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: 3
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 06:16 PM
link   

madmac5150
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?


Because rather than reading, digesting, and thinking through what you postulated, they are sensing their precious sense of "the known world of SCIENCE" being potentially trampled on.

This is leading them to jump to conclusions.

So, look at it this way, somewhere, in a parallel Universe, you're sharing a pint with Copernicus and laughing your a$$es off....




posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 06:18 PM
link   

FriedBabelBroccoli
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


Which significantly makes my head hurt even worse when looking at the numbers... sheesh. Anyone have a copy of Differential Calculus for Dummies? LOL



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by zeroBelief
 


I'd share a pint with him


Probably just talk about sports though...



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 06:26 PM
link   

madmac5150
reply to post by zeroBelief
 


I'd share a pint with him


Probably just talk about sports though...




ACK@!!! Sports? REALLY ?????? Dear Lord no...I'd wanna find out what the sex parties were like during his time...AND THEN find out about his other lesser known theories on the solar system and the Universe



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   

conundrummer
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?


Well, this assumes that the background radiation is a remnant of what was... my contention is that this background radiation is an ongoing phenomena of the Universe, still happening right now... order out of chaos. If you really think about it, it makes far more sense.
edit on 29-1-2014 by madmac5150 because: Will too much Vitamin D give you the Solar winds?



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 06:47 PM
link   
On a hallucinogen-facilitated trip, I was talking to a friend who's very keen on Golden ratio stuff and is a tree surgeon. He said that he could probably find a logorhythmic spiral if he looked around a little, and a minute later he gave me some sort of spiraling seed pod (the kind that dig into your socks). I held it by the seed and turned it, looking down the spiral, and the whole universe seemed to expand or contract into it, depending on which direction I turned it. It was one of the most bizarre moments I've ever experienced.

He was also a believer that reality had something to do with the logarhythmic spiral.

Unfortunately, when I went to do more research on the subject, I learned that the field was full of crackpots who jump to conclusions (this is not necessarily directed at OP).

There's a Nova documentary about fractals, describing their history and modern applications. Fractal geometry was met with some resistance too, now we all benefit from it (our cellphones use fractal theory for the antenna). So, I'm not too keen on immediately joining the "that's just a bunch of fanciful thinking" crowd.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   

zeroBelief

Cool, you laughed.

Makes me wonder how much you drool as well.


Your comments make me wonder how satisfying your life must be

"I have zero intention of arguing but I'm going to be the most consistent poster in this thread, being completely hypocritical and preaching about humility"

lol
edit on 1-29-14 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by conundrummer
 


The thought of the Universe as a Fibonacci spiral seems much more in keeping with nature, in my mind. It just seems to be a more elegant way of looking at how things may have come about... and how they change over time...



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

conundrummer
On a hallucinogen-facilitated trip, I was talking to a friend who's very keen on Golden ratio stuff and is a tree surgeon. He said that he could probably find a logorhythmic spiral if he looked around a little, and a minute later he gave me some sort of spiraling seed pod (the kind that dig into your socks). I held it by the seed and turned it, looking down the spiral, and the whole universe seemed to expand or contract into it, depending on which direction I turned it. It was one of the most bizarre moments I've ever experienced.

He was also a believer that reality had something to do with the logarhythmic spiral.

Unfortunately, when I went to do more research on the subject, I learned that the field was full of crackpots who jump to conclusions (this is not necessarily directed at OP).

There's a Nova documentary about fractals, describing their history and modern applications. Fractal geometry was met with some resistance too, now we all benefit from it (our cellphones use fractal theory for the antenna). So, I'm not too keen on immediately joining the "that's just a bunch of fanciful thinking" crowd.


Not to mention that fractals and "the whole within it's pieces" buddhist theory directly supporting most data compression of images to be transmitted via satellite today....Pretty fascinating stuff, really.

I'm also fascinated, for some reason, with Sacred Geometry. And I saw an article recently that I wish I had earmarked for later reading. But it eluded to the possibility of sacred geometry someone being on a more base level than DNA as far as passing on genetic structures.

I'm not saying I believe it, rather, I'm intrigued by it.

That is all



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 07:08 PM
link   

paradox

zeroBelief

Cool, you laughed.

Makes me wonder how much you drool as well.


Your comments make me wonder how satisfying your life must be

"I have zero intention of arguing but I'm going to be the most consistent poster in this thread, being completely hypocritical and preaching about humility"

lol
edit on 1-29-14 by paradox because: (no reason given)



And you simply laugh without offering anything of substance to the discussion.

Perhaps that will shed some light on my motivations.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 07:11 PM
link   
I do believe that the biggest resistance to any theory like this, is that it is seen as a way to validate the Universe being created... and that is a damned crazy idea to some. But just how crazy is it, really? Isn't it just as crazy to believe that life spontaneously erupted out of some ancient stew here on Earth? IF life could spring forth from this primordial soup here on Earth, why could life not have emerged in the earliest primordial soup... aka the pre Big Bang Universe?

I am not trying to prove the existence of God here; I am interested if the Universe could follow the same patterns as life does here on Earth.

I also titled this thread as a question... I never stated that this IS THE ANSWER, rather, I asked if it is a possibility...
edit on 29-1-2014 by madmac5150 because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-1-2014 by madmac5150 because: Ewoks revolt on Endor... film at 11:11



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 09:41 PM
link   
To expound on the relativistic speeds I am talking about here, try looking at it like this... as we jump in our 99% speed of light ship and go zipping off, something interesting happens. As cc+cφ, t would then → ∞... this renders time meaningless over the distance of the journey... even at 99% of c+cφ, the proverbial blink of an eye.

