It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can the Golden Mean redifine the Universe?

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 05:32 PM
link   

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.


Can you give several examples where your theory makes sense of something where "science falters"?




posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by zeroBelief
 


First, let me say thank you for having an open mind... science doesn't have it all figured out, so much as they would like us to think...

Also true is that we may never be able to understand the mechanics of the system while inside of the system... for instance, to somehow prove that c=c or that c=c+cφ as t → ∞ you would need to place measurement devices light years apart... and we aren't even close to that yet...


edit on 29-1-2014 by madmac5150 because: Stupid c



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by zeroBelief
 

You sound closed minded to me. Open your mind.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 05:36 PM
link   

madmac5150
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..."




Personally, if I were you, I wouldn't apologize for what can at best be thinly veiled egotistical arrogance.

This is rather typical of keyboard pundits who feel really big and bad hidden behind an IP address. Which, really, isn't much of a hiding spot at all.

They get snarky, the start throwing heaps and reams of "facts" and "truth" upon you, defecating all over the original statement where you blatantly said "Hey, I had a thought...I'm curious about this...What if?"....

Yeah, they feel good going for the "intellectual smackdown" over such small things. Small things that could change the future that they, or (unfortunately) their progeny may someday experience.

Even things "written in stone" are victim to water and temperature and time.

Give it a millenia, I feel certain MUCH of what we feel so amazingly confident about today will be lauded as an embarassment for the human race. The idea that we ever actually believed such things, a blight upon our own timeline.


Some people are simply too full of themselves to see this. A number of the folks posting on this very thread, namely.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 05:38 PM
link   

conundrummer

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.


Can you give several examples where your theory makes sense of something where "science falters"?


I can give one important one... why is the Universe still expanding, and why does it appear to expand at a rate greater than c? Because the expansion accelerates in line with the Golden Mean, ie. it should expand by a factor of 1.618 over a sufficiently long enough period of t... as t → ∞



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Arbitrageur
reply to post by zeroBelief
 

You sound closed minded to me. Open your mind.


Thanks for the laugh. Take your act to Vegas. Penn & Teller will be out of a job.

No. Really. Go ahead. Do it.

But while we're at it...

What WOULD you have me "open my mind" to ?

grids and pre-tread paths?

More than once in a corporate environment I've been laughed out of a room for thinking "outside of the box" when it comes to computer programming. And ALWAYS, I've come back in a relatively short period of time with a working prototype, much to their chagrin.

It's people like you who think IT CANNOT BE DONE.

Sorry, I look at things as THEY CAN BE DONE. That means I think, I ponder, I entertain silly and serious thoughts. And you'd be surprised at the percentage of the time the silly ones yield greater results than the serious ones.


I've dealt with pompously zealous egotists like you for decades. And, guess what....


I have a consistent record of winning.
edit on 29-1-2014 by zeroBelief because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 05:39 PM
link   

madmac5150

conundrummer

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.


Can you give several examples where your theory makes sense of something where "science falters"?


I can give one important one... why is the Universe still expanding, and why does it appear to expand at a rate greater than c? Because the expansion accelerates in line with the Golden Mean, ie. it should expand by a factor of 1.618 over a sufficiently long enough period of t... as t → ∞



Funny, I got this from the OP's original post...apparently MR "Can you give several examples" didn't catch that.

Hmmm. Reading comprehension much?



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Are you treating c as a vector?

Fibonacci is a natural jump for calculating volumes of irregular shapes by projecting vectors. I am not versed enough in physics to support or disprove this, but if you could make the current laws fit within this model I would be impressed.

-FBB



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   

zeroBelief

So, flame away, jaggoffs, flame away. I have *zero* intention of debating or arguing.


lol



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   

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.



And I suppose you feel so empowered by the mere presence of Mr Neil deGrasse Tyson shaking his head.....
And I also suppose that you *personally* know *for a fact* that consciousness is merely electrical impulses....

That is what is called "theory", my friend. Something we know next to squat about beyond the mere "symptoms" of consciousness. We know NOTHING beyond the "symptoms" of it.

Now, I am already awaiting tons of "proof" in the form of various articles googled...and probably a TON of Wikipedia entries (because, you know, something that can be edited by damned near anyone...yeah...I commonly TRUST Wikipedia for my "truths" and "facts"...)...

I've got news for you, bud. We know next to nothing. We are barely at the toddler stage of understanding ourselves let alone the world around us. We know precious little about the depths of our own oceans yet we are poisoning them, and taking off for other planets.

The smartest thing you can acknowledge within yourself, is that you don't know everything, and there is no one person that does either. Summed up, we as a race do not even come close to understanding much of the existence around us. Least of all, ourselves.

It's called humility.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 05:50 PM
link   

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...



Friend, I think you're on an entirely different plane of thought than this other person. They're headed to lala land. You're head upwards and onwards.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 05:51 PM
link   

FriedBabelBroccoli
Are you treating c as a vector?

Fibonacci is a natural jump for calculating volumes of irregular shapes by projecting vectors. I am not versed enough in physics to support or disprove this, but if you could make the current laws fit within this model I would be impressed.

-FBB


I guess c could be represented as a vector... but it has been YEARS since I have done that kind of math
Which is why I am asking the math whizzes out there to chime in... taking a complex physics equation and replacing c with c=c+cφ as t → ∞ is beyond what I am capable of... by my own admission... it is the idea of a Universe that has a natural harmony that fascinates me...



