Huggy, it's been proposed to you that 23.7 Å is an accurate measure of the width of the most common configuration of DNA in solution, B-DNA. Since the agreed pