controlled by the Montagnards and the Jacobins. All were initially responsive to Robespierre.

Robespierre’s right hand man was Georges Couthon. He was a lawyer who was also quite disabled so as to require men to carry him. Couthon would become President of the Convention. It appears Laplace was the single strongest influence behind Couthon and Robespierre ...and behind Hanriot and Fouche and Napoleon. What kind of men were these?

One of Robespierre’s major biographers describe Francoise Hanriot as a close personal friend of Robespierre. True or not, Hanriot must go down in history as not only a despicable traitor along with Robespierre, but as one of history’s most evil men. This brute is credited with first stabbing Princess Lamballe in the stomach as she spoke a word on behalf of her jailer, then ripping off her clothes, leading a gang rape upon her, cutting off her breasts, cutting out her genitals and finally decapitating her. This close friend of Robespierre then paraded her head on a pike in front of Marie Antoinette.

Napoleon personally witnessed Hanriot's unmentionable conduct.

It is inconceivable that Hanriot was given charge of the National Guard’s Artillery, through Robespierre, without the approval of Napoleon and Laplace.

It was clearly never intended for Laplace or his name to become public in those circumstances …but Couthon let the cat out of the bag when he made his argument to the Jacobins for executing the Girondins. Marat was dead and there was no apparent legitimate reason for such executions. Marat’s old calls for slaughter were without credibility. There was only one reason Couthon could dredge up to “prove” the false Girondin conspiracy that Marat maliciously alleged. Couthon justified his call to execute the Girondins with assurance there was a mathematical demonstration of a conspiracy between the Girondins and Charlotte Corday!

Mathematical proof of a conspiracy?! That “mathematical proof” was a death sentence for Condorcet and clearly the mathematician who made the absurd computation of those social statistics knew it. By all legally admissible evidence, that mathematical cat strongly appears to be Simon Laplace!

Condorcet is generally considered the “father” of modern social statistics. He is credited with putting actuarial tables and the stock market on statistically organized tracks of “probability.” Laplace had worked with Condorcet in developing those seminal mathematical mergers.

To understand what drove Robespierre and Couthon to initiate the Terror, it is necessary to understand what drove Simon Laplace to initiate the Terror.

Leaving his college studies in Caen, Laplace moved to Paris. There he obtained work teaching mathematics at the Ecole Militaire. He lived at the military school for twenty years until he married.

[Note: Robespierre was a man who boasted of living a pure and austere life. He must have been quite seriously impressed with Laplace.]

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 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: 1/4 C. The natural average of a quadrant is the basis of quadrature.

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. This is an average. It is a statement of algebra. This is quadrature. It is just a mathematical perception. Let that point of relative geometric probability be called relative West, relative to South.

The algebra of a random quadrant is the basis of random quadrature. In 1772, after Laplace usurped the Needle and used its random quadrature to announce "his discovery," (it wasn't his ...it had been given him surreptitiously by Buffon and Condorcet) he 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. That is: 1/4 C = relative 1/4 pi, relative to the circle or game’s pi-angle or “diameter.”

The second toss of the Needle is the second degree of its own equation. Its value is 1/4 C, relative to the circle ...except it is also relative 1/4 pi ...and that is the universal random average and is relative to the diameter in the first instance.

It was this random geometric truth of relative 1/4 pi that Laplace concealed. His usurpation of 1/4 C, as well as his error of mathematical analysis in the Boskovic debate, may have been exposed to Laplace’s backers, including Buffon, if they didn’t already know it. As well, it would have been apparent to them that an equation of three degrees, which is necessarily used with “action at a distance,” delivers a random advantage over random quadrature with an equation of four degrees.

For the political reasons described herein, these men could say nothing of the contradictory geometric truth.

This apparent back room exposure in front of his colleagues and superiors was surely an embarrassment to Laplace in 1776. That was soon followed by the embarrassment of De La Verite. Laplace apparently spent the rest of his life concealing and repairing those events. For example, it was surely this that impelled him to require incoming students to the Ecole Polytechnique to be already versed in 4th degree equations! It was surely this that compelled him to set up that requirement by necessarily committing mass murder in order to get the administrative authority to do so!

The problem for Laplace was that the random proof of the geometric probability of relative 1/4 pi mathematically dissolves the algebraic quadrature of 1/4 C. This dissolves the algebra of traditional random theory and the very quadrature possibilities that Laplace was pushing.

However, the geometric truth of relative 1/4 pi only makes mathematical sense with “action at a distance.”

The original Needle and its second degree equation holding the geometric probability of relative 1/4 pi, holds both the lock and the key to the grail. Third degree equations open the door to “action at a distance” …and there’s the grail …a flat bet .16666 advantage. This is what backfired Laplace’s theories of quadrature when he attacked Boskovic for using the three degree equations of “action at a distance” in 1776. This is what spooked Einstein in the early 20th century.

With the finesse methodology of “action at a distance,” third degree equations geometrically prove only a diameter is rotating and/or being randomly measured in the first instance of randomness.

Third degree equations prove that the algebra of a perceived circle and/or “game,” is, randomly and geometrically, only a “game” relative to the algebra of a fourth degree equation that necessarily includes a semi circle or: 1/2 pi. This is mathematically so since the end pole of a rotating diameter (or “pi-angle”) is also the end pole of a semi circle (or half a “game”). Geometrically, relative 1/2 pi is relative to the diameter through three random measurements (three degrees of an equation) of relative 1/4 pi each. Let the semi circle be described: South to West to North.

If the second degree of the equation (West) is taken but eliminated from consideration over three random measurements (through the geometric finesse of “action at a distance”) the relativity algebra of 1/2 C becomes 1/2 pi …which, depending on perspective, is also relative 1/4 pi …which also, unexpectedly and randomly, and regardless of perspective, appears as the geometric probability of 1/6 pi!

This is what spooked Einstein.

The relative pi-angle pole of a randomly measured three-pole axis is a .33333 geometric probability, at the third random trial, in a series of three random trials. Since randomness on the straight line of a pi-angle can only geometrically consist of two possible directions, the geometric probability is divided by two possible directions. That is: .33333 /2 = .16666 . This is the probability “size” of the "other end" pole (relative pi-angle pole) of a randomly measured rotating diameter.

Let the relative pi-angle pole be relative "North," relative to South.

Measure North with traditional random theory and it statistically appears as a Cardinal pole with a .25 algebraic possibility.

Measure North with "action at a distance" and it is a relative pi-angle pole with a .16666 geometric probability on top of the .25 algebraic possibility.

Since the end pole of a rotating or randomly measured pi-angle is also an arc of the circle that comprises a “game,” its arc of geometric probability is .16666 of the algebraic "game" or circle…or pi!

With “action at a distance,” what should theoretically appear as a random quadrant arc of .25 of the circle under traditional random game theory and life’s perceptions …suddenly becomes a geometrically probable arc of .16666 under “action at a distance!”

Since the original Needle proved a randomly measured circle or game is a random statement of relative pi, the relative pi-angle pole is a .16666 geometric probability on a circle that is one hundred percent pi.

The relative pi-angle pole is split by the pi-angle (or “diameter”) exactly like a Cardinal pole. The difference between a Cardinal pole and a pi-angle pole delivers the .08333 flat bet random advantage. This is factored by two directions.

This truth of geometric probability appears to be the geometric truth of “action at a distance” that was revealed in debate and the back rooms of the Academy in 1776.

For the horrendous and bloody reasons given herein, traditional random theory doesn’t recognize geometric probability.

Fourth degree equations reaffirm quadrature. It is the fourth pole of a circle. This affirms the traditional perceptions of a circle and/or traditional random theory. Fourth degree equations automatically count the second and third degrees. This completes the circle. The fourth degree of quadrature necessarily includes and considers the second degree. This automatically eliminates the geometric probability of “action at a distance” which uses an equation of only three degrees as well as a geometric finesse to eliminate the equation's second degree.

Quadrature reduces all series of random measurements to algebraic possibilities. It renders relative 1/4 pi meaningless.

The quadrature of fourth degree equations makes “action at a distance” --and a true understanding of pi’s relative geometry-- mathematically impossible. Laplace knew this. By using his political and administrative authority, starting when he covertly seized power in 1793, Laplace assured that only fourth degree equations were taught in public education!

Laplace entered the Boskovic debate as the self described “greatest mathematician in France.” He was proved wrong and apparently may have been exposed as dishonest. Thanks to the Terror, in which witness's papers and memoirs were seized by Laplace, we may never know precisely who, other than Boskovic, knew or understood the more complete truth that actually emerged (or didn’t emerge) from that “debate.”

It was not uncommon, in a time when horrible revenge may be taken on one’s family, for those in sensitive positions to write memoirs that were to be published only after their death, or a term of years thereafter. It was this possibility of late memoirs that appears to have driven Laplace. He knew his colleague/victims were bound to a cause of silence while alive. He chose a route of Terror to help assure their silence forever. During the Terror, in addition to apparently causing the deaths of his colleague/witnesses, Laplace made certain their working and personal papers were immediately seized and delivered to him.

These and other dark circumstances are supported by a light sprinkling of carefully worded contemporary accounts by cautious or frightened people. This small scattering of evidence supports a major piece of circumstantial evidence against Laplace. It is found in Georges Couthon’s unusual political offer of mathematical proof for executing the Girondins.

The case against Laplace is fleshed out by juxtaposing Couthon’s words with a statistical analysis of the Terror in which the sequential order of its increasingly vicious laws are correlated with the deaths of the six specific men who had a unique connection with Laplace. This evidence should generate probable cause for a new investigation into the Terror and Laplace’s participation.

The motives for Laplace’s apparently murderous conduct appear to reside in good part in the events of the 1776 debate and the disastrous interview with Brissot. By the political, and possibly military, secrecy that necessarily attended those back room circumstances, it is imperative to read between the lines.

The most relevant possible paperwork concerning Laplace’s misconduct was all seized by Laplace. This includes the records of the Paris Academy of Sciences and the Wcole Millitaire as well as those of his colleague/victims as well as the Vatican's secret files. It is again necessary to read between lines and pages that perhaps no longer exist for malicious reasons beyond simply missing by the “passage of time.”

The essential matters of the 1776, debate were already banned by the Catholic Church. These included “action at a distance” as well as works by Newton and Buffon. This requires reading even more deeply between non existant lines.

As discussed in Part 1, in the debate, Laplace was mathematically wrong in his conclusion regarding the orbits of comets. However, the Academy committee assigned to review his conduct was politically loaded in his favor and gave him a whitewash.

On the other hand, Laplace was correct about Boskovic using “action at a distance.” For the same political reasons, the committee allowed Laplace to continue attacking Boskovic for over a year. All Laplace had to do was publicly accuse Boskovic of using “action at a distance.”

Boskovic would have been desperate to stop Laplace. However, Boskovic was stuck. He could prove Laplace wrong …but was unable to put the point too deep …because Boskovic really was using “action at a distance.”

In a back room, Boskovic could (and almost surely did) easily point out that the quadrature (1/4 C instead of relative 1/4 pi) Laplace was using as the basis for his attack was usurped from Buffon’s Needle. Yet again, this too was a matter that Boskovic couldn’t push too far. After all, Boskovic apparently silently used the same point of the Needle (as relative 1/4 pi instead of 1/4 C) to come to an application and understanding of predicting Newton’s orbits of comets with “action at a distance.” Indeed, it may have been Boskovic, as the mathematical genius of the Colegio Romano, who may have been asked to evaluate the original Needle (as well as the “action at a distance” in Newton’s comet theory) in 1733 or 1734, and look for any possible religious controversy.

In 1733/’34, did Boskovic point out to his superiors that the Needle ultimately reduces everything to a world of pi? How would that sit with the Jesuits and/or the Inquisition? Was this why Boskovic may have been apparently fired from his position at the Colegio?

For many, the original Needle must hold (even now as then) an all encompassing seemingly untouchable world of relative pi. The philosophical implications are mind boggling.

For these reasons, “action at a distance” was a facet of science that no one dared to politically touch in the 18th century. Support for the concept would be risking political notoriety and, in a Catholic country, even possible excommunication or imprisonment or worse. Any such apparent support could have career ending consequences.

That Boskovic exposed Laplace to Buffon, if Buffon didn’t already know, is supported by hints of circumstantial evidence. These are discussed in CRACKING PI CRACKING RANDOM.

Georges Buffon was five years dead in 1793. If Laplace’s intent was simply to slaughter his colleagues to gain power, his pursuit of Buffonet (Georges Buffon’s son and heir) would not make sense. Yet, if there was a single ultimate focus to Laplace and the Terror and the Law of Suspects and the Law of Prarial and the other absurd laws in between ...it appears to be the murder of his colleagues to clear the way to obtain their papers. In that regard, Laplace appears most eager for those of Buffon, held in estate by Buffonet.

During the 1776 – ’77 debate, Buffon unexpectedly published the Needle twice. The second time, Buffon placed it in an unusual section of his Histoire Naturelle. It was titled “Moral Arithmetic.” Buffon was perhaps bound to silence concerning the Needle and the Laplace/Boskovic debate …but was he quietly making a double point?

After Buffon's death, Laplace seldom missed an opportunity to trash Buffon. During the Revolution, Laplace had a sycophant follower named Cuvier. Laplace was surely behind Cuvier’s unusually focused assault on the Royal Gardens and Buffon’s theories. Let it also be noted that after Buffon’s papers and work were seized by Laplace’s agents (Fouche's police agents) they were rewarded with civic honors. What was that really all about?

In 1776, Laplace appears to have been at least temporarily safe from public exposure by the political motivations of the small group of people supporting him. They were the officers and leaders of the Academy. At stake in common were the deepest possible political and economic interests of France. As well, each man had serious personal financial and/or career interests at stake. For political reasons, they could publicly say nothing of the geometric truth unfolding before them. As well, a military secret may have been involved.

Six people were at the core of this handful. Up front, Laplace forced a “debate” upon Boskovic. Supporting Laplace, while generally appearing to do so from a neutral corner, were Condorcet, Lavoisier, Bailly and Buffon. Gaspard Monge (1746 -1818) may have been included. Monge is the father of “descriptive geometry.” Monge’s superior, Etienne Bezout (1730 – 1783) may also have been involved. Bezout was a senior member of the Academy, a noted mathematician, and France’s Chief Examiner of Artillery. When Bezout died, he was replaced by Laplace.

Although he may or may not have been of the original inner sanctum regarding the debate, Monge appears to have perhaps had his personal say of Laplace along with a professional perspective. This may explain Laplace’s famously long and passionate hatred of the man.

In 1776, Bezout certainly had his say. Bezout was appointed to the special committee, formed by Condorcet, at the demand of Boskovic, to examine Laplace’s outrageous behavior during the "debate." Besides being academically wrong, Laplace had been generally conclusionary (that is: without giving sufficient supporting reasons) and rudely accusatory. Laplace claimed Boskovic’s methodology for predicting the orbits of comets was “action at a distance” and generally useless. Laplace claimed the methodology of his own quadrature was better.

Boskovic would have made his academic point first in public. He undoubtedly would have immediately made a more personal point in private. Boskovic would have pointed to Laplace’s error with sufficient analysis. While probably no one in the public gallery understood what Laplace and Boskovic were talking about, the men behind Laplace were the leading scientific genius’ of their generation. They would have understood the issues. They also did not have to back down even though their man, Laplace, was wrong. Laplace was at least right concerning Boskovic’s use of “action at a distance.”

Boskovic was limited in claiming “victory.” He could not publicly explain the real advantage of his methodology without considerable risk of admitting and exposing his use of “action at a distance” in defiance of the Church. He could basically only claim his methodology was a different way of measuring something.

For the reasons given herein, the committee reviewing the debate was, of course, stacked against Boskovic. The committee concluded Laplace was technically correct and slapped his wrist for rudeness while suggesting they take their differences back into the public arena …which was exactly what Laplace’s backers wanted.

Thereafter, for approximately fifteen months, Laplace was allowed to repeatedly embarrass Boskovic at the regular public meetings of the Academy. Laplace had only to stand up and rudely accuse Boskovic of using “action at a distance.”

The “technical correctness” the committee assigned to Laplace would be recognizing the possibility of using quadrature to track the orbits of comets. It would be similar in manner to using Cartesian co-ordinates. It allows an algebraic comparison, but does not allow for the geometry of “action at a distance" and does not address the underlying geometric interaction with gravity. Cartesian co-ordinates allow the description of algebraic geometry. The algebra of Laplace’s random quadrature fits on Cartesian co-ordinates as the algebra of descriptive geometry. In short, the algebraic set up of Cartesian co-ordinates fits only a set up for more algebra.

This theory of the debate appears to fit an unusual chain of circumstances stretching back several years.

In or around 1771, Monge approached Condorcet with a calculus problem. Monge’s specialty was artillery fortifications. Over the previous five years, Monge had designed a military fortification that was a military secret.

The original Buffon Needle Problem, from 1733, is considered one of the first practical applications of calculus.

Buffon was Permanent Treasurer of the Academy when Monge approached Condorcet. The problem with calculus is that if the measurements are random, the mathematical trail always leads to the original Needle and its conclusions of pi …if the original Needle’s universal random unit of measure is used. Since Buffon's work was already banned by the church, and since random calculus leads back to Buffon's Needle, the apparent practice at the Academy was to quietly pass such questions to the resident atheist mathematician. At that time, it was Jean D ‘Alembert [now a famous name in game theory].

