Can the Golden Mean redifine the Universe?

So I was out shoveling snow (I really hate winter...), and a thought crossed my mind. Can we see the Universe through the eyes of Fibonacci? I think we can, and it could seriously redefine how we view the Universe. For instance, the current model of what science thinks the Universe looks like is this:



However, what if it really looks more like this:



This works if you view the Universe as being a consciousness. Was the "Big Bang", as proponents support, an explosion of energy, or, rather, was it an explosion of life?

Before you roll your eyes, please let me explain.

If the "Big Bang" was an explosion of energy, we should expect the physics of the Universe to mathematically support this... ie. the expansion of the Universe should wane as t → ∞

That didn't happen; and the expansion is accelerating... why? The Universe is, in essence, nature... and nature as we so often see, mimics the Fibonacci sequence ie. 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21...

...this would imply that the Universe should also grow (expand) outward at the same rate. In fact, the expansion of the Universe should follow that: the volume of the Universe can be expressed as V = Vφ as t → ∞

The real question becomes this... is c a constant, or rather does c=c+cφ as t → ∞ ?

If so, this loosens up the Universe a bit... for instance faster than light travel can (and does) occur at sub-light speeds...

How so? Well, imagine this: because c=c+cφ as t→ ∞ we could never attain that speed as light is always accelerating... however, if we can build a craft that could accelerate to 99% of c and that would continually accelerate to maintain 99% of c, we would then cover far more distance in the same amount of time...

Lets say the Universe is expanding as a Fibonacci fractal, we could view space-time as looking something like this:



If c=c+cφ as t → ∞ then a graphical representation of the distance of respective light-years of time would look something like this:



The white line indicates a linear light source crossing space; the blue hash marks indicate how far light would actually travel at one year intervals...

Now, this brings up a few other interesting things...

For instance, the observable age is assumed to be approx. 13 billion years, give or take. I contend that it is actually closer to 8 billion years, and here is why:

If c=c+cφ as t→ ∞ then our calculations would be off by a factor of φ ie. light reaching us after 8 billion years of time would actually originate from a point 13 billion light years away... further, if you express the volume of the Universe as the volume of a sphere where V= 4/3 Π(r)³

The volume of the Universe with a radius of 13 billion light years would be approx. 9202.77 light years

The volume of the Universe with a radius of 8 billion light years would be approx. 2144.66 light years

This results in a Universe that is approx. ¼ the size that we perceive it to be... so much for all of that missing mass...

Speaking of mass and matter... what if all of the "stuff" was already here, but in a state of chaos? Could a "Big Bang" of life or consciousness simply brought order out of chaos, emanating outward as a Fibonacci spiral?

If so, could the famous "background" noise of the Universe be the noise of still ongoing creation, rather than the echo of what once was?

In any case, I am really hoping that a few math folks out there would be willing to expand this... for instance, how would relativity differ if expressed as: e=mc² if c=c+cφ as t→ ∞ ?

I feel as if I am on to something here... could this help explain the fractal nature of our Universe? Dunno...

According to astronomers, the universe is smooth and uniform on the large scale, not fractal. See
www.theverge.com...
You need to propose theories on the basis of what is scientifically known, not on what you would like to believe.

reply to post by micpsi


Yes, according to astronomers using c as a constant value... the math changes significantly if c=c+cφ as t→ ∞ and that IS what I am asking...

Men of "science" also thought the Earth was flat for a long time...

madmac5150
This works if you view the Universe as being a consciousness.

But consciousness it just electro-chemical impulses travelling through neurons in brains of evolved living beings like us. Kill the brain (or even just render it unconscious), and there is no more consciousness.

I don't see how anyone can apply the term "consciousness" to the universe, or anything else for that matter.

wildespace

madmac5150
This works if you view the Universe as being a consciousness.

But consciousness it just electro-chemical impulses travelling through neurons in brains of evolved living beings like us. Kill the brain (or even just render it unconscious), and there is no more consciousness.

I don't see how anyone can apply the term "consciousness" to the universe, or anything else for that matter.