Ludicrous speed. "They've gone plaid..."


The problem them becomes more an issue of tearing apart reality... if t→ ∞, could t=0? Or worse, an irrational number? I get the impression that would be a bad thing...

edit on 29-1-2014 by madmac5150 because: Spaceballs... nuff said...



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by zeroBelief
 


But it's the world, not the universe thats carried by only one turtle...



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by captb13
 


I knew there was something fishy about those turtles...



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 03:49 AM
link   
I see, this thread is just another attack on science. Throw in the good old "we don't know everything" or "science has been proven wrong in the past" arguments, and you're on the roll. Never mind that scientists know that they don't know everything, and that it's their job to keep researching, observing, discovering, testing, etc. We know that also. Only people ignorant about science and scientific method claim that scientists assert to know it all.

Let's take the expansion of the universe for example. One proposition in science is that it's expanding due to the negative pressure from vacuum energy. It fits observations, and has even been observed experimentally in a lab (the Casimir Effect).

What is the OP's explanation for the Fibonacci spiral expansion? It's one thing to say "hey, I have an idea", but another thing to base your hypothesis on existing data or observations, and test it with more observations and experiments.

I'm not here to act high and mighty, or to support dogmas; I'm here to defend credibility and honesty of the scientific method and scientific community.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 05:18 AM
link   

wildespace
What is the OP's explanation for the Fibonacci spiral expansion? It's one thing to say "hey, I have an idea", but another thing to base your hypothesis on existing data or observations, and test it with more observations and experiments.


Well, OP, if you'd read the originally post...the OP said (and I paraphrase) "I was out shoveling snow....and I had this crazy thought...."

He never one claimed to be a scientist, nor to be basing it of of existing data or observations.

Apparently, you've forgotten, it is the very curiosity of borderline ideas such as this that are very valuable tools in proving or disproving your precious facts....



wildespace
I'm not here to act high and mighty, or to support dogmas; I'm here to defend credibility and honesty of the scientific method and scientific community.


Really? Hoe DOES it feel to be the RIGHTEOUS DEFENDER of the FAITH ?


And let me add. Nobody here IS attacking the scientific method nor the scientific community.

Rather, we're simply lending thought to an idea. Pondering it.

Nobody, not once, said it was a valid thought. Or that it was going to prove anything wrong.

Why, are you, so filled with righteous fire in an effort to stamp out simple thought? That's what I just don't understand. And you're going to say something to the effect of "because this has all been tread before...thought over and decided upon by higher minds than ours who have decided what is, is and nothing else can be correct.".

This, my friend, is ludicrous thinking.
edit on 30-1-2014 by zeroBelief because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by zeroBelief
 

Sorry, my fault for being too scientifically-minded and prefering scientific method over math games and wild ideas that come about while shovelling snow. Ignore my posts in this thread and carry on.


By the way...

zeroBelief
Nobody here IS attacking the scientific method nor the scientific community.

Let's see:

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.


science doesn't have it all figured out, so much as they would like us to think...
(making an assumption that scientists want us to think that)

The phrase "abolute scientific fact" is meaningless, and so using it in arguments to support your alternative ideas is meaningless too.

I like alternative ideas myself. I like to expand my mind and consider possibilities. But when an alternative idea is deliberately peppered with "scientists know nothing, they're all a bunch of liers and hypocrites", it just ruins any credibility that the author of the idea might have had.
edit on 30-1-2014 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Arbitrageur

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.


The physical universe is dual in nature like yin yang, neg pos, male female etc. So on the physical plane the universe is indeed spherical like models show. Within you have matter and anti matter to balance eachother. The fibbonaci sequence is everywhere, and notice how the curve of each side of the yin yang is also a spiral. Galaxies are spirals, counter existing dark matter galaxies must have the exact same pattern as well.
The universe is exponentially expanding, meaning light is accelerating. The universe is consciousness, all is mind. Like a rubber band, the universe is elastic, stretching as it expands, until reaching a critical point where It is at the peak of expansion and there is a "golden age." This is where consciousness ascends to the next level and the rest of the universe ie physical plane, begins to shrink back down to its initial size like a rubber band ball that is Spinning at a super high velocity, which stretched each band of the ball outward, Then After peak of expansion the universe contracts. We are currently in expansion mode, once the universe peaks it's decreation time, the price to pay for the creation. Call it the reaping.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   

zeroBelief
Unfortunately, when I went to doI'm also fascinated, for some reason, with Sacred Geometry. And I saw an article recently that I wish I had earmarked for later reading. But it eluded to the possibility of sacred geometry someone being on a more base level than DNA as far as passing on genetic structures.

I'm not saying I believe it, rather, I'm intrigued by it.

That is all

What I've read of sacred geometry (which admittedly isn't much, mostly just Miranda Lundy's book)is a study of the unfolding of number in space, and how the point leads into the line or circle, which leads into the triangle and hexagon, which leads into lattices and spirals and other geometric figures that make up the world around us.

Its shortcoming, though, is that while its excellent for describing the geometric constructs people make, its sort of inadequate for nature. This is because the fractal quality of so many natural phenomenon don't use either straight lines or perfect circles. So, while sacred geometry study can be useful, or artistic, or explanatory of very basic stuff, I feel that its still inadequate for really mapping nature, and must be augmented with fractal geometry.
edit on 1/30/1414 by conundrummer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   

madmac5150
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...



In my box of imaginary principles (egg);
Matter does not contain any mass until it is going through space at least as fast as light, relative to Einstein's theory?

What in the whole of the universe remains stationary?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join