(September 30, 2014 at 12:03 pm)rasetsu Wrote:

(September 30, 2014 at 11:07 am)Huggy74 Wrote: https://pistrucciartworks.wordpress.com/...roportion/

Wrong.

Quote:Navels. We read that you can reveal φ by measuring the height of a person and the height of the person's navel, measured from the floor. The ratio of navel height to total height is supposed to be φ. And with the current interest in navels, the implication is that this is one indicator of attractive bodily proportions. Has anyone checked real people? In the interest of science I checked that assertion for a large sample of the most popular swimsuit models. This should check the claim that bodies judged "beautiful" should have the ideal characteristics of form, including the ideal navel height. [It's a tough job, but someone has to do it.] The results averaged 0.58±0.01, with rather small variation. So much for that myth.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/fibonacc.htm

first of all, how does this egg-head have access to the most popular swimsuit models?

The same way that your numbskulls have determined that these "golden ratios" are present in "beautiful bodies"......?

(September 30, 2014 at 12:18 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(September 28, 2014 at 1:36 pm)rasetsu Wrote: If the fibonacci sequence occurred in "everything" as you've claimed, it would indeed beg an explanation.

But the Fibonacci sequence does occur in every living organism, It may not be readily apparent but the Fibonacci sequence is found in DNA.

Quote:Twin helical strands form the DNA backbone. Another double helix may be found by tracing the spaces, or grooves, between the strands. These voids are adjacent to the base pairs and may provide a binding site. As the strands are not directly opposite each other, the grooves are unequally sized. One groove, the major groove, is 22 Å wide and the other, the minor groove, is 12 Å wide.

Wikipedia | Nucleic acid double helix

The ratio 22/34 is 0.647 which is not Phi. As noted in the first article I linked you to, many things that are close to Phi are claimed as being Phi when in fact they're not. Fact checking a couple of your asserted ratios bears out this observation. (On top of that, if we use your chosen figure of 21 Å for the width of the double helix, the width and length of major groove are unequal, unlike claimed in your image in which the two form a perfect square. The fact that the width varies depending on the conditions in which it is being measured makes any use of it for a ratio purely arbitrary, and the ratio results from intentionally choosing specific conditions; that's intelligent design, but not the kind that you are looking for.)

(September 30, 2014 at 11:07 am)Huggy74 Wrote: I am documenting a shortened version here for my own reference –
From the illustration, we can see several occurrences of the golden ratio found in the human body

Sole to navel (1) : Sole to crown (Phi)
Sole to knee : Sole to navel
Navel to shoulder : Navel to crown
Knees to calf muscle : Knees to sole
Navel to mid-thigh : Navel to knees
Navel to sternum or mid-chest : Navel to base of throat
Throat base to temple or brow bone : Throat base to crown
End of calf muscle down to ankle : Calf muscle to sole
Mid-thigh to start of kneecap : Mid-thigh to end of kneecap
Navel to crotch : Navel to mid-thigh
Navel to sternum base : Navel to sternum or mid-chest
Throat base to earlobe : Throat base to top of ear or brow bone
Brow bone to hairline : Brow bone to crown
Nose to chin : Nose to base of throat

"The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is an informal fallacy which is committed when differences in data are ignored, but similarities are stressed. From this reasoning a false conclusion is inferred. This fallacy is the philosophical/rhetorical application of the multiple comparisons problem (in statistics) and apophenia (in cognitive psychology). It is related to the clustering illusion, which refers to the tendency in human cognition to interpret patterns where none actually exist.

The name comes from a joke about a Texan who fires some gunshots at the side of a barn, then paints a target centered on the biggest cluster of hits and claims to be a sharpshooter."

(September 30, 2014 at 12:03 pm)Alex K Wrote: @Huggy74

You haven't addressed my question at all, your answer is merely a strange change of topic.

Who came up with what is entirely irrelevant in science. What Darwin said when, how long ago, and whose idea it was originally, has no bearing on our scientific acceptance of evolution today. Only evidence and arguments count, and I repeat myself

Quote:So Huggy74, even if that were all true, what is the conclusion you draw from this, and how do you justify this conclusion? Let's assume for the sake of argument that there are anomalously many (more than random) things in nature which have something close to the golden ratio, a fact which you have not proven, a fact I would find mildly interesting, but not terribly shocking. So what? There are surprisingly many things in the world which have this strange ratio 3.14159265358979323...., where I come from we call them balls. Balls do not prove god either, (even if some macho men disagree). What do you deduce from that and how?

As far as Pi goes, I addressed that in the above post, and what conclusion do I draw? That the golden ratio which express itself in geometric shapes, from rectangles, triangles, dodecahedrons, and also the spiral, added to the fact that it's repeated a countlessly throughout nature, means that it could not have happened randomly.

You know what else expresses itself in geometric patterns? sound frequencies.




So what does this all mean?


Isaiah 55
11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

God is saying that his, WORD after it is spoken, goes forth and accomplishes the purpose for which it was spoken.

So If it was the WORD in the beginning which caused creation, and we know that sound frequencies are geometric shapes, doesn't it then make sense that we detect these frequencies resonating in the geometry of creation?

Good god Huggy this is some Depak Chopra shit.

(September 30, 2014 at 12:39 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Good god Huggy this is some Depak Chopra shit.

Give me your explanation.

(September 30, 2014 at 12:37 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: So what does this all mean?

That forces capable of manipulating the structure of a visible medium and interpreted from above by a pattern seeking creature as a flat surface in 2d will -always- yield "some shape" that said creature can imagine to be momentous or important......?

Quote:Give me your explanation.

-you've lost your shit?

It is time to bring forth... FIRE!

(September 30, 2014 at 12:16 pm)rasetsu Wrote:

(September 30, 2014 at 12:18 am)Huggy74 Wrote: But the Fibonacci sequence does occur in every living organism, It may not be readily apparent but the Fibonacci sequence is found in DNA.

Quote:Twin helical strands form the DNA backbone. Another double helix may be found by tracing the spaces, or grooves, between the strands. These voids are adjacent to the base pairs and may provide a binding site. As the strands are not directly opposite each other, the grooves are unequally sized. One groove, the major groove, is 22 Å wide and the other, the minor groove, is 12 Å wide.

Wikipedia | Nucleic acid double helix

The ratio 22/34 is 0.647 which is not Phi. As noted in the first article I linked you to, many things that are close to Phi are claimed as being Phi when in fact they're not. Fact checking a couple of your asserted ratios bears out this observation. (On top of that, if we use your chosen figure of 21 Å for the width of the double helix, the width and length of major groove are unequal, unlike claimed in your image in which the two form a perfect square. The fact that the width varies depending on the conditions in which it is being measured makes any use of it for a ratio purely arbitrary, and the ratio results from intentionally choosing specific conditions; that's intelligent design, but not the kind that you are looking for.)

first of all Surgenator posted the measurements of 34/20 and you posted 34/22....

so I think it's safe to take the middle ground an say 34/21 which 34 divided by 21 =1.619

Pi for example, goes on for infinity, but anything after 3.14 is considered so miniscule as to not matter, so 3.14=Pi