Condorcet was then assistant to the ailing Permanent Secretary. That put Condorcetat the top of a short list for appointment as Interim Permanent Secretary of the Academy. That would put him in line for Permanent Secretary. It was the Academy’s most powerful position. The Paris Academy of Sciences then led the world as the cutting edge of science, especially in physics and mathematics. In those years, Permanent Secretary of the Academy was probably the most influential position in the world of science.

Buffon represented the old guard. Condorcet represented the new generation. If Condorcet gained the appointment, it was inevitable they would someday clash (and they did). When that occurred, Condorcet would need all the support he could get. In the interim, Condorcet needed Buffon’s support to become Permanent Secretary. As well, they both ...especially Buffon ...needed someone to do any religiously touchy calculations.

By way of background, the argument may be introduced here that Boskovic knew Newton’s comet theory well before 1733, but didn’t develop it until after the Needle came out. Action at a distance doesn’t appear to make mathematical sense relative to the randomness we perceive (this was Laplace’s argument in 1776). It only made sense with the original Needle …which came with its special and unacceptable price of pi.

In 1734, Boskovic was a Jesuit priest. The sense that Newton’s theory made, and the methodology that delivered it, was from the banned “actio in distans.” Boskovic could only use it if his conscience let him and if he could get away with it. What he couldn't do was admit that was what he was using gave any kind of special advantage. He could only claim it was just a different way of measuring something. Boskovic may have gotten fired from the Colegio Romano over this, but this too must be read between the lines.

The library of the Colegio would have received, as quickly as possible, virtually every publication by every scientific Academy in the world. For a few years before the Needle, Boskovic would have probably had access to those works, including the works of Newton. Although in Rome, Boskovic would also have had ready access to Buffon’s Needle, if not in 1733, then probably within a week of its first publication in 1734.

The Needle makes mathematical sense of Newton’s theory and Boskovic’s application of it. So what’s the problem?

Relative to pi, the mathematical sense comes in a dimension of pi, through the random geometry of relative 1/2 pi, with a unit of measure of relative 1/4 pi, which, when using “action at a distance” over three random measurements, changes the random geometry of pi and 1/2 pi and 1/4 pi …to 1/6 pi! In this dimension, only the pi-angle and the relative pi-angle pole, relative to a pi-angle base, reflect the geometric probability of random physical reality. In this dimension, all other dimensions and poles are just relative pi in rotation. More specifically, depending on the relativity: either pi or relative 1/4 pi or 1/2 pi or 1/6 pi in rotation ...just algebra. Just a perception.

That is: paradoxically, relative to the randomness of a pi-angle, everything other than the pi-angle is relative pi or a geometric percentage thereof.

When “action at a distance” is applied to a series of random events, the mathematical sense of pi becomes a geometric probability that is quite different from quadrature and/or traditional random theory and/or the “random” physical reality we perceive and have been taught. The nature of pi changes.

By 1771, some works of both Newton and Buffon had been banned by the church. Both Newton’s “action at a distance” and Buffon’s original Needle ultimately lead to the world of random pi. If pi was the real reason for the church’s ban on Buffon’s work concerning evolution, not even that could be admitted. Buffon's works were ostensibly banned for his theories of evolution. It was easy to argue against evolution. Who actually knew what was happening over thousands or millions of years? However pi was another matter. If the Church specifically banned the Needle because of pi ...everyone would immediately know where to look.

There is only one possible ultimate conclusion in the use of randomness and calculus. Everything measured randomly is the universal random average or a percentage thereof. If it is a percentage thereof, it only has gravitational relevance to relative 1/4 pi in the first instance. This is easy to conceal however. Simply measure it with a different unit of measure, use fractions and call it so many inches or millimeters or light years.

The geometric truth only comes with the randomness of the original Needle. The genius of the original Needle was that it allowed gravity to randomly define itself. Gravity came up with the universal random unit of measure: relative 1/4 pi, relative to its pi-angle (or “diameter”). The pi-angle is gravity's straight line pull through an object or field.

The original Needle deductively values the pi-angle as: “1.”.

Here, another digression is necessary.

It is here, with the unspoken use of the Needle, that Laplace's first expressed the mathematics of his fraud. It appeared in 1772, when he announced he had discovered that the second degree of every equation lies in quadrature. By this he meant 1/4 C. This is the original Needle. The fraud continued throughout his career. In 1812, he plagiarized and warped the Needle.

If any other length of Needle than relative 1/4 pi is used as the random unit of measure, it is not random relative to the geometric probability of gravity. A different length of Needle (including traditional random theory) is arbitrarily relative to the randomness of perception only.

A randomly dropped Needle that is of any length different than relative 1/4 pi is not random relative to the randomness it purports to deliver under traditional random theory. The difference is quadrature …which changes the underlying random geometric nature of probability that is naturally and gravitationally aligned with the pull of gravity's single dimension. The methodology of quadrature changes the statistical results of gravity's pull on a single dimension into a "game" of two dimensions of algebraic possibilities on a circle (or “game”). Random quadrature is demonstrated by the algebra of calculus. This incestuously delivers the random algebra of the field or game we perceive. Only the methodology of "action at a distance" allows us to statistically see what gravity is randomly delivering.

In short, random quadrature, upon which traditional random theory is algebraically based, does not mathematically reflect the randomness that gravity is geometrically delivering.

Geometric probability is delivered by “action at a distance.” This statistically delivers the random flat bet advantage.

There is nothing wrong with random quadrature …but to understand the underlying nature of randomness it is necessary to understand its deeper geometric roots in relative 1/4 pi. It is these random roots that Laplace concealed.

The trail of geometric probability through the original Needle automatically leads to “action at a distance.” This is only randomly found and proven by starting with a correct geometric assignment of “1.” By the proof of the original Needle, that assignment is to the field or game’s pi-angle or diameter. This deductively values a game or field's radius as: .50 .

The value of a radius as .50 is the value deduced from the original Needle. It is the academic side of what Laplace needed to conceal. If used, a radius of .50 dissolves quadrature. If a radius is valued as anything else --or a Needle or unit of measure of any other length than relative 1/4 pi is used-- quadrature is possible and “action at a distance” is impossible. Laplace virtually always valued a field or game’s radius as: “1.”. This conceals the truth of geometric probability. It does so by matching random results to life’s perceptions of a circle... rather than to the geometric probability that gravity is randomly delivering on a pi-angle.

This ends the digression.

To continue: if Monge was using calculus and geometric probability to design fortifications against random artillery (with any necessary Bayesian adjustment for tactical considerations of terrain, etc.) Monge would necessarily have come up with, and used, the same random geometric probabilities as the original Needle.

If so, the inevitable “shape” of Monge’s fortification design would be some variation of a double S curve or double “U” or “W” or star. This generally reflects the unique ups and downs of both a geometric description of the original Needle over a series of random tosses …as well as the first slices of “Boskovic’s Curve,” which appeared circa 1756.

In a field of two perceived dimensions (the Needle’s floor planks or an artillery fortification) a random bombardment will be perceived as tending to statistically balance itself (subject to Bayesian adjustments) in quadrants. These are the four poles of the two dimensions. Relative to what we perceive, a random bombardment is relative to the perceived circumference of the four poles of the circle or fort. However, relative to randomness, the random bombardment is on the circle or fort’s pi-angle ("diameter"). That makes it a matter of geometric probability. Therein lies the sense of a star or double “U” or “W” curve.

If the “field” or fort is perceived as a circle, but the random bombardment is gravitationally on the field or fort or circle’s diameter, the circle or circumference of the fort may be designed or redesigned to reflect that salient fact. If, for example, North/South is in the diameter line of random fire, then East/West is just an algebraic variation of two parts of relative 1/2 pi each. Mathematically, the physical action is on the single North/South diameter. Continuing the example, the original Needle and “action at a distance” prove that relative North/South not only have different random probabilities from each other, they --gravitationally-- have fundamentally different geometric probabilities from the random algebraic possibilities of relative East/West. Such geometric probabilities in a series inevitably develop into a double curve. That is: a series of probability bulges, similar to a snake’s slither.

On a military fortification, such a double curve would generally tend to continuously deflect most incoming artillery balls into a downward semi spiral upon contact. It would also give interconnecting fields of fire from within the fort.

Two matters must now be noted. First: in 1771, Monge was working on random calculus since the latter half of the 1760’s. That was long before Laplace interfered with how randomness was counted.

Second: Monge is considered the greatest geometer of his time and perhaps of all time. He is the “father” of descriptive geometry (drawing arcs and angles). A feature of descriptive geometry is that it can depict three dimensions onto the two dimensions of paper.

Another feature of descriptive geometry is that when randomness is applied, the door opens to Buffon’s original Needle and its random proof of relative 1/4 pi as the universal random average.

If Monge was using calculus and looking at the geometric probability of random incoming artillery fire, it is almost inevitable that, if he hadn’t already used it, he would sooner or later look at the calculus and geometric probability of the original Needle. This is necessarily so since geometric randomness and calculus always lead to the same conclusion of the universal random average: the original Needle’s length of relative 1/4 pi, or a percentage thereof. At that point, Monge would come face to face with the Needle’s price of pi …and its ultimate conclusion and proof regarding “action at a distance.” When applied to military fortification, this may have qualified it as a military secret. Compounding the matter, "action at a distance" was banned. France was a Catholic country and virtually all involved were Catholics!

If the correct random value of “1.” is used, randomness (with any necessary Bayesian adjustments) and calculus always lead to the same conclusion: the universal random average of the original Needle’s simultaneous length and values: 1/4 C and relative 1/4 pi. It also inferentially leads to “action at a distance.”

Monge was a Catholic. On religious grounds alone, he could only pursue it so far. Did Monge associate Boskovic’s work with the Needle’s calculus? Did Monge see the “action at distance” in both? Did Monge use the random probability of “Boskovic’s Curve” in his designs? Did he see the lid coming off a military secret?

On religious grounds alone there is understandably a silent gap on this subject. Yet, no biography of these participants can be considered comprehensive without attempting to read between the unwritten lines of those lives touched by “action at a distance.” Boskovic’s work ultimately includes “action at a distance.” It is supported by random calculus and the geometric probability of the original Needle.

In his fortification design, Monge may have used random calculus to predict random incoming artillery fire …and arrive at the same inevitable geometric probability of the original Needle as Boskovic did for predicting the orbits of comets. Monge may also have used Boskovic’s Curve or the inevitable geometric probability of Boskovic’s “action at a distance.” Did Monge discuss this with Condorcet on prior occasions? Why not?

There is an appearance that the Academy (and therefore Condorcet and Buffon in 1770) would pass delicate questions of touching on religiously banned material to D'alembert, a senior member and a professed atheist.

When Laplace first sought admission to the Academy, his initial approach was to D’ALembert who gave him a question of maxima/minima with calculus. When the matter is random, the question ultimately leads to a world of pi (if anyone cares to look). It also leads straight to both the original Needle and Boskovic’s Curve. Did D’Alembert pose a question to Laplace that had been posed by Monge to Condorcet? Were they all ducking the random truth of pi for political or religious reasons?

Was Laplace willing to put aside religious niceties and address the question? Was this why he entered his teaching job at the Military Academy? Was that job a perk that came with his willingness to do the work on banned material that the others wouldn’t or couldn’t for political reasons? Was this why, twenty years later, Napoleon (who had been mentored by Laplace at the military academy) teased Laplace by asking why there was no mention of God in Laplace’s work?

There now appears intriguing indications that Laplace was a generally competent but otherwise mediocre, if not marginal, mathematician who may have been quietly handed the original Needle by Condorcet and Buffon, and told that if he said nothing and did some special problems for them, discreetly avoiding mention of the Needle and relative 1/4 pi, he could become the “greatest mathematician in France” …and get admitted to the Academy.

In 1770, Laplace submitted the first of thirteen papers to the Academy over the three years he was seeking admission. He finally succeeded within a month after Condorcet was appointed Interim Permanent Secretary.

In 1774, Boskovic published his theory on predicting the orbits of comets.

In 1776, Laplace published a seminal paper, allegedly begun 1n 1774, allegedly traceable back to Laplace's work in 1772. This became the basis of his life’s work. He claimed he had written it before being admitted to the Academy. From this, Laplace put forth the proposition that the randomness of gaming applies to all of science …and could be proven with calculus and quadrature. In the middle of 1776, Laplace used it to suddenly attack Boskovic at one of the regular public meetings of the Academy.

The real motivations for the attack on Boskovic appear unspoken and political. They concerned possible interference by Boskovic with France's possible participation in the American Revolution. It was feared that Boskovic might use residual influence from his diplomatic days. It was clearly feared, at the highest possible levels of French government, that Boskovic could interfere with the anticipated new American Envoy. When the Envoy turned out to be Ben Franklin, the matter became doubly serious. Boskovic and Franklin already had a unique and long standing relationship.

Franklin was in Paris to borrow money to finance the American Revolution.

France wanted to make the loan. More, the French economy was desperate and France needed to make the loan. At stake were lucrative trade agreements …if America won. To that end, France necessarily needed to wait and see if America would likely win. If France made the loan, it would include another act of war against England. That would spill hot coals everywhere.

However, if France made the loan and America (and France) lost, France would never see the loan repaid. That would flat out bankrupt France (noting that kings technically can’t be bankrupted) which was already teetering on economic disaster.

Franklin was welcomed in France on two counts. He was held in awe and respect as a scientist, especially for his experiments with electricity. He was also cheered for his leadership in the war against England. Franklin was already a corresponding member of the Academy and it hosted his stay.

During his long months in Paris, Franklin was known to be having secret talks with British agents. All outstanding issues between America and England were apparently agreed but one. England was willing to give America everything it wanted, including the right to negotiate its own trade agreements …just don’t ask for independence!

Franklin’s reply was that America was willing to give England the valued trade agreements …just give America its independence!

There was an unusual connection between Boskovic and Franklin. They had met years earlier when both were on diplomatic missions in England. Franklin was representing the Pennsylvania Assembly on tax and trade matters.

Boskovic was then a prominent Jesuit. He was on a dual diplomatic mission. He represented Ragusa as well as the Vatican. England and France were on the verge of war over allegations by England of French treaty violations regarding the rearming of French warships in Ragusa. Boskovic was in England to diplomatically resolve the matter and avoid war. He was successful. Boskovic was publicly recognized and thanked. He was also lauded at Britain’s Royal Academy.

Like Boskovic, Franklin was also a corresponding member of the Royal Academy. He was a witness to Boskovic’s success.

Boskovic’s diplomatic achievement inspired Franklin to write and publish a popular article, directed to the King of England. Franklin let it appear to have been written by an old Jesuit. Franklin later admitted that he, Franklin, wrote it. The subject was on the means of persuading the enemy to make peace. The “old Jesuit” was obviously represented Boskovic.

In 1776, Boskovic carried with him a 100 percent success rate as a peace negotiating diplomat who had already averted war between England and France and, in the eyes of the public, brought Ben Franklin (and therefore America) into it on his side.

France could not allow Boskovic to be that influential again. This was clearly the deeper political motivation behind the attack on Boskovic in 1776. The last thing France wanted was to have Boskovic persuade England and Franklin to make peace.

Clearly, a decision was made at the highest levels to ice Boskovic. But …how?

Laplace, who would receive an odorous reputation as a “yes” man who stayed close to the power brokers, stepped up to bat. Or, was at least was compelled to. With a lifetime of religious education behind him, Laplace was a known adept at religious argument. Laplace and those behind him almost certainly knew Boskovic had previously been in trouble with “action at distance.” They also almost certainly knew Boskovic’s methodology of “action at a distance” automatically incorporated parts of the original Needle, including the same geometric probability of the universal random average of relative 1/4 pi that Laplace had usurped as 1/4 C. Laplace and his backers also knew that Boskovic could not use the Needle and its random proof of relative 1/4 pi to refute Laplace’s argument. They also knew Laplace could use the original Needle’s quadrature to attack Boskovic ...without mentioning the original Needle …and no one could refute him by using the original Needle's geometric probability of relative 1/4 pi …without ultimately admitting that “action at a distance” had validity.

Armed with quadrature, Laplace could embarrass Boskovic in the eyes of Franklin and the world.

It was a disaster for traditional random theory when Laplace lost the debate on academic grounds but appeared to win it in favor of traditional random theory. It was a fraudulent victory for traditional random theory. Laplace was allowed to appear to win academically for political reasons.

The world has lived with that fraud ever since. It is the foundation of Wall Street and the insurance and banking and gaming industries.

THE HISTORY OF RELATIVE 1/4 PI

This section will conclude an overview of the history of relative 1/4 pi through the French Revolution. Perhaps the greatest difficulty in understanding pi is coming to grips with the hardcore consequences that resulted from Simon Laplace’s concealment of relative 1/4 pi.

We, the entire human race, have lived that consequence ever since. The entire world’s systems of science and education and commerce have been blindly following Simon Laplace’s representation that random quadrature holds the truth of randomness.

CRACKING PI CRACKING RANDOM necessarily gives a negative assessment of Laplace in regards to his inexcusable conduct.

