Fibonacci Numbers, Phi, and the Venus/Earth Relation

page: 5
57
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 26 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by KenArten
This is a post that can encourage interesting interactions other than insults. The OP, ErroneousDylan, and OccamAssassin have interesting points that should be heard and explored, even if only to educate ourselves about both the good and crude use of Phi and Fibonacci that is often used to "explain" who-knows-what, good, bad or imagined. Time prohibits my fuller response but I will be back.

Meanwhile just a thought to consider. The relationship between Phi and Fibonacci at the small numbers is poor but does tend towards 1,618... . Perhaps we need a number system to the base Phi to really start to investigate all these supposed natural relationships that are observed. After all, all natural constants we know of are irrational. Try drawing the pentagram step by step, piece by piece with the true phi relationship between each section, for example. What would that look like?

I will not even begin on the deductions of numerology that is also "based" (on rocky ground for me) on the base 10 system and a whole lot of other man-made number (year, month lengths etc) .......
must rush .............................


Thank you for your words. A number base system of Phi would be really interesting to implement. I may experiment with this, thank you.




posted on May, 26 2012 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mizzijr
I seen this really cool picture on facebook talking about this. I had no idea where the pentagram came from Thank you, the 5th and 6th should be a nice day lol.





Not sure if you can see this without a facebook.


Thank you for your contribution!



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by JustJoe
reply to post by ErroneousDylan
 


you totally just blew my mind, bro...I must say you kind of gave up or held back at the end but still.

thanks for the mental munchies


Yeah my ending was not as climatic as I had hoped. I'll admit, I did hold back but I didn't want to sound too absurd. Thanks for the kind words and you are welcome!



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by NotAnAspie
I had this theory that Venus is so hot and it's core so highly fluid that it doesn't rotate very fast on the *outside* but that within it is actually on the same wave as the other planets. i theorized that the crust is only the part that is going in another direction from having such a fluid center that the mass of the crust is negligible in comparison to the core to a large extent... and that the crust is sliding... opposing the natural inner direction of the core... and this explanation about this cycle is fascinating because it suggests that it may have something to do with earth.

I mean, there is a just a feeling you get when looking at a model of the orbit. they are playing off of each other in some way and do agree in your theory that they may be opposites. there is just something weird and fascinating about the whole thing.
edit on 25-5-2012 by NotAnAspie because: (no reason given)


That's very possible. They say the surface of Venus looks only about 500million years old which is much younger than its actual age. They think a massive volcano erupted on Venus and caused it to resurface the planet.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ErroneousDylan
 


Thanks for sharing, informative and pleasantly-written thread.

I've been aware of Earths connection to Mars but not Venus. If what you state in your thread is true then it's further proof of the interconnectedness of everything in the universe and how the plan and design of it function as an amazing whole.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
reply to post by ErroneousDylan
 


Here's another site you may really like. It brings in some of the other planets as well and extrapolates on what you've been looking into
goldennumber.net...


Thank you very much. If you notice in my last post of my original three, I did already reference that one
It is a very prominent site in my studies! Thank you regardless!



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nightwalk
reply to post by ErroneousDylan
 


Thanks for sharing, informative and pleasantly-written thread.

I've been aware of Earths connection to Mars but not Venus. If what you state in your thread is true then it's further proof of the interconnectedness of everything in the universe and how the plan and design of it function as an amazing whole.


Thank you very much for your kind words. I would love to hear more about this connection between Earth and Mars. Truly the Universe is beautifully designed!



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErroneousDylan

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
reply to post by ErroneousDylan
 


Here's another site you may really like. It brings in some of the other planets as well and extrapolates on what you've been looking into
goldennumber.net...


Thank you very much. If you notice in my last post of my original three, I did already reference that one
It is a very prominent site in my studies! Thank you regardless!


OOPS! I got a little distracted with some other issues that transpired and must have missed the link!



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


No worries, my friend. I still appreciate it!



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ErroneousDylan
 


First of all if you're not Richard Merrick then you're plagarizing:

Here's Richard Merrick's new blog post at RealitySandwich with the exact same content as this OP

Secondly consider that all the other blogposts on RealitySandwich have a comments section but the comments section is mysteriously gone for Richard Merrick's blog post aka this same ATS OP. Why?