Yes, however, science hasn't been able to wring things out, so to speak, by viewing our Universe as inanimate... a Universe with anima seems a much more elegant means of description... I am not saying the Universe IS God; rather, the Universe is nature and, as such, would also follow nature's patterns of development...

madmac5150

wildespace

madmac5150
This works if you view the Universe as being a consciousness.

But consciousness it just electro-chemical impulses travelling through neurons in brains of evolved living beings like us. Kill the brain (or even just render it unconscious), and there is no more consciousness.

I don't see how anyone can apply the term "consciousness" to the universe, or anything else for that matter.

Yes, however, science hasn't been able to wring things out, so to speak, by viewing our Universe as inanimate... a Universe with anima seems a much more elegant means of description... I am not saying the Universe IS God; rather, the Universe is nature and, as such, would also follow nature's patterns of development...

Science studies nature, and math seems to be the most elegant means of description.

By the way...

madmac5150
Men of "science" also thought the Earth was flat for a long time...

Which is a myth in itself. Men of science knew that the Earth was round, at least from the times of the ancient Greeks.

reply to post by wildespace


Then you are just as closed minded as the rest of them... sorry to have wasted your time.

madmac5150
as light is always accelerating...

Where did you get that idea from? The accelerating expansion of the universe doesn't entail accelerating light. In fact, light gets left behind, becoming less energetic, which is why we observe the cosmic redshift, and why we can't see beyond the edge of the observable universe.

Earth is not the centre of the expanding universe, so you can't use Fibonacci spiral centered on it. The universe is expanding everywhere, equally.

Fibonacci patterns in nature are certainly an interesting phenomenon. I think Mandelbrot did more for describing the hows and whys of why nature isn't all straight lines and circles though. Phi is just one piece of the puzzle, IMHO. The golden ration phenomena are something so fundamental to life that when one learns them, its easy to imagine that such ideas were suppressed, because why else wouldn't they teach that stuff in school? But the field is littered with people inferring all sorts of stuff without any care for science so one has to sort through a lot.

I think a piece of the puzzle that is often missing is WHY it is that the sequence reappears in so many places. I feel like a lot of people writing on the subject simply point out spirals in plants and hurricanes, then espouse conclusions without any steps in between, then point back to the natural phenomena as proof of their take on things.

What I am saying, in essence, is that science has it wrong... supporting the status quo is an admission that they (scientists) are unequivocally correct... yet their "correctness" still falters when it comes to explaining the Universe.

madmac5150
reply to post by wildespace

 

Then you are just as closed minded as the rest of them... sorry to have wasted your time.

I can say, hey, I think the universe is carried on the backs of 4 giant turtles.

You can say, nah, I don't believe that.

Then I can say: "Then you are just as closed minded as the rest of them... sorry to have wasted your time"

But what does that accomplish?

There is lots of evidence. It's perfectly fine to make hypotheses to explain unknowns which fit the evidence we have available. However you are not familiar with the evidence available, so it's not open-mindedness to make hypotheses which contradict evidence, it's just silliness. For example:

madmac5150
For instance, the current model of what science thinks the Universe looks like is this:

However, what if it really looks more like this:

The first image is NOT a model. It's a processed photograph. So you can't just make a different image and say "what about this?" The image you are comparing the fractal creation to was taken with a satellite.

So, try to learn the evidence and have some idea of what you are looking at, then make hypotheses which are consistent with observation.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I apologized for wasting their time because I will not argue my point just for argument's sake... too many on here just constantly flame away with no other real thought than "science must always be right, new thoughts that shift the paradigm must ALWAYS be wrong..."

madmac5150
I apologized for wasting their time because I will not argue my point just for argument's sake... too many on here just constantly flame away with no other real thought than "science must always be right, new thoughts that shift the paradigm must ALWAYS be wrong..."

We aren't saying science is always right. But the satellite image is a fact.

You can't replace a factual satellite image with a drawing. This has nothing with science being right or wrong. The image is what it is. You can't change it, as you are trying to do.

Arbitrageur

madmac5150
I apologized for wasting their time because I will not argue my point just for argument's sake... too many on here just constantly flame away with no other real thought than "science must always be right, new thoughts that shift the paradigm must ALWAYS be wrong..."

We aren't saying science is always right. But the satellite image is a fact.

