Properties of the square inscribed, the circle inscribed and the squared circle (or circled square); 9

Imagining without a pencil or paper.

A square inscribed within a circle ("square inscribed") has four points "coincident" or "of intersection" between them.  Likewise, the circle within the square ("circle inscribed") has four points of coincidence or of intersection.  Poetically thinking, the solstices and equinoxes might be thought of those four points.

The four points of the square inscribed, assuming the vertical sides of the square are in a north/south orientation relative to the viewer, will fall on the hypotenuse of the square or the 45* angles of the circle.

The four point of the circle inscribed, again assuming the vertical sides of the square are north/south, fall on the poetic solstices or equinoxes or at 90* angles relative to north/south.

The four points of the square inscribed or the circle inscribed have a distance and time from the center that are equal.  In Euclidian geometry we always think that from one point to another is distance and we measure it with a ruler.  Perhaps the four line segments between the center and the coincident points might be measured with alternately the ruler for the hypotenuse or the clock for the radius...the two being equal...the two being "squared" at those theoretic coincident points.

The square inscribed and the circle inscribed, seeming opposites whose proportion of perimeter or area are the same regardless of which you choose.  Each is the reversed proportion of the other (78.5%).

A "squared circle" or, to be politically correct, a "circled square" - seeming verbal opposites but having the same meaning - have eight points of coincidence.  And at those eight points the radius from the center is equal to half the square's side from the center.  Is the angle then 45% or 90% relative to the North/South orientation?  I don't think so.  I wonder what Mr. Kepler would say though I'm not sure what the answer is....not yet.

All of the above sums to an incorrect "either or" proposition, in my estimation.

Either, if one views Hermann Minkowski "spacetime" from the view of the square inscribed, the person weighs the greater importance of the diagonals of the north/south oriented square...the 45* angle.

Or, if one views "spacetime" from the view of the circle inscribed, the person weighs the greater importance of the solstices or equinoxes of the circle....the 90* angle.

Are either correct in viewing spacetime?  I'm inclined to say "nope."  Very very inclined.

What's a common thread of these opposing incorrect views of spacetime?  Its 9.  We see above 45* which is 4+5=9 and we see 90* which is 9+0=9.  

What's the most important digit according to at least one authority I recall; its 9 'because its the last digit and then we start over again.'  [As I dwell, in all of nature, perhaps all ending is a beginning.]  

In the acrostic/telestic encoding of his "The Tunnel Thru the Air," WD Gann refers to John Dee, dozens of times.  I've tried to count the many incidents but the "in your face" creations  of the letters comprising "Dee" are dwarfed by simple permutations (ede, eed) and the line number "paths" that create "Dee."  Some creations of the name are entirely doubtable coincidence given the popularity of the letters 'd' and 'e,' while others are indisputable, author-contrived references to the 17th century mathematician, alchemist, magician, scholar of Queen Elizabeth's court (the first "007").  Mr. Gann refers, in the encodings, to John Dee's "Map."  You'll have to take my word for it because not a person readings this will take the time to decode enough of TTTTA to find those references.

What map?  WD Gann's "Map of Time," his invention and greatest spacetime calculator is, as I believe I will ultimately prove, is based on John Dee's "Map."  And where do we find that Map?

I again recall a description of digits; that 5 is the midpoint of the 9 digits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 (0 is a placeholder and not a digit and was not used in the Western world until Leonardo de Pisa imported it in the 13th century).  Appropriately, John Dee's 23rd theorem (2+3=5) of the "Monas Hieroglyphica" rendered from Latin to English in Jim Egan's insightful book:

Interpreting only the top left portion of the inscrutable symbolism we find the digits 5-8 vertically arranged on the far left, and the digits 1-4 on the right of a seeming table.  Diagonal lines connect the digits 8 and 1 and 5 and 4.

One digit is missing; 9.  When we add the ends of each of the two lines we get 9, the missing digit (8+1=9 and 4+5=9).  If we connect seeming opposites from each side we get 9 (7+2=9, 6+3=9, etc).

Where in the 9 on this "Map?"  Jim Egan theorizes it above the other 8 digits in the "Horizon of Eternity."  An enigma, worthy of Philo, that teaches perhaps; the prominently missing 9.  How appropriate Dee commented on the chart "Thus the world was created."

Is 9 the key to spacetime, the place where time and space coincidentally end and begin again?  I think so.  Can't prove it...yet.

Is it all static?  When happens when 'motion' is added these static models?  Not just motion of time, but simultaneous motion of time and space as theorized by Hermann Minkowski's great student, Albert Einstein.  The circle inscribed morphing to the square inscribed as a function of Einstein's imposition of gravity...creating a vibration that unifies eight times per completed cycle, in an infinitely small moment in spacetime, at the digit 9.

I believe WD Gann knew all that and more in about 1908 (the year of his great discovery, and years before Einstein's development of General Relativity as I recall) and he didn't just theorize it; he implemented it in his laboratory, the stock market, commodity market, lotteries.  Can't prove it....yet.

Jim Ross