Because I posted a comment -- it was the second comment to the OP's post on Realitysandwich -- and the second comment was an edited version of my detailed expose of why Richard Merrick's Interference music theory is wrong.

My detailed critique was part of my Devil's Thread here on ATS -- you can read that critique of Richard Merrick starting here

So what we have here is a cover-up.

Richard Merrick obviously complained about my criticism of his same OP over at Realitysandwich and he made Realitysandwich censor my criticism. I have been a regular blog commentor over at Realitysandwich for a long time and I have continued to post comments even after my critique of Richard was censored.

Is it just a coincidence that Richard then decided to start his own thread over here at ATS? Nope because I made it very clear on my own blog that Realitysandwich censored my criticism of Richard Merrick and that I was able to repost my criticism precisely because it was originally found here at ATS.

So why is it that Richard had the comments section removed from his same OP at realitysandwich? Because he can't handle real criticism of his music theory model.

Notice how Richard has dodged the Fibonacci Series as Golden Ratio question in relation to the Perfect Fifth music interval -- he says how the transit of Venus is not the Golden RAtio but just the Fibonacci Series. But Richard's whole music model is based on the Fibonacci Series as the Golden Ratio in relation to the Perfect Fifth -- he's assuming that the music ratio 3/2 as the Perfect Fifth converges to the Golden Ratio. He's got a Pentagram as five Perfect Fifth music ratios with a gap as the difference between 1.5 and 1.618. This is just all contrived by Richard Merrick.

It makes for nice New Age Golden Ratio propaganda -- look how Richard slides right back into the Golden Ratio when talking about other planetary alignments. haha.

Well I'll let people consider my critique of Richard through the link to the Devil's Chord thread -- but why is it that if Richard already has his name behind his Realitysandwich blogpost -- and in fact is making this the subject of his new book -- he publishes his books on his website - then why not just use his real name?

Is it perhaps because in the "real" world with his real name he had to censor real criticisms of his music model of reality? haha.

Yes some people can't handle criticism so they have to hide in their make believe world of ideology and propaganda -- ignoring criticism while puffing up from all the sycophant comments being fooled by this fake science posing as philosophy.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamAssassin
A little music theory that was interpreted wrongly......Roots & Fifths......Which root note and its Fifth has a golden ratio? Sure it may fall on two notes but there will only be two as the chromatic distance between the root and fifth will always be the same but the frequencies will only allow a "golden ratio" (or close to it) once.


Wow... so sure of yourself and yet you just managed epicly fail music theory. An octave up always doubles the frequency of the original note. If the A above middle C is tuned to 440 hertz, then the A one octave higher will be 880 hertz. This means the frequency ratios between intervals are always the same regardless of where the root is. Example, multiplying a frequency times the square root of two will always move you up a tritone (augmented fourth) no matter what the starting frequency.

Before you criticize others as posting things that are incorrect you may want to make sure your own information is correct. When you remove the plank from your own eye you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother's eye.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
reply to post by ErroneousDylan
 


First of all if you're not Richard Merrick then you're plagarizing:

Here's Richard Merrick's new blog post at RealitySandwich with the exact same content as this OP

Secondly consider that all the other blogposts on RealitySandwich have a comments section but the comments section is mysteriously gone for Richard Merrick's blog post aka this same ATS OP. Why?

Because I posted a comment -- it was the second comment to the OP's post on Realitysandwich -- and the second comment was an edited version of my detailed expose of why Richard Merrick's Interference music theory is wrong.

My detailed critique was part of my Devil's Thread here on ATS -- you can read that critique of Richard Merrick starting here

So what we have here is a cover-up.

Richard Merrick obviously complained about my criticism of his same OP over at Realitysandwich and he made Realitysandwich censor my criticism. I have been a regular blog commentor over at Realitysandwich for a long time and I have continued to post comments even after my critique of Richard was censored.

Is it just a coincidence that Richard then decided to start his own thread over here at ATS? Nope because I made it very clear on my own blog that Realitysandwich censored my criticism of Richard Merrick and that I was able to repost my criticism precisely because it was originally found here at ATS.

So why is it that Richard had the comments section removed from his same OP at realitysandwich? Because he can't handle real criticism of his music theory model.