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 05:54 PM
link   

wildespace

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.
edit on 29-1-2014 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



Umm, I didn't catch anything anyone said regarding the earth being the center of the universe.

Are you REALLY trying to equate the OP with the Vatican on this, the Vatican from Copernicus' era?

Folks like you are the kinds that scare me the most. So sure of yourself, and in everything you do, so certain your knowledge is that of the Titans if not the Gods themselves.

Wow, that must be some heavy load you carry within your own ego.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 06:00 PM
link   

zeroBelief
Folks like you are the kinds that scare me the most. So sure of yourself, and in everything you do, so certain your knowledge is that of the Titans if not the Gods themselves.
I'm not sure of myself and everything I do, and I'm not sure that science is right.

But I'm pretty sure that when you take an image created by a satellite, and replace it with a drawing, and make your hypothesis on the drawing instead of the satellite image, that's a bad idea, unless you can explain why the satellite image is wrong and the drawing is right and nothing like that has happened here.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 06:01 PM
link   

paradox

zeroBelief

So, flame away, jaggoffs, flame away. I have *zero* intention of debating or arguing.


lol



Cool, you laughed.

Makes me wonder how much you drool as well.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Why is everyone so quick to assume that we are at the center of the Universe? I never once said that. I am not trying to prove young Earth Creationists right... I am simply trying to make some sense of what is out there. Similarly, WHY do we absolutely insist that the Universe isn't alive in a certain sense of the word? Do we absolutely KNOW, for certain that this isn't the case? Would it not be a safe assumption that the Universe would mimic what we see in nature, as the Universe is nature?

Why is that leap of thinking so darn tough to swallow?



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Arbitrageur

zeroBelief
Folks like you are the kinds that scare me the most. So sure of yourself, and in everything you do, so certain your knowledge is that of the Titans if not the Gods themselves.
I'm not sure of myself and everything I do, and I'm not sure that science is right.

But I'm pretty sure that when you take an image created by a satellite, and replace it with a drawing, and make your hypothesis on the drawing instead of the satellite image, that's a bad idea, unless you can explain why the satellite image is wrong and the drawing is right and nothing like that has happened here.


The images were presented as an idea of what things may appear to be, not as any kind of proof of absolute scientific fact. This is called a visual aid... it helps present the concept, not quantify it...



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 06:12 PM
link   
If you are treating c as a vector the angle of phi is going to have far more possibilities in which it expands . . . and you haven't defined what dimensions you are using like r1, r2, r^n . . .

AKA it is going to make the problem far more complicated. That and the fact that the form you are representing c with is basically the velocity formula which is generally a vector.

-FBB

edit on 29-1-2014 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 06:13 PM
link   

madmac5150
reply to post by zeroBelief
 


First, let me say thank you for having an open mind... science doesn't have it all figured out, so much as they would like us to think...

Also true is that we may never be able to understand the mechanics of the system while inside of the system... for instance, to somehow prove that c=c or that c=c+cφ as t → ∞ you would need to place measurement devices light years apart... and we aren't even close to that yet...


edit on 29-1-2014 by madmac5150 because: Stupid c


As a computer programmer, I am far more often called on to fix problems than create new things. Everything has a pattern to it. And I've begun to feel over the years that we are well within exceedingly large patterns that simply are so large, they are almost impossible to perceive. But, I still get this feeling.

When I was a teenager, I used to be able to get work ANYTIME I wanted doing telemarketing. I've got a voice most would consider appropriate for the radio. Almost always, I'd call about the job and they'd offer to let me start the next day simply from talking to me on the phone. Well, I eventually stopped...because back then you hand dialed every single number. Well, I started to see patterns. Not identifiable ones, but I had the definite sensation I was experiencing a pattern.

Just like in The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the reason why the number 42 is the answer to everything, is because there at one time was actually a mathematical algorithm you could put any UK phone number into, and the result would ALWAYS be 42. When Douglas Adams caught onto this, he thought this MUST be the ANSWER to EVERYTHING.

Well, I see things in our world, in events and even in the universe...that feel like those phone numbers I've dialed. Like the problems I solve every day before I've finally latched onto the actual cause. When I know there's a pattern, and everyone else is saying "it's completely RANDOM!"....

My reason for bringing up patterns, is that often you simply cannot begin to notice them unless you stand outside of them. That is what I think the situation with the universe is.

The Universe, in actuality, may simply be a pattern on an even grander scale.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 06:14 PM
link   

madmac5150

Arbitrageur

zeroBelief
Folks like you are the kinds that scare me the most. So sure of yourself, and in everything you do, so certain your knowledge is that of the Titans if not the Gods themselves.
I'm not sure of myself and everything I do, and I'm not sure that science is right.

But I'm pretty sure that when you take an image created by a satellite, and replace it with a drawing, and make your hypothesis on the drawing instead of the satellite image, that's a bad idea, unless you can explain why the satellite image is wrong and the drawing is right and nothing like that has happened here.


The images were presented as an idea of what things may appear to be, not as any kind of proof of absolute scientific fact. This is called a visual aid... it helps present the concept, not quantify it...



Shhhh....don't clue him in...he's all caught up in "Droppin Science, Yo!"



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join