Eleven years before the Terror, Jacques Brissot wrote an entire book that gave a similar assessment of Laplace in regards to his conduct and the negative consequences to science and education!

Brissot and others were shocked by Laplace’s outrageous conduct during both the Boskovic debate and the Brissot interview. Brissot's deepest concern was that the Academy was endorsing Laplace and his apparent malice and incompetence.

Though no one was discussing it, Marat’s work with light deductively supported the original Needle. Therefore, it ultimately supported “action at a distance!” Although the Boskovic debate had concluded two years earlier, Marat’s experiment with light nevertheless supported Boskovic’s side of the debate ...and did it with a conclusion that supported the Needle!

Brissot appears dead on with his assessment of Laplace in 1782. He would have been doubly saddened had he lived to enjoy seeing his dire analysis and prediction come true. However, Laplace had Brissot guillotined with the Girondins in 1793.

Brissot and his book were effectively swept out of significance in the torrent of the Terror. However, before the Terror, its significance cannot be overstated. Laplace had been a central target for Brissot in 1782. In return, Brissot was a central target for Laplace in 1793. These matters of pi cannot be understood without a background review of the circumstances.

When Boskovic complained of Laplace’s conduct in the great debate, Condorcet appointed a committee to investigate. Bezout was on the committee. It concluded that Laplace was technically correct and slapped him on the wrist for his manners. It suggested the parties return to the public arena.

That, of course, was exactly what Laplace's supporters wanted ...whether Laplace wanted it or not.

For Laplace, there was the enjoyment that (at least in his own eyes) the public waas perceiving him as "winning" since Boskovic could not adequately respond (on religious grounds as discussed above).

The committee found a fine point of technicality in favor of Laplace. That is, using Laplace’s quadrature on a set of Cartesian co-ordinates, the four polar co-ordinates of quadrature are fundamentally identical with the four polar co-ordinates of Cartesian co-ordinates. They are commonly called: “North, South, East, West.” With Cartesian co-ordinates, the horizontal axis is usually referenced as "x" and the vertical axis is represented by "y."

Laplace rudely claimed his method of quadrature was better than Boskovic’s methodology. Laplace accused of using “action at a distance.”

The pivotal and controversial academic point was the inherent relativity that is associated with “action at a distance.”

Another digression may be help the reader through the web of deceit and politics.

Random quadrature is just another way of measuring something and/or describing or “graphing” it. The statistical problem with random quadrature is that it assumes two dimensions are being randomly measured. The original Needle separated the two dimensions mathematicaly ...but the seperate parts are not equal. They only appear that way. That is why the original Needle contains such genius. It does not just start by creating two equal crossed axes and four Cardinal poles. The original Needle's equalty came wrapped in relative 1/4 pi, relative to the pi-angle created by gravity's pull. The original Needle did not just seperate the axes we see into two dimensions and four Cardinal poles. It seperated them into the dimension of perception and the dimension of gravity!

The deductions and inferences of the original Needle are that gravity only recognizes the single geometric dimension of gravity's own straight line pull. In gravitational fact, relative to randomness and gravity, in all series of random measurements, only one dimension is being randomly measured.

What of the other dimension that we perceive? What of the cross dimension that we can randomly and statistically prove to exist?

The answer has already been discussed. It has to do with relativity.The relativity only appears with the finesse methodology of "action at a distance."

If "action at a distance" is not used, then the statistics we randomly get will match what we see and what we expect from traditional random theory.

If "action at a distance" is used, the geometric finesse eliminates the cross dimension from consideration.

If "action at a distance" is used, there is a natural question that sooner or later must be asked. This was part of Einstein's EPR challenge: "what about everything else?"

What about everything else that is not a geometric probability? What about the "stuff" that is finessed through?

The original Needle answers that too. Relative to gravity, everything else is just relative 1/4 pi ...just an average ...just a mathematical perception.

The “dimensional” differences between random quadrature and “action at a distance” are why modern science, which is based on random quadrature and four poles, does not, except for the Quantum sciences, contain random relativity.

The problem for the Quantum sciences is that they are still using random quadrature to evaluate the results they get from using "action at a distance." This is why the Quantum results are spookily disjointed from traditional random theory.

Random quadrature automatically delivers the statistics of four quadrant poles and two dimensions. They are without meaningful relativity. Each quadrant or Cardinal pole is already an obvious part of the circle to which it might be considered “relative.”

Each quadrant or Cardinal pole is an end pole of one of the two dimensions that comprise a circle. The connection is obvious. A circle is already made up of quadrants representing two dimensions. This is traditional random theory. The statement that a quadrant is “relative” to a circle is first grade obvious and gravitationally meaningless. Circles and “games” are only algebra in the first instance.

Traditional random theory cannot be reconciled with the geometry of “action at a distance.” It is only with "action at a distance" that relativity becomes meaningful. The finesse methodology simultaneously relates two apparently separate events: algebra on a circle and geometry on a diameter. Every random measurement holds an algebraic value around the circumference of the field (any pocket on a roulette wheel) ...and a geometric value along the field or wheel's pi-angle.

Action at a distance proves that a circle of four quadrants is just an illusion. Action at a distance statistically proves only three poles are rotating. The proof comes through the relativity of matters that otherwise have no apparent connection.

Understanding relativity is not difficult. It is just not obvious.

The proof of relativity --the geometric relativity that eluded Einstein-- only appears as a statistical matter of geometric probability. It can only be mathematically found and resolved with the geometric finesse inherent in “action at a distance.”

The relativity is between the algebra of the perception of a circle (or “game”) …and the geometry that gravity is randomly delivering on a pi-angle. The relativity only appears statistically as a geometric probability. Apparently, randomly and mathematically, only the original Needle can geometrically satisfy this.

Relative to gravity and randomness, only the original Needle’s relative length is both algebraic as 1/4 C …and geometric as relative 1/4 pi. It is only proven with “action at a distance.” It then only makes mathematical sense in a world comprised entirely of pi.

In that world of pi, it is pi itself that is paradoxically eliminated from the equation by the geometric finesse. This leaves a world of relative geometric probabilities between the geometric divisions of pi.

The term “relativity” is also meaningless when applied to 1/2 C. Like a quadrant of 1/4 C, a semi circle of 1/2 C is already an obvious integral part of the circle.

The term "relativity" becomes meaningful when 1/2 C is valued as 1/2 pi. The end poles of 1/2 pi are already a natural part of the pi-angle (or "diameter”). When 1/2 pi is reached with "action at a distance," the random values change. The Cardinal poles on the semi-circle are the same size when they are not measured with "action at a distance." The Cardinal poles on the semi-circle are not the same size when they are measured with "action at a distance." As discussed within, the difference is thirty degrees of arc. With traditional random theory, a random event is expected to land in 90 degrees of arc. With "action at a distance," the same random event is predictable in 60 degrees of arc.

The term “relativity” has double significance when 1/2 C is considered as relative 1/2 pi. Here, with “action at a distance,” relative 1/2 pi is relative to relative 1/4 pi over three random measurements. This is so since the unit of measure is relative 1/4 pi. This is the length of the original Needle. It is also relative to the diameter through 1/2 pi’s relativity with 1/6 pi. That is: the relativity of a Cardinal pole (as the end pole of a semi-circle of 1/2 pi) to a relative pi-angle pole (as a geometric probability of 1/6 pi).

In every series of random measurements, relative 1/2 pi is also the relative length of the relative cross radius. This was the deductive proof of the original Needle. That randomly values the cross diameter as: pi.

This is evidenced by dividing a quadrant (the universal random average of relative 1/4 pi) of a roulette wheel by its radius. The quotient is always the length of the relative cross radius: 1/2 pi.

The term “relativity” does not need to be applied to 1/6 pi when it is relative to life’s perceptions. This value of a relative pi-angle pole is already integral, as a matter of geometric probability, to both the pi-angle that randomness and gravity are delivering and the circle of algebraic possibilities that comprise the “game.”

However, relative to gravity’s pi-angle over three random events or measurements, relative 1/6 pi is relative to the pi-angle base or “diameter base.” Here again, the spookiness appears. The value of the pi-angle base may be inferred by its value with “action at a distance” in a world of relative pi.

Here, the spookiness continues.

The value of a pi-angle base, as one end of a pi-angle, would theoretically appear at first blush to equally match the value of its relative pi-angle pole or at least a Cardinal pole. An example is that to all appearances on a circle, North equals South. If South is a Cardinal pole, then it would appear North is a Cardinal pole. If, with "action at a distance," relative North is the geometric probability of a relative pi-angle pole that holds a flat bet .16666 advantage, then it would appear South should be of similar size. Such, however, is not the random case.