Notice how Richard has dodged the Fibonacci Series as Golden Ratio question in relation to the Perfect Fifth music interval -- he says how the transit of Venus is not the Golden RAtio but just the Fibonacci Series. But Richard's whole music model is based on the Fibonacci Series as the Golden Ratio in relation to the Perfect Fifth -- he's assuming that the music ratio 3/2 as the Perfect Fifth converges to the Golden Ratio. He's got a Pentagram as five Perfect Fifth music ratios with a gap as the difference between 1.5 and 1.618. This is just all contrived by Richard Merrick.

It makes for nice New Age Golden Ratio propaganda -- look how Richard slides right back into the Golden Ratio when talking about other planetary alignments. haha.

Well I'll let people consider my critique of Richard through the link to the Devil's Chord thread -- but why is it that if Richard already has his name behind his Realitysandwich blogpost -- and in fact is making this the subject of his new book -- he publishes his books on his website - then why not just use his real name?

Is it perhaps because in the "real" world with his real name he had to censor real criticisms of his music model of reality? haha.

Yes some people can't handle criticism so they have to hide in their make believe world of ideology and propaganda -- ignoring criticism while puffing up from all the sycophant comments being fooled by this fake science posing as philosophy.


First of all, I have no clue who this person is you keep referring to and I have never seen that site but I thank you for posting it as it looks very informative.

Secondly, there is no plagiarism here and I am highly offended that you would assume such a ridiculous thing. You seem very obsessed with this "Richard Merrick" fellow but discussion of him is off-topic and I would please ask you to refrain from speaking about him.

Thank you for your contribution, regardless.
edit on 26-5-2012 by ErroneousDylan because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 01:54 AM
link   
Yes, mathematics can be beautiful and it goes much much much deeper than Phi (which appears over and over in number theory). There are even more deep and profound complexites and regularities---none more mysterious and deep than the Riemann zeta function.

Party trick. Somebody asks you, "How many base-10 digits are there in the 173rd Fibonnaci number?"
You know that number is Really Really Big.

Take the state vector V(n)=(F(n) F(n-1)) where F(n) is the n'th Fibonnaci number.

The recursive Fibonnaci relation can be written as
V(n) = M * V(n-1) where M is the matric

M=[1 1]
[0 1]

If you work it out it says F(n+1) = F(n) + F(n-1), as you know.

How do you get V(n) given the initial condition V(1) = [1 1] ?

V(n) = M*M*M*M*M (n times) * V(1)
V(n) = M^n * V(1)

How do you raise a matrix to a power? You diagonalize it, the fundamental decomposition

M = Q*D*Q^-1 where Q is an orthogonal matrix, D is a diagonal matrix and Q^(-1) is the inverse.

So now write it out, successive Q * Q^-1 cancels and you get

V(n) = Q* D^n * Q^-1 * V(1)

So for large n it scales as D^n. D has the eigenvalues of the matrix M, and guess what the one larger than 1 (so that it grows) is nothing other than Phi = 1/2*(sqrt(5)+1). And for large n this is indeed the ratio between successive numbers asymptotically (as Q has size 1 and the large eigenvalue of D^n dominates for large n).

So yes you can get the n'th Fibonnaci number in one step. For large n, like 173, the small eigenvalue (1/Phi?) converges to zero roughly

F(173) =approx phi^173 so the number of base 10 digits in F(173) is 173*log10(phi) =approx 36.

You can define other recursion relations the same way, say F(n) = F(n-1) + 2*F(n) and do the same procedures and get new eigenvalues

M_2 = [1 2]
[0 1]

for Fibbonacioid sequences.



However, the astronomy on this thread is utter bunkum, and wholly useless. In a nutshell, the notion that one can deduce facts about the planets by appealing to "sacred geometry" went out with the ancient Greeks---who btw, came up with an empirically more successful methods than on here. They, and their philosophy were wrong, wrong wrong.

In practice, there is no magic resonance or numerological regularity. Planets are in elliptical orbits, their orbital planes vary slightly from one another, and there is no perfectly mathematically preserved symmetry.