You can't replace a factual satellite image with a drawing. This has nothing with science being right or wrong. The image is what it is. You can't change it, as you are trying to do.

Yes, but the satellite image is processed and rendered (by computers) with c as a constant. The question becomes what would the same image look like if the imaging algorithm was changed with c=c+cφ as t → ∞ ?

micpsi
According to astronomers, the universe is smooth and uniform on the large scale, not fractal. See
www.theverge.com...
You need to propose theories on the basis of what is scientifically known, not on what you would like to believe.

You need to not simply regurgitate thoughts of others as "fact" or "truths". Or, to put it in your words "scientifically known".

The OP said he was THINKING.

Correct or incorrect, it is an interesting proposal. What have you done lately along the same magnitude?

It's the people who do not simply think within the guidelines of what others have laid down as tracks to follow. Or, as you may simply call it, thinking OUTSIDE of the box.

Please, use a pin and pop that pimple of hubris on your forehead. It's really quite large and ugly. The potential for collateral damage is really rather huge.

Arbitrageur

madmac5150
I apologized for wasting their time because I will not argue my point just for argument's sake... too many on here just constantly flame away with no other real thought than "science must always be right, new thoughts that shift the paradigm must ALWAYS be wrong..."

We aren't saying science is always right. But the satellite image is a fact.

You can't replace a factual satellite image with a drawing. This has nothing with science being right or wrong. The image is what it is. You can't change it, as you are trying to do.

I'd like to invite you to google "scientific facts proven wrong".

I'd also like to invite you to google "images thought real proven to be illusion".

Truly, open your mind up beyond what is simply parroted over and over. I'm not saying that all 'facts' are wrong. All I am saying is, that it is the fool that always assumes they are never incorrect.

madmac5150
Yes, but the satellite image is processed and rendered (by computers) with c as a constant.

No, it wasn't. The processing of that image made no assumptions about c. It's a temperature map basically. The processing was to highlight small variations in the relatively uniform background temperature. There is no "c" involved in this.

The question becomes what would the same image look like if the imaging algorithm was changed with c=c+cφ as t → ∞ ?

It's a temperature map. C is not used to calculate temperature:

WMAP

The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) – also known as the Microwave Anisotropy Probe (MAP), and Explorer 80 – is a spacecraft which measures differences in the temperature of the Big Bang's remnant radiant heat – the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation – across the full sky.

zeroBelief
What have you done lately along the same magnitude?

I said the universe could be carried on the backs of four giant turtles.

madmac5150
What I am saying, in essence, is that science has it wrong... supporting the status quo is an admission that they (scientists) are unequivocally correct... yet their "correctness" still falters when it comes to explaining the Universe.

I like your pattern of thinking here. But, what I'd like to posit as something to consider, is that perhaps no facts/truth/measurements/great understandings/quantitative facts/etc can be had about "The Universe" until we are to observe it from the outside.

For instance, in physics, space is thought of as a cube in which to accurately plot your position you'd need to have six coordinates (essentially, a cube of data) to determine where you are at, and conceivably, where you want to go. However, I've done some pondering on this, and I truly wonder if this can be said, let alone thoroughly contemplated as we have no outside perspective of it. We may get awfully close...but, close only wins in horseshoes. And in outerspace, close could mean millions of miles, or worse, lightyears.

I'd almost think that if you were to go wandering through space, you'd need to literally leave a trail of indestructible breadcrumbs behind to find your way back.

I have zero proof behind my theories. Much like yours, OP, these are simply intelligent queries based off of our own personal knowledge.

So, flame away, jaggoffs, flame away. I have *zero* intention of debating or arguing. I am not saying there is any merit at all to my thoughts, I am not even really calling them theories so much. More so, just ponderings.

Isn't that first pic a picture of cosmic background radiation as seen from Earth? Does this Fibonacci-centric model of the universe explain why the background radiation looks like that when viewed from Earth?

Arbitrageur

zeroBelief
What have you done lately along the same magnitude?

I said the universe could be carried on the backs of four giant turtles.

That's called S A R C A S M.

If you're missing out on that little kernel of knowledge, there are tons more just waiting for you out there if you'd only open you eyes.

However, the general snarkiness of your approach suggests intellectual egotism.

Have fun with yourself.