Fibonacci Numbers, Phi, and the Venus/Earth Relation

reply to post by Morpheas


Here's the book pdf link

read the book online here

Or whatever other format you want the book in here

reply to post by fulllotusqigong


LOL.. Yes your quote is valid.. still doesn't mean the the Egyptians didn't know about or use the Golden Ratio.

I think I agree with the CIA on this one..
Sorry Rossi. Good THEORIES though.

reply to post by ErroneousDylan


This is the cover-up I'm talking about -- the natural number fractions of music tuning already assume a symmetric irrational number.

Consider Hertz. Hertz is just a number as frequency -- as cycles per second. But it's based on magnitude of speed -- magnitude already takes into account the direction of the sound wave. So that has to be a symmetric commutative value even though it's just a frequency number.

It's the same with the natural numbers as "ratios."

O.K. consider the Just tuning ratio of 9/8.

How is 9/8 derived? It is derived by taking the Perfect Fifth as 3/2 and then squaring it to 9/4 and then halving it back into the octave as 9/8.

Now the 9/8 is the major 2nd music ratio. Take three of those and you have what? The tritone as the square root of two -- or 9/8 cubed.

Why is it an irrational number if we are using just "ratios" as natural numbers?

Because the "arithmetic mean" times the "harmonic mean" equals the "geometric mean squared."

The arithmetic mean is the Perfect Fourth as a commutative value -- and the harmonic mean is the Perfect Fifth.

So the only way these ratios work is as 3/2 and not 2/3. Otherwise the commutative mathematics does not work.

3/2 squared is 9/4 which is then halved back to 9/8.

1 is 5/4 as 8/5 is to 2.

That is the irrational number conversion of the cube root values from music "ratios."

So these are not ratios - they only work in one direction as fractions.

There are simple, ideal ratios as expressed in a harmonic series, and then there is the more complex reality of equal temperament, in which the frequency ratios are not so simple and are best written as roots or decimals. Here is one more exercise before we go on to discussions of music.

O.K. so you're claiming that the Just Tuning "ratios" work as either 2:3 or 3:2 right? Nope.




Look at that image. 2/3 is C to F as a fraction of x and then it's doubled to 4/3 as C to F.

So what is x -- there is a serious cover-up about the real meaning of music. The answer is consciousness - just look into sonofusion and sonolumescence. There's a lot more to sound than what is available from Just tuning or logarithmic ratios -- both based on a commutative symmetric relation.

My thread goes into this in great detail.

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
reply to post by Morpheas

 

Here's the book pdf link

read the book online here

Or whatever other format you want the book in here

edit on 26-5-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)

Interesting.. I started reading "In search of 'the rule' for ancient Eygtipian architecture" starting on page 7-56.. did you read this?

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
O.K. so you're claiming that the Just Tuning "ratios" work as either 2:3 or 3:2 right? Nope.

Nope. This is not what I'm claiming.

Answer my question. I dare you.

reply to post by ErroneousDylan

I said the RATIO between VenusDay/EarthYear can be written either as 2:3 or 3:2 depending on how you word it. It is completely irrelevant to the fact that a perfect is 3:2 in just intonation.

O.K. again -- it's only 3/2 as the Perfect Fifth -- that's why 2/3x has to be doubled to 4/3 as the Perfect Fourth. So if you want to say the ratio is 2:3 then it can't be the Perfect Fifth.

If you want to say it's 3/2 as the Perfect Fifth then that assumes a logarithmic measurement for both the music ratio and the planet ratio -- which means your Fibonacci Series is also the Golden Ratio.

I hope that's clear for you -- apparently you want me to give you some information or something?

What are you not clear about?

Ah here is your question.

Yet you did not answer me about the Music of the Spheres. Did it exist long before Merrick? The answer is yes.

According to Pliny, Pythagoras devised a literal “music of the spheres” by using musical intervals to describe the distances between the moon and the known planets. In his Timaeus, Plato took up the idea of a universal philosophy thorough numbers and their musical associations and devised a series that he termed the World Soul: 1, 2, 3, 9, 8, and 27. By using these as musical ratios (1:2, 2:3, 3:9, etc.) he created a series of musical notes that gave a default mathematical ratio for the half-step. By mathematical derivation, one can arrive at theoretical proportions for the non-Pythagorean intervals of seconds, thirds, sixths and sevenths. These intervals are inherently subjective and context-sensitive, however, and have led to epic battles over “desirable” tuning temperaments, in part due to the fact that fixed-pitch instruments like pianos have one pitch to represent at least two distinct notes.

That's from Musicofthespheres.org

I hope you're not playing the "willful ignorance" game but not looking up anything yourself.

O.K. Plato based on Timeaus Music of the Spheres on the system Archytas used -- it's not real Pythagorean harmonics -- it already assumes an irrational solution for the music scale.

My book goes into this in great detail -- based on my correspondence with math professors Luigi Borzacchini and Joe Mazur.

Do you really want to go into all the details? haha. I don't think so. My Devil's Chord thread does.

O.K. so you're saying the ratio of the planets can be 2:3 or 3:2 and it doesn't matter -- but again that's not true for the Perfect Fifth music interval -- it has to be 3:2 or else it's not commutative and this goes back to Plato and his collaborator Archytas because they used a "divide and average" or means system -- adding the geometric mean to derive the irrational number.

You don't have to believe me though -- musciologist Ernest McClain has a whole book proving that Plato was using a system already based on equal-tempered irrational numbers -- The Pythagorean Plato pdf is his book online

So he quotes Plato using the harmonic mean and arithmetic mean and then the geometric mean -- this is the system created by Archytas.

Any who doubt that the musical ratios are all of greater inequality, i.e., that the antecedent or first term in each is greater than the consequent or second term, should consult Archytas DK 47 B 2. This Fragment requires that the ratios be of this form if the assertions about the three means [arithmetic, harmonic and geometric] are to be true. Accordingly, the ratios assigned to the octave, fifth, fourth and minor sixth, must be 2:1, 3:2, 4:3 and 8:5, and not 1:2, 2:3, 3:4 and 5:8, respectively, as Mosshammer and others would have them. Indeed, there is early proof deriving from the Pythagorean school that intervals, such as the fifths, which are represented by superparticular [n + 1 : n] ratios cannot be partitioned into any number of equal subintervals because the terms of these ratios admit no number of geometric means….There is reason to believe that these were supplied by Archytas in the early fourth century B.C.233

233 Alan C. Bowen, "The Minor Sixth (8:5) in Early Greek Harmonic Science," The American Journal of
Philology, 1978.

O.K. the Orthodox Pythagoreans only used the Tetrad as 1:2:3:4.

So whether it's you or Richard Merrick -- your Harmony of the Spheres concept is based on Plato and Archytas using the geometric mean -- it's Western math and does not apply to nonwestern music harmonics.

Orthodox Pythagorean theory recognizes five consonances: fourth, fifth, octave, twelfth, and double octave; and these are represented by the multiple and superparticular ratios [n + 1 : n] from the tetrad. The number 8 obviously does not belong to the tetrad.235

235 André Barbera, "The Consonant Eleventh and the Expansion of the Musical Tetractys: A Study of
Ancient Pythagoreanism," Journal of Music Theory, 1984.

O.K. so 13:8 is not any ancient Music of the Spheres -- it's not Pythagorean -- it already assumes an irrational geometric mean division.

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
reply to post by ErroneousDylan

 

I said the RATIO between VenusDay/EarthYear can be written either as 2:3 or 3:2 depending on how you word it. It is completely irrelevant to the fact that a perfect is 3:2 in just intonation.

O.K. again -- it's only 3/2 as the Perfect Fifth -- that's why 2/3x has to be doubled to 4/3 as the Perfect Fourth. So if you want to say the ratio is 2:3 then it can't be the Perfect Fifth.

If you want to say it's 3/2 as the Perfect Fifth then that assumes a logarithmic measurement for both the music ratio and the planet ratio -- which means your Fibonacci Series is also the Golden Ratio.

I hope that's clear for you -- apparently you want me to give you some information or something?

What are you not clear about?

That wasn't my question.

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
O.K. so you're saying the ratio of the planets can be 2:3 or 3:2 and it doesn't matter -- but again that's not true for the Perfect Fifth music interval -- it has to be 3:2 or else it's not commutative and this goes back to Plato and his collaborator Archytas because they used a "divide and average" or means system -- adding the geometric mean to derive the irrational number.

Which I have said over and over again... and you just some to completely ignore it... Stop being delusional.