The necessary lack of relativity (since it is only the first in a series of three) in a pi-angle base places its value as precisely one half of that of a relative pi-angle pole of 1/6 pi. That is: a pi-angle base is a 1/3 probability on the natural pi-angle of 3 poles and, since its not yet relative, it is still a 1/4 possibility on a circle, relative to the “game.” That is: 1/12 pi. This is discussed within.

The flat bet advantage “payoff” is the relative difference between 1/6 pi and relative 1/4 pi (or between 1/6 pi and  relative 1/2 pi: the answer and flat bet advantage is the same) factored by two possible directions.

Does this sound complicated? It is not! It is only a matter of admitting that, relative to randomness, we and our random measurements are just a perception of so much relative pi. Perhaps this is why, in modern science, the .08333 flat bet success of Quantum Mechanics is ascribed to “hidden variables.” In gravitational geometric fact, nothing is “hidden.” It is just a matter of perception. The real problem is that “perception” introduces too much information into the attempt to understand the simplicity of randomness and gravity.

The original Needle mathematically proves that, relative to the randomness of gravity, life's perceptios are pi. It proves pi is the Center of Rotation. The geometric finesse eliminates the Center of Rotation from a series of random measurements …and therefore pi and the mathematical involvement of life’s perceptions is also eliminated.

The original Needle, and its extension with the geometric finesse of “action at a distance,” reduces a field of two dimensions and four poles to a field of one dimension and three poles. This reveals the hidden variables.

It is we and our perceptions who are the hidden variables. The geometric finesse eliminates us and our perceptions from the equation.

Spookier and spookier!

Relative to gravity, by the proof of the original Needle, perception is pi. Gravity doesn’t recognize life or perceptions. Relative to gravity, we and our perceptions and games ...are the pi!

Action at a distance eliminates pi and ourselves and our perceptions and “games” from equations of randomness. It replaces everything with a stream of events of relative 1/4 pi each. What remains are the relative geometric probabilities of pi’s geometric divisions. These hold the geometric truths of randomness. This is what Laplace knew and concealed.

By incessantly using quadrature to measure randomness, the relative geometry of the random gravitational truth is a mathematical impossibility. We are the pi. With our random measurements, we (pi) and our algebra (pi) and our measurements (pi) are forever measuring and receiving what we perceive (pi) and what quadrature (pi) and our traditional random game theory (pi) incestuously deliver: the algebra of pi.

It requires a mental jump out of the circle of pi to accept the relative geometry that gravity is randomly and paradoxically delivering through three measurements of relative 1/4 pi when using "action at a distance."

The random geometric truth that contains relativity is only statistically apparent with “action at a distance.”

It only makes sense with relative 1/4 pi as the unit of measure. With it, gravity delivers the random geometric relativity that defines itself by the random proof of the original Needle.

The proof is found in the relative geometric relationships between the geometric divisions of pi. Paradoxically, it is only found after pi and the experimenter (and/or observer) are eliminated from the equation.

The elimination comes through the geometric finesse of “action at a distance.”

The original Needle deductively proves the COR is pi. Action at a distance finesses through the field or game or object’s COR. That is: the geometric finesse eliminates the COR and pi –and our perceptions– from the event. This allows relativity to emerge with the randomness of geometric probability.

We can only “see” the geometric probability through statistics.

Such statistics spooked Einstein. Over three random events, it changes 1/4 pi (or 1/2 pi or pi depending on perception) to the relative flat bet advantage of relative 1/6 pi!

When we measure randomness with quadrature, we only get our perceptions of two (or three or more) dimensions handed back to us in a statistical perception that tends to automatically display four Cardinal poles in every series of random measurements. This is the basis of traditional random theory. The algebraic structure of quadrature algebraically delivers the structure of what we perceive: an algebraic circle of 4 algebraic Cardinal poles. Any unit of measure may be used: “microns” or inches or meters or light years or pockets or card values, etc..

However, in traditional random theory, the unit of measure is algebraic (anything you want) and can only be made relative to itself through more algebra. That is: the algebra of 1/4 of a circle, algebraically multiplied by four, only completes the algebra of a circle. That makes any perceived mathematical relativity meaningless as just a perception of algebra. That is: random quadrature does not directly address the geometric nature of that which is being randomly measured.

For example, roulette is a “game” that properly has four natural quadrants (as per the original Needle). On a 38 pocket wheel, a ball lands in a pocket that is approximately one inch wide, on a wheel that is approximately three feet around, that is made with so many different materials, each of such and such a particular size and weight and resiliency, etc.. Each of the foregoing elements, including the “game” and the “odds” is determined with quadrature. In modern science to date, each additional factor will also inevitably be measured with quadrature. Most importantly, the "game" will also be a game of quadature played on a wheel of quadrature. The problem with quadrature is that it only measures more quadrature. Random quadrature confirms our perceptions ...but relative to gravity, random quadrature only measures whatever it is perceived as measuring ...and all of it is just a perception.

When randomness is measured with “action at a distance,” the dimensions we perceive --that are only algebraic perceptions of random quadrature in the first place-- are eliminated by the geometric finesse. This leaves the measurement geometrically structured to match the structure of gravity’s pull on the single dimension of a pi-angle. However, to make mathematical sense, the original Needle’s length of relative 1/4 pi must be used as the unit of measure. When it is made relative through 1/2 pi over a series of three random events, the magic appears in the random transformation of 1/4 pi into 1/6 pi.

Using quadrature, the underlying, gravitational, geometric nature of randomness must be inferred with a psychological leap. It cannot be deduced. The problem with random quadrature is that there is nothing to be deduced that isn’t also measured with quadrature. This is mathematically incestuous. There is no random geometry with quadrature. It is just algebra describing more algebra to the algebraic “geometry” of our perceptions.

Only we see shapes and blobs and circles and games. Gravity doesn’t.

Relative to gravity, we and our shapes and blobs and circles and games are all ...just so much pi!

The closest the algebra of random quadrature comes to geometric randomness is the original Needle. That is: the algebraic possibility of 1/4 C equals the geometric probability of the algebra of relative 1/4 pi, relative to the diameter.

This is where “action at a distance” enters.

Mathematically, with “action at a distance,” relative to randomness, the underlying premise of a geometric finesse automatically and geometrically matches the geometric structure of gravity’s straight line pull along the pi-angle or “diameter” of the object or game or field being randomly measured (algebraically factored as may be necessary by any Bayesian adjustments and/or relative 1/2 pi as described herein relative to a sphere). If mathematical sense is to be geometrically made of randomness and/or “action at a distance,” it is only possible if the unit of measure is relative 1/4 pi.

Returning to this history of pi ...therein was the taunt of Laplace to Boskovic.

Laplace knew Boskovic could not admit that his random unit of measure was relative 1/4 pi. The reason….?….

….For Boskovic, trying to claim a flat bet random .08333 advantage would mean risking blasphemy by necessarily admitting the ultimate natural conclusion that, relative to randomness and gravity …everything else is just some version of pi ...that is randomly and gravitationally proven with "action at a distance!"

Perhaps just as significantly, it would appear from the historical timing that Boskovic may have usurped the original Needle between 1733 and 1734, exactly like Laplace had usurped the original Needle between 1770 and 1772!

There were some differences between their apparent respective usurpations. Boskovic apparently took the original Needle’s geometric truth of relative 1/4 pi and its inherent .08333 advantage and plugged it into Newton’s theory of comet prediction, presumably for scientific reasons. However, he couldn’t tell anyone for religious and/or political reasons.

Laplace usurped the original Needle’s algebraic truth of 1/4 C and its inherent quadrature (the basis of traditional random theory) and used it to further his career. He concealed the original Needle and it proof of relative 1/4 pi so that close examination of its then recent development would not expose him as a front man instead of the "greatest mathematician in France."

Random quadrature matches life’s perceptions …but automatically does not mathematically allow for the geometry of random measurements relative to the underlying gravitational nature of that which is being measured.

The problem concerns the random value: “1.”. If Quadrature is used, the radius of a field is necessarily valued as “1.”. From there, everything is valued in any manner, shape or form in which traditional random theory and values apply, which is virtually everywhere and with everything. Even the values of a radius may be changed.

However, with the original Needle and “action at a distance,” the only possible random value of a radius is: “.50″ …and that fundamentally changes the random measurements of everything.

Action at a distance does not match life’s perceptions of randomness. However, the geometric finesse of “action at a distance” does mathematically find the random geometric nature of gravity! This automatically delivers a .08333 flat bet advantage over quadrature!

The same advantage is .16666 if the measure is couched in gaming circumstances. However, the only random geometric condition that mathematically satisfies “action at a distance” and explains the flat bet random geometric advantage …is when the random unit of measure is: relative 1/4 pi.

The religious and philosophical problems attending relative 1/4 pi ultimately lead to the conclusion that everything random is just random pi! To many people, that spooky truth would be irreligious!

