Can the Golden Mean redifine the Universe?

wildespace
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)

I have one question to ask you, oh high and mighty...what flavor is the kool-aid this week....

Lime-aid or Cherry?

conundrummer

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)

Well, again....

I didn't say "Hey, did you know that SACRED GEOMETRY determines GENETIC OUTCOME and SUPERSEDES DNA ?"....

What I did say is that "I saw an article, that I didn't get to read fully, whose basic gist was that they were proposing an underlying schema of sacred geometry as a foundation of DNA..."

So, those things being said...

Geometry is not all about straight lines and prefect circles. Fibonacci's sequence when used to plot out a spiral is hardly a perfect circle. It does appear to maintain it's overall curve, but, it again is not a perfect circle.....

Also, let's not forget...Non-Euclidean Geometry might not simply be applicable to outer space...maybe the inner space of cellular structures or DNA might follow an entirely different set of rules for geometry...much like Euclidean and Non-Euclidean with regards to earthbound and outer space geometry.

All things being said though, thank you for actually considering what I had to say, and not flat out attacking it because you have the authority conveyed by using a modern day well known physicist as your personal avatar.

Hell, I could use the avatar of Lucifer, imagine the powers that would give me

madmac5150

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

I hear you. Unfortunately, I never made it past Geometry in HS (yeah, Proofs did me in....silly as that sounds...considering today I am a Computer Programmer whose programs are used worldwide by major Governments and Corporations...and I read up on Sacred Geometry "for fun"....but Proofs were my undoing....)....

I'm amazingly interested in Astro-Physics as well. Picked up the first book I ever saw by Stephen Hawking...got to the third page, and found THE SINGLE LARGEST ALGORITHM I've EVER SEEN...got so depressed...I just put it down quietly and walked away....

The sad thing is, now that I'm past my education years...math interests me more and more....makes me wish I could go back and revisit what I was learning at the time....find back then what I find interesting today...refocus.


But, my programming is business oriented, so I'm not writing 12 page long algorithms to create "crazy cool" explosions.....

More like, did this bill get paid? Has that Oil Rig widget been subject to annual maintenance in the last three months? Etc...etc...etc....Oh, and if you submit your resume online to the NSA...guess what...that's my baby

As is the database that the TSA uses.....

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)

If hypocritical and preaching about humility is brought on by simply acknowledging that I do not know all the answers, and that I don't believe we as a species even come close to actually knowing the answers....and reserving the personal right to think for myself....rather than swallowing and occasionally regurgitating pablum on demand simply in an effort to "look smart"....

Well then I am a hypocrite. And I am also guilty of being humble. Humble enough to reject the self induced coma like state that hubris carries with it. My ego is not such that it cannot take a bruising, because I don't let it get in the way. I am always open to new ideas. Nor do I automatically discount an idea "simply because a layman suggested it". I give it appropriate weight with regards to consideration against other sources of information...but I find that far too many are AMAZINGLY quick to utterly disregard an idea "because scientists haven't said it"...and is often the case..."said it yet".

What I do now about life is simple. Things change. We do not know everything. I work on the presumption that everything I know and take for granted is malleable, and could change tomorrow.

Therefore, I am prepared for, and welcoming of change. My mind is not locked down into a restrictive paradigm because someone carries an honorific title "said so".

Do I listen to them, including the likes of Dr Neil Degrasse Tyson? ABSOLUTELY.

Do I take everything he says as scripture and immutable? No.

And if you asked him if you should take his words as pearls of wisdom, candidly, I'd wager that he'd implore you to keep an open mind. To ask new questions. To form your own opinions and theories. But to always hold on to the idea that it could be wrong. Just like everything else in this life. It could be wrong. Not will be wrong. Not is wrong.

But COULD be wrong.

So, yeah, I'm a big old hypocrite.

Maybe I should just wear a scarlet H on my chest.

wildespace
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)

If you feel that you are defending the holy faith, well, have fun playing the Paladin.

I just specifically went back and re read the OP's original post. It does not say anything about science "being wrong"....or that "absolute scientific fact is meaningless".

Honestly, if he did say these things later, I think it quite honestly could have been out of frustration by senseless shotgun attacks by overwhelmingly negative input by those such as yourself.

But, you obviously know better. So, go on trying to find holes to poke. I'm sure you're getting some form of gratification out of it. The kind that I'd imagine psychiatrists would have a definitive term for.