Yes I claimed that a RATIO can be expressed in any order, be it 2:3 or 3:2. And yes I claim that the Perfect Fifth ratio is 3:2. Those two statements are completely unrelated to each other in the context that I used them. You completely misunderstood it and just can't seem to let it go...

What exactly are you trying to convey OTHER than the fact that the ratio of 2:3 is not a Perfect Fifth? That is all you have said in the past few pages..

I'm glad you acknowledge the fact that harmonic orbital resonance has been explained much earlier than Merrick though. Meaning Merrick can not take credit for it.

reply to post by ErroneousDylan


So my above reply -- I just edited it.

Then respond if you have any more issues with what I've stated.

What am I missing? I think it's pretty obvious now that the Perfect Fifth music interval does not apply to the ratios of the planetary orbits you are using. Again I mean the nonwestern Perfect Fifth music interval as Orthodox Pythagorean harmonics -- Western music tuning already assuming an irrational number.

If you still want to claim it is the Perfect Fifth then it has to be 3/2 based on the geometric mean equation -- it's not a ratio - it's part of an equation. So in that case your Fibonacci series is also the Golden Ratio -- you can't separate the two.

So what you are saying does not jive with reality -- the Perfect Fifth is used in nonwestern cultures but not as the Golden Ratio.

It should also be noted that the frequency wave created by the orbit around the Sun by Earth and the frequency wave of the rotation of Venus's day create a harmonic interval ratio of 3:2 (a Fibonacci sequnce). This pure harmonic interval creates a perfect fifth in the musical scale.

That's your OP -- so again the Perfect Fifth music ratio as you are using it is limited to Western math and Western music -- it's not a real Perfect Fifth music ratio.

Obviously the orbits of the planets are not limited to Western music. That would be silly yet that is your New Age bunk position.

reply to post by Morpheas

He thought that the 8:5 triangle could have been a simple and practical device to approximate the convergence of the Fibonacci Series to, thus implying that the Egyptian knew  and performed this calculation. However, he did not go far enough as to prove it.

So ends chapter one. Again no golden ratio in Egypt.

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
Again no golden ratio in Egypt.

Wrong. The golden ratio was built into the great pyramid in a number of places including the surface area itself.

The surface area of the four visible faces divided by the surface area of the base equals the golden number. This is not true in the general case for pyramids, it is only true for for the great pyramid.

The half perimeter (length of 2 sides) divided by the height = the golden number squared.

You can do the calculations and verify these things for yourself.

reply to post by OccamAssassin


As intelligent as you are, you know that math is a language of representation, and that is all. It can be manipulated to say whatever you want it to say... all you have to do is leave out a number, or use an erroneous argument or logical fallacy, and use nanotechnology or any other kind of technology available at this time, to skew both the equation and the results, if nothing else, by erasing, what is perfectly obvious by bending time, another thing that seems obvious, but isn't.....
having said that, enough with the hostility, about evolution. as this is subjective in these times as well, and by your name and your posts, I think you know that.
To the OP, there is beauty in the addition, but the sum is more than its parts. But thanks for your take on it.....

Originally posted by ErroneousDylan

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
O.K. so you're saying the ratio of the planets can be 2:3 or 3:2 and it doesn't matter -- but again that's not true for the Perfect Fifth music interval -- it has to be 3:2 or else it's not commutative and this goes back to Plato and his collaborator Archytas because they used a "divide and average" or means system -- adding the geometric mean to derive the irrational number.

Which I have said over and over again... and you just some to completely ignore it... Stop being delusional.

Yes I claimed that a RATIO can be expressed in any order, be it 2:3 or 3:2. And yes I claim that the Perfect Fifth ratio is 3:2. Those two statements are completely unrelated to each other in the context that I used them. You completely misunderstood it and just can't seem to let it go...

What exactly are you trying to convey OTHER than the fact that the ratio of 2:3 is not a Perfect Fifth? That is all you have said in the past few pages..

I'm glad you acknowledge the fact that harmonic orbital resonance has been explained much earlier than Merrick though. Meaning Merrick can not take credit for it.

One is the inverse of the other. So 2:3 is the inverse of the perfect fifth. There, problem solved, now he can get over himself and we can move on

reply to post by SilentKoala


Another mind controlled victim possibly to be freed if only they would actually read the book link.