Yet, relative 1/4 pi --and all the mathematical and philosophical consequences that flow from it-- must be the universal random unit of measurement if “action at a distance” is to make mathematical sense and if randomness is to be understood relative to gravity and random measurements.

In the 18th century, proposing “action at a distance” as a legitimate methodology could have been a career ending proposition for any scientist to hold, especially a priest, ex Jesuit and diplomat, such as Boskovic. It could be equally career ending for prominent officers of the Paris Academy of Sciences, such as Buffon and Condorcet. They may have held "Permanent" titles, but it was the king's Academy and he could pretty much do or pressure what he wanted.

Relative 1/4 pi was the real unspoken issue between Laplace and Boskovic in 1776. They both apparently knew it and neither could openly admit the deeper truth.

Laplace was wrong in his analytical conclusion. Boskovic would have pointed this out. Boskovic would have certainly made his point with more vigor and depth in a back room a few minutes later. There, Boskovic may well have also pointed out that Laplace had usurped the Needle to obtain his quadrature.

Simply looking at who was academically right and who was wrong, Boskovic “won” the debate. He especially won it in the back room. Nevertheless, from the back room, there was no one, especially Boskovic, who was going to publicly argue the true validity of “action at a distance” at the expense of life’s perceptions and their career. Boskovic was also not going to admit any usurpation of the original Needle’s length of relative 1/4 pi.

Boskovic could only admit his methodology was just a different way of measuring something.

As for the public…. Methodology? Orbits of comets? Action at a distance? Acceleration? Vectors? Angles? Geometry? Who knew what they were talking about …but wasn’t it fun to watch them go at it and see the old man squirm?!

Laplace continued his taunts and attack from approximately June, 1776, to September, 1777. Boskovic then left France. To the public, that left a muddled appearance that Boskovic might have somehow “lost” and Laplace might have somehow “won.”

Doctor Jean Paul Marat entered the scene months before the debate ended and became friends with Ben Franklin. Marat contrived to have Franklin lead an Academy commission to review Marat’s initial experiments with heat. It was a good review.

Marat’s subsequent experiments with light were tacitly and deductively coherent with the original Needle …and therefore sympathetic to Boskovic’s side of the recent debate! These were basic matters of mechanics and gravity. Unfortunately, they were also matters of politics.

Marat claimed light was a perception that occurs at a tangent relative to the object it touches.

By the proof of the original Needle, that relativity sets up the tangent event as relative 1/4 pi and the relative cross radius as 1/2 pi. This agrees with the original Needle as a perception (mathematical average) that occurs at a tangent (relative 1/4 pi) relative (through 1/2 pi) to the Center of Rotation or Center of Mass of the pi-angle of the object it touches.

Marat also correctly understood the seriousness of the mathematical consequences of his work. He wrote his belief that the Academy was rejecting his work since otherwise they would have to recalculate every calculation ever made!

Laplace’s biographers disagree as to whether he actually received an academic degree, but after his outrageous interview with Brissot, Laplace’s reputation was effectively a time bomb that could reduce the “greatest mathematician in France” to little more than a corrupt night bookkeeper in a border brothel.

Laplace’s first published paper contained an error he "blamed on the printer" ...and at which many winked. One of his earliest papers to the Academy contained material and ideas lifted from two other mathematicians, one of whom was sitting on the very committee reviewing his work (noting that Condorcet was the other committee member).

Laplace’s major paper in 1776, which he claimed as part of his work from 1774, and claimed was based on work he did in 1772, and on which he based his life’s work, was effectively shot down in the Boskovic debate. Laplace’s work clearly grew from the original Needle. It now appears it was never his work in the first place.

Laplace claimed the random possibilities of gaming may be applied to the random mechanics of the universe.

Laplace’s usurpation of the works of others and adapting them to quadrature became part of Laplace’s signature contribution. His most significant positive contribution is considered the “Laplace Transform.” It changes linear measurements (let the reader plug in the original Needle and Boskovic’s finesse methodology) to quadrature. It also appears to have been developed by Buffon and quietly handed to Laplace upon Laplace's manipulated admission to the Academy.

There is nothing wrong with quadrature, but it must be understood as only representing what is perceived. Other than being the "pay off" in gaming, quadrature becomes meaningless when understood geometrically in terms of the original Needle’s relativity to the randomness of gravity. Through the geometric finesse in "action at a distance," quadrature is jumped and eliminated. Therein is the flat bet advantage …and Laplace (and/or his backers) knew it!

Laplace’s concealment of his usurpation and burial of the original Needle was a major part of his terrible legacy to the world. The system of education we enjoy today was forged in the smithy of that hell called the Terror. Now, as then, its interior is rotten with a stain of academic prejudice that is as strong now as when established by Laplace two centuries ago.

Laplace’s contamination of science and education was well discussed in De La Verite. In 1782, Laplace’s charlatan approach become a blueprint for the next two centuries. Amazingly, that was twenty years before Laplace got serious and committed mass murder to make his point. Laplace’s prejudice and mediocrity were described in Brissot's 360 page book. It was effectively dedicated to that specific subject: Laplace’s bad faith mediocrity and the evil consequences that the Paris Academy of Sciences inexplicably were allowing to occur.

Brissot’s deepest concern was that the Academy appeared to actually be adopting Laplace’s lack of academic integrity and his malicious dismissals of anything new that might threaten his (and/or the Academy’s) status quo.

The roots of De La Verite came from the Brissot/Laplace interview regarding Marat. However, the seeds of the interview and the book were sown in the Laplace/Boskovic debate.

Laplace's rude behavior surely shocked many. As well, the fact that he was reading from notes and still being conclusionary ...was surely a puzzlement as well. So too, the appearance that he was somehow "winning" the debate.

The roots of the “debate” were sown with Laplace’s usurpation of the Needle in 1772.

Here, another digression is necessary.

The year 1770, was in an age of mathematical discovery. However, "action at a distance" was banned by the Catholic Church. So too were the works of Buffon.

France was a Catholic country and all the officers and leaders of the Academy were Catholic. For political and career reasons, they could not be seen working with “action at a distance” or delving into pi through the Needle. Yet, these were serious matters with serious consequences, perhaps military consequences as well.

The evidence points to two possibilities concerning Laplace’s usurpation of the original Needle. First, that Laplace was a generally competent but mediocre mathematician who independently stumbled across the Needle but said nothing.

The second possibility makes more sense and has more evidentiary support. That is, Laplace was a mildly competent mediocre mathematician with but a useful and singular outstanding asset. He was an ambitious hard working atheist without morals who was willing to be a front for the works of others ...and who was apparently willing to wear a cleric's robe to establish credibility ...and was willling to quietly work with banned materials ...and take any heat that came down.

For political and/or religious and/or military reasons, it appears Laplace was quietly handed the Needle by Buffon and Condorcet. Laplace would have understood he was to quietly answer special mathematical questions from time to time. He would have been told that if he used it well …without ever mentioning the Needle or discussing its random geometric probability of relative 1/4 pi …he could be the greatest mathematician in France.

In this regard, there may have been one or more people behind Buffon and Condorcet, at least during the Boskovic debate. A short list would include Lavoisier, Bailly and Bezout. Monge may also have been tangentially involved, but probably no others.

It may be noted these men were all were Catholics. It appears they quietly handed the Needle to Laplace because they found a mathematician willing to snub religion and take it on. In this regard, Laplace had another valuable asset: he was without integrity. Although apparently an atheist, he was willing to wear a cleric's garb to establish his credibility!

Bezout and Monge may have been included in this small cadre because the subject of geometric probability appears to touch (and may have been touched off by) a military secret.

Bailly may have been included because he was arguably the Academy’s foremost astronomer and the ostensible subject of the debate was predicting the orbits of comets.

Lavoisier may have been included for several reasons. He was the scientific powerhouse in the Academy. He would soon enjoy fame as the “father” of modern chemistry. He was also France's leading tax collector and there was a considerable amount of money perceived to be at stake in the form of trade agreements ...if Boskovic didn't persuade Ben Franklin to make peace with England.

Buffon had obvious reasons. Buffon is considered a non mathematician (although he now appears as a superior mathematician than Laplace). Buffon may or may not have understood the full consequences of his Needle. However, if Buffon did not understand the depth of his Needle, Buffon was fully aware of the debate issues and its depth of relative 1/4 pi. Even in this scenario, Buffon would have known that neither Laplace nor Boskovic could introduce relative 1/4 pi as the real subject of the debate.

Neither Laplace or Boskovic could argue the geometric validity of relative 1/4 pi (from Laplace) or 1/6 pi (from Boskovic) without inferentially or directly supporting “action at a distance.” Action at a distance left the point of the Needle dangling over their heads like a blade.

In this scenario, Buffon and Condorcet, alone or with friends, were not only clued in when Laplace attacked Boskovic, but may even have designed the attack.

Then came Marat!

Marat was forever an unexpected ingredient. His work supported the original Needle. That work, if followed to its ultimate conclusion, threatened to expose the geometric truth of relative 1/4 pi. In that case, there was a good chance Laplace’s facade would crumble.

After the Marat/Academy confrontation exploded into the Revolution, it was not just Marat’s work that threatened Laplace. It was Marat himself. Throughout the Revolution, until his death, Marat’s influence grew steadily. He was calling for heads and his wish was on the verge of coming true. Marat also had a good track record of violence stretching back four years earlier (with involvement in a massacre or two in between) when he banged the tocsin to call citizens to the Bastille!

Within this mix were the motives for Laplace’s conduct in the Revolution. If there was ever incriminating paperwork supporting this analysis, such pages are long gone. In this regard, it must be noted again that during the Terror, the papers and records of the Academy, and the slaughtered scientists (most especially including their memoirs) were immediately seized and delivered to Laplace. As well, Laplace was Chief Examiner of Artillery. Military records were also in his control. Any incriminating paperwork against Laplace would have been long destroyed.

The circumstance of precious few documents, due to their intentional destruction in a cover up of judicial murder, concealed within a larger crime (mass murder through the Terror) necessarily leads to a scanty legal analysis such as this ...wherein wispy circumstantial evidence must sifted.

Laplace’s statements of his work and the history of his times no longer hold credibility. So too, all traditional histories of the cause of the Terror are now put to the test.

By historical agreement, there is sufficient history as to what appeared to happen. The blame is generally put on Robespierre. However, there is precious little history as to the root cause that motivated Robespierre or who, if anyone, was really behind him.

Georges Couthon was Robespierre’s most intimate right hand man. It is inconceivable that Couthon would speak to the issue of executing the Girondins, using the evidence he used, without receiving it from or through Robespierre. A clear picture of who was behind the evidence starts with the question: which mathematician told Robespierre (or Couthon) he had mathematical proof of a connection between the Girondins and Charlotte Corday?!

Whoever gave that “mathematical demonstration” delivered a knowing death knell for the Girondins, especially to Jacques Brissot and Jean Condorcet!

What mathematician could or would do that? In 1793?!

There were apparently only two leading probability experts working with social statistics in Paris in 1793: Condorcet and Laplace.

Such a mathematician would have to be nimble with probability ...like Laplace. Such a mathematician would have to be nimble with social statistics ...like Laplace. Such a mathematician would have to be knowledgeable about the parties and the area ...like Laplace. Most of the Girondin’s were actually from the Caen area ...like Laplace. More specifically, Corday bragged she was from Calvados ...like Laplace. Nor would Couthon use the mathematics of just any old mathematician who might be knowledgeable about probability and social statistics and had an ax to grind. In advocating mass murder of elected government representatives, Couthon (and/or Robespierre) would want the mathematical figures to come with credibility ...from at least one of the great mathematicians in France, if not the greatest ...like Laplace.

Condorcet, with the alleged help of Laplace, is considered the father of the merger of probability and social statistics. Condorcet is credited, with the alleged help of Laplace, with using probability theory to stabilize and analyze the stock market and actuary statistics. Prior to Condorcet (and Laplace) the stock market was chaotic with mathematically unwarranted speculation. Condorcet --with the alleged help of Laplace-- is very much the “father” of the introduction of probability and social statistics, including the stock market and actuarial tables.

We may be certain that Condorcet did not send a note to Couthon to explain that there was a mathematical connection between Corday and himself (Condorcet) and therefor he (Condorcet) should be executed!

Brissot was deeply concerned with social matters and was familiar with social statistics. He knew Condorcet. Both men worked to end slavery in France. Both fought and argued for woman’s rights. Brissot was intimately part of the “Girondins.” They were even originally named after him: the “Brissotins.” Brissot certainly did not give Couthon or Robespierre his mathematical assessment that he and the Girondins were in a conspiracy and therefore should be executed!

There is an incomplete historical picture of the French Revolution and the involvement of the academic masters. The involvement of academia did not stop with the Terror. This is expanded in CRACKING PI CRACKING RANDOM. What happened in the rapid evolution of modern science and education after 1793, was strangely understood and predicted in “De La Verite.” It was apparently written by Brissot while imprisoned in the Bastille on a libel/slander charge.

Jacques Brissot was solidly part of the intelligentsia. He was a respected journalist whose focus was social conscience. He was popular and was early elected as a representative in the new government. When the Bastille fell, the keys were first handed to Brissot. He was soon leading a loose group of independently elected representatives who generally agreed with and supported him. They were loosely and generally known as the “Brissotins.”

Marat was a loose cannon. His attack on the Brissotins (soon to be called the “Girondins”) and the results it generated, brings this history of pi full circle as to Laplace’s motives and opportunity for instigating the Terror.

The key to Laplace’s opportunity appears to be Napoleon.

On June 2, 1793, it is inconceivable that Francois Hanriot would use National Guard artillery to force the Girondin’s from the Convention without the ultimate consent and direction of Robespierre and Laplace.

As previously discussed, Laplace’s intent was to ensure Condorcet, Bailly, Lavoisier, Brissot, the Duc d’Orleans and Buffonet were killed under the Law of Suspects. It now appears the Law of Suspects was enacted, through Ronespierre, by Laplace. Laplace’s intent was to have these six specific men killed under the Law. His motive was to silence the witnesses against him. To that end, their papers were also seized and delivered to him. Laplace needed to ensure silence concerning his entry into the Academy as well as the truth behind the 1776 debate. As well, to ensure silence from Brissot concerning the interview at the heart of De La Verite.

The Laplace/Brissot interview itself was fairly short. From it, Brissot accurately saw the big picture without necessarily having full grasp of the technical issues. He knew something was fundamentally wrong with Laplace’s conduct in science and education.

The real issue to Brissot was how and why the Academy was supporting Laplace. His book was an indictment of the Academy on two matters that Brissot saw as one and the same inasmuch as they each revolved around Laplace and occurred back to back. They were: the Laplace/Boskovic debate and the Laplace/Brissot interview concerning Marat.

In De La Verite, Brissot could not identify individuals for fear of prosecution for libel. He later identified himself and Laplace as the interviewer and interviewee. In publishing the interview, he refers to himself as "Skeptic" and Laplace as "Geometer."

Brissot starts his book by identifying the philosophical and educational problems confronting a generally illiterate society. He discusses, with patient logic, how it is necessary that science consider new ideas.

Brissot takes the Academy savants to task for ignoring and/or derailing any evidence that contradicts theirs. Throughout, he uses various examples (besides the case example of Marat) that repeatedly include a system for measuring comets. This, of course, was what the notorious Laplace/Boskovic debate was all about.

As he establishes his position with reason, Brissot considers the broader spectrum of social interest in science and public education. In his book, he was constrained about naming names but otherwise pulled no punches. He pointed to the savants of the Academy as wrongfully following Laplace’s path of ignorance and mediocrity.

Brissot generally describes the savants as despotic, ignorant, mediocre, and having unwarranted arrogance. He does not hesitate to use the word “charlatan.” He points out that in support of themselves (referring of course especially to Laplace) they use particular mathematical systems in particular pedantic ways to obscure the truth. He discusses how too many academics write quick papers for a quick buck. He discusses the importance of new ideas and how the powerful established savants don’t want to hear them. He expressly points out the danger of spreading such ignorance through mis-education.

Brissot repeatedly points to the absurdity of a Geometer savant (Laplace) deciding off the top of his head to declare the well thought out, detailed and documented, work of a physician scientist (Marat) to be imbecilic just because he, Laplace the Geometer, didn’t agree with its conclusion!

Brissot uses the interview as the case example of academic ignorance and prejudice. Iin this regard, it is worth noting that nothing has changed one iota in two and half centuries: the established academic community in 2011, appears as irrevocably committed to the identical ignorance and prejudice concerning these matters as Laplace.

De la Verite is wrapped around an interview between a Skeptic and a Geometer. Brissot later clarified that he (Brissot) was the “Skeptic” and Laplace was the “Geometer.”

“Le Sceptique: Vous ne l’avez ni vu, ni lu, ni entendu, & vous prononcez! & vous le traitez d’absurde & d’imbecillie!”

[You have not seen him or read or tried to understand him and you call him absurd and imbecilic]!

“Le Geometre: Grand dieu! Que deviendrions nous, s’il fallout tout examiner!"

[Good God! What will become of us if we must examine everything]!

With this summation of his intellectual philosophy, the greatest mathematician in France kicked off modern science and education.