Real physics and astronomy started with Galileo and Newton. There is no "sacred geometry" or whatever controlling all. There is sacred calculus, state and equations of motion.
edit on 26-5-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-5-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 02:06 AM
link   
I wouldn't stop looking for connections in a world where it has just recently been agreed upon in the scientific community that a black hole exists in every galaxy. It was disputed by many well into our generation that it even had anything to do with a galaxy's creation and function. That doesn't mean jump to conclusions, but people should be really careful with absolutes. not saying they do not exist... some are just very eager to convince you of an absolute when there should be room for considerations.

It can easily be said there is nothing that exists that does not contain a mathematical equation of some kind. everything is division from a single source. evidence points to it all being numbers. Perhaps OUR numbers just haven't worked yet because we just don't have the right equations.
edit on 26-5-2012 by NotAnAspie because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 02:16 AM
link   
I'm going to add this... If there was a continuing unchanging symmetry, the universe would constantly be doing the same thing always... but in understanding where symmetry does apply, it can show you where the actual variables come into play... which tends to change that symmetry.

The galaxy has a specific design. If we understand the specific design to completion, we could begin understanding how it is changed by other forces that we have no concept of. If we just look at the numbers from our viewpoint alone, we may fail to see a bigger picture. Things in the cosmos can be very specific, very calculated... down to the nth... so where do all these variables come from in an organized design that yet can be so chaotic.
edit on 26-5-2012 by NotAnAspie because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 02:18 AM
link   
Nice signature

www.convertbinary.com...


Congratulations. I just wasted your time.
edit on 5/26/2012 by IpsissimusMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by ErroneousDylan
 


No, thank-you and please don't apologise. Given that you mathematically inclined, as well and my other friend The Witty purple bird, I would love to pass on this story and get your take on it:-

I read this when I was 10 years old and it has stuck with me ever since:-

Half of 1 = 0.5
Half of 0.5 = 0.25
Half of 0.25 = 0.125

Mathematically, this continues to a countless number of decimal places using the decimal system. SO, try this little paradox:

A person throws a ball from point A to point B. In order for the ball to reach point B it must first travel half that distance. In order to travel that "half distance" it must first travel half of that "half distance". The ball, in effect, travels an infinite number of half distances therefore never reaching point B.

But it does because we the observer can verify it landing and stopping at point B

(From the book: 2201 Fascinating Facts)

I have found myself contemplating this little story a lot in the past few months.

Thanks, it appears that there are some very intelligent people on this site.

edit on 26-5-2012 by Sublimecraft because: Had a dyslexic moment with the date of the book : )



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sublimecraft
reply to post by ErroneousDylan
 


No, thank-you and please don't apologise. Given that you mathematically inclined, as well and my other friend The Witty purple bird, I would love to pass on this story and get your take on it:-

I read this when I was 10 years old and it has stuck with me ever since:-

Half of 1 = 0.5
Half of 0.5 = 0.25
Half of 0.25 = 0.125

Mathematically, this continues to a countless number of decimal places using the decimal system. SO, try this little paradox:

A person throws a ball from point A to point B. In order for the ball to reach point B it must first travel half that distance. In order to travel that "half distance" it must first travel half of that "half distance". The ball, in effect, travels an infinite number of half distances therefore never reaching point B.

But it does because we the observer can verify it landing and stopping at point B

(From the book: 2201 Fascinating Facts)

I have found myself contemplating this little story a lot in the past few months.

Thanks, it appears that there are some very intelligent people on this site.

edit on 26-5-2012 by Sublimecraft because: Had a dyslexic moment with the date of the book : )


What a coincidence you mention this! This is a thread I posted awhile back: www.abovetopsecret.com... I'm sure you'll find it relative! Haha.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ErroneousDylan
 

Although your posts are well thought out...there is an issue with the calculations...you see...the Earth as well as Venus' Solar Orbits are slowing down as well as the size of the Planets as well as the Suns size are changing.

Also...both Earth and Venusian axis wobbles change both the eliptical orbit as well s how earths axis tilts toward the Sun. Our Sun will eventually grow in diameter to an extent as it converts the majority of it's Hydrogen into Helium and the Sun's diameter will eventually grow to encompass all the inner planets and all the way past Mars.

So your Numerology as well as Geometric Constants are not constant and they will change...even now they are not exact as you are using an approximation. But it is still interesting. Split Infinity



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamAssassin
 

Donald in Mathmagic Land (1959)





new topics
top topics
 
57
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join