Oh well I can only bring the water to the horses. Or the horses to the water.

Did you even read the Corrina Rossi material I've posted?

She's proven in great detail that there was no Golden Ratio in Egypt -- the Golden Ratio is a very specific Western creation.

reply to post by PurpleChiten


Yeah I'll repeat the basic issue here since it's maybe tricky for people.

O.K. so if it's a ratio as 2:3 or 3:2 and it's the Fibonacci Series -- this means it has to be commutative with a quadratic solution.

O.K. but 2:3 as the Perfect Fifth is not commutative.

So for the Fibonacci Series -- if it is a sequence in only once direction -- 1:1:2:3 -- then the geometric symbols are

A is to B as B is to A plus B. O.k. that's the whole issue here -- not just the numbers are ratios but how they line up with geometric symbols for equations.

O.K. if the Fibonacci Series is either 2:3 or 3:2 then it has to be

A is to B as B is to A minus B.

See the difference? They are not the same. Once is a closed solution and one is an open solution.

the closed solution is the Golden Ratio and allows both 2:3 and 3:2.

So the OP is now claiming that the Fibonacci ratio can be both 2:3 and 3:2 - -which means it's also the Golden Ratio.

Now if it is 2:3 as the Perfect Fifth -- it is also 2:3 as the Golden Ratio and this is commutative while 2:3 as the Perfect Fifth is non-commutative.

O.K. so no matter what there is no lining up the Perfect Fifth music interval with the Golden Ratio.

O.K. because in music theory 2:3 is C to F while 3:2 is C to G. That's why they are non-commutative.

In geometry of the Fibonacci series if you use 2:3 and 3:2 then it is commutative.

I realize people just want to ignore this difference but it is a fundamental difference.

Nonwestern cultures is the non-commutative Perfect Fifth while the Fibonacci Series using 2:3 is commutative and only applies to Western culture.

So that's why this whole claim is New Age bunk. It's not based on a deep understanding of the math.

It's also the reason why Egypt never used the Golden Ratio.

By the way the ratio 2/3 was sacred in Egypt. Not 3/2.

reply to post by fulllotusqigong


She was giving you a simple ratio dude, not giving you a proof, not overturning any theories, not writing a doctoral thesis.... chill, you don't have to argue over tiny details. If you agree, say you agree, if you disagree, then disagree, but this nitpicking is just annoying. Her full concept and statements didn't hinge on that particular ratio that she gave, so it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. You voiced your opposition, now let it go.

I may not be a cactus expert, but....

reply to post by PurpleChiten


I wish I could say math is an opinion.

Also it's not just the OP -- as I've pointed out there's a new book out based on this premise.

My critique of this has been censored.

The New Age lies are thick and so must be exposed.

Claims about the Fibonacci Series and the Perfect Fifth music ratio are half-baked theories.

I wrote my masters thesis on this topic at the University of Minnesota in 2000.

The law of Pythagoras, an example of the inverse-square law so fundamental to science, can also be approached geometrically through another Pythagorean law, the law of growth-fundamental to chaos and complexity or open systems science, as we'll also see. It's represented by the 4:3 or 3:2 proportioned five-pointed star, "thought to have been a sign of the Pythagorean brotherhood," comments Edward Rothstein, music critic for The New York Times. (43) The profound simple principle is thus: "As the whole line is to the greater segment, so is the greater to the lesser." Rothstein notes that the power of the principle is "to contain itself within itself in the simplest possible fashion." (called the golden mean, the golden section or the Divine Proportion) Rothstein, also a mathematician, explains that the law of growth can be stated as "each number being the sum of the two previous numbers."(44) Or as the music analyst Erno Lendvai puts it: "If every branch of a tree, in one year shoots a new branch, and these new branches double after two years, the number of the branches shows the following yearly increase: 2, 3, 5, 8, 21, 34." (also known as the Fibonacci number series).(45) The mathematical analysis Spirals: From Theodorus to Chaos by Phillip J. Davis (1993) attempts to demystify the law by giving it further credence at the same time: It simply grows its stalks or florets in succession around the apex of the stem so that each fits the gaps of the others. The plant is not in love with the Fibonacci series; it does not even count its stalks; it just puts out stalks were they will have the most room. All the beauty and all the mathematics are a natural by-product of a simple system of growth interacting with its spatial environment.(46) This law of growth has been so important to human civilization that Egyptian, Mayan, Asian, Greek, Gothic, Renaissance and modern architecture and art have all been created by its precise measurements.(47) The growth pattern can be applied to music analysis in at least three manners. The ratios can be attributed to the number series (i.e. 1:1, 1:2, 3:2, 5: 3, 8:5, 21:13 equals the intervals of unison, octave, perfect fifth, major sixth, minor sixth and minor sixth again).(48) Dover publications, known for their prestigious music texts, published the book The Divine Proportion that investigates how the ratio of the major sixth and the major third approximate the golden mean proportion. Lendvai applies the number series to the intervals with each number represented each step of the scale (i.e. 1=minor second, 2=major second, 3=minor third, 5=perfect fourth and 8=minor sixth).(49)