I guess what I am ultimately suggesting is that we look at the Universe as being organic, rather than mechanical. Brute force mechanics does explain a lot of what is out there, yet, at the same time, those mechanical "answers" seem to generate even more questions...

Well, again....

I didn't say "Hey, did you know that SACRED GEOMETRY determines GENETIC OUTCOME and SUPERSEDES DNA ?"....

What I did say is that "I saw an article, that I didn't get to read fully, whose basic gist was that they were proposing an underlying schema of sacred geometry as a foundation of DNA..."

I'd buy that sacred geometry suggests why the hexagon/hexagram is such a common lattice structure in nature. The Golden Ratio theory could also be linked to the pentagram/pentagon structures we see in nature. I'd like to read the DNA article, can you link it?

Geometry is not all about straight lines and prefect circles. Fibonacci's sequence when used to plot out a spiral is hardly a perfect circle. It does appear to maintain it's overall curve, but, it again is not a perfect circle.....

I'd say the Fibonacci/logarhythmic spiral is a very good link between Euclidian geometry and fractal geometry.

Also, let's not forget...Non-Euclidean Geometry might not simply be applicable to outer space...maybe the inner space of cellular structures or DNA might follow an entirely different set of rules for geometry...much like Euclidean and Non-Euclidean with regards to earthbound and outer space geometry.

I believe Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries are probably subsets of a more complex geometry of nature throughout the universe.

All things being said though, thank you for actually considering what I had to say, and not flat out attacking it because you have the authority conveyed by using a modern day well known physicist as your personal avatar.

It takes a village to discuss on a forum.

madmac5150
I guess what I am ultimately suggesting is that we look at the Universe as being organic, rather than mechanical. Brute force mechanics does explain a lot of what is out there, yet, at the same time, those mechanical "answers" seem to generate even more questions...

How would you devise an experiment to test this hypothesis?

reply to post by conundrummer


Well, that is where things get difficult. How do you prove (or disprove) ideas such as this? For instance... if you give Mercury's orbit a value of 1, the orbits of the other planets as a ratio to Mercury's orbit? 1.61803 or φ. (The orbit of Ceres is used as an average orbit for the asteroid belt)... the degree of statistical variance? .00043. That is astonishing... But, how do you prove the relationship between gravity and the Fibonacci series? Mathematics. I haven't touched calculus in years... but I am reviewing that as we speak

I do think one way possibly prove a Fibonacci expansion of the Universe would be deep space surveys such as the H.S.T. has conducted. If we resurvey those areas over a set period of years, I bet the number of observed objects would increase by a factor of φ over time.

zeroBelief
I have one question to ask you, oh high and mighty...what flavor is the kool-aid this week....

Lime-aid or Cherry?

Wow, do you really have to be so obnoxious?

Let's discuss ideas, not people.

I don't think of my self as high and mighty. I think science is (due to its purity and honesty, but not due to its alleged infallibility). That's why I'm defending it. Leave infallibility to religion.

madmac5150
I guess what I am ultimately suggesting is that we look at the Universe as being organic, rather than mechanical. Brute force mechanics does explain a lot of what is out there, yet, at the same time, those mechanical "answers" seem to generate even more questions...

But how can the universe be organic? Besides, even the organic structures obey mechanical laws, such as particle physics. Organics are driven by chemical reactions, and chemical reactions occurs because of interactions between atoms (most commonly involving electrons). Life and consciousness are just some of the results of such interactions.

"Brute force mechanics does explain a lot of what is out there" - does the organic model explain more, or even as much as the mechanics?

We also have to consider the immense distances in the universe, and the very limited speed of light. Another thread compared the filamentary structure of the universe to the neurons in a brain; but given the distances, it would take millions of years for a signal to pass from one end to the other.

~~~

I've gone back and reviewed the posts in this thread. The OP asks why the expansion of the universe hasn't slowed down, and I provided one explanation (which has basis in science and experiments). It has been ignored. The OP proposes that the universe is organic, and expands because of the Fibonacci sequence. It's an idea, but with no basis or explanation, apart from "the Fibonacci sequence is everywhere in natural world". I asked some questions back, shared what I know of scientific knowledge, but the OP just shuts me off, and dispenses with mainstream science in general. Then "zeroBelief" appears, with very cynic comments and ridicule, but not much to add to the discussion of the points I raised.

Looks like me and Arbitrageur made a mistake wandering into this thread. I think the OP and "zeroBelief" are quite comfortable discussing the topic between each other, spurring any intrusion from us scientifically-minded people.

Over and out.