So then I discovered the Actual Matrix Plan based on this same secret of the music logarithmic spiral -- that was right after I finished my masters thesis. Actual Matrix Plan based on the music logarithmic spiral

O.K. so I realized the error of my masters thesis when I equated the logistic equation -- symmetric -- with the Tai-Chi symbol.

See the Tai-Chi symbol is non-commutative - it's asymmetric just like the 1-4-5 music ratios of nonwestern cultures.

So that's the real secret to alchemical paranormal training. I then did that training to finish my masters degree -- I trained taking classes and getting energy transmissions from this qigong master - springforestqigong.com...

O.K. my point is it's important to realize that the Western science is wrong -- I made this error in my masters thesis 10 years ago but I had to work through the research first. That's the learning process.

I'm just pointing out this error to others. It's a huge problem in the New Age scene -- there's a basic misunderstanding of what real music is -- as the West considers music to be geometry.

You don't need to see anything to listen to music.

I realize it's not what people want to hear - we've been lied to. This is a conspiracy cover-up.

The truth is very simple yet also very radical.

There is an influence of planetary alignments but this can only be properly read by someone with their third eye fully open and this is a very rare achievement -- a true energy master.

For example the person I took qigong classes from -- he went a month in a cave in China with no sleep, no food and no water the whole time -- through qigongmaster.com...

So people have no idea what the truth is.

reply to post by PurpleChiten

He described the NeoPlatonic Harmony of the Spheres that, as elaborated by Reiser, includes artificial intelligence, zero-point energy, techno-samadhi, biological holograms, plasma and lasers, galatic manipulation of higher dimensions. Dr. Reiser explictly describes the evolution of the Matrix by stating that the Earth is an egg and in the egg is an embryo. The embryo feeds off the humans, animals and plants, as the ectoderm and entoderm of the egg, in order to create the new World Mother or the Matrix, the Sub-Stance or Psi-Plasma of Nondualism. Again unfortunately, according to this plan, most of humanity and the environment are seen as necessary costs to developing the next level of evolution.

So that's from the Actual Matrix Plan -- it's the same use of music ratios for logarithmic planetary resonance as New Age apocalypse techno-spirituality

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

I wish I could say math is an opinion.

Also it's not just the OP -- as I've pointed out there's a new book out based on this premise.

My critique of this has been censored.

The New Age lies are thick and so must be exposed.

Claims about the Fibonacci Series and the Perfect Fifth music ratio are half-baked theories.

I wrote my masters thesis on this topic at the University of Minnesota in 2000.

Sweetie, one more time, the perfect fifth was not a hinging concept in what she was saying. It was nothing but a "side note" and doens't mount to a hill of beans. It doesn't matter, in this particular thread, one iota about the perfect fifth. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

You aren't the only one with a degree here. I have advanced degress in Math, Physics and Education so I do know what you're talking about and it's just really not that big of a deal. Most of the folks here are looking at the big picture of what she's saying, not the minute details and those details don't really matter for what she's trying to say.
She just pointed out a simple ratio of venus to earth and said if it was earth to venus the ratio would be inverted. That's pretty much all there is to her claim, she's not attacking your thesis or anything else.

You've stated your opposition and given your reasons, now move on to bigger and better things because...well... nobody really cares about the tiny detail, at least not in this particular thread.
If you want to expand on it and discuss it more, make a thread and discuss it to your heart's content, but you can't nitpick one tiny detail out of her thread and beat it like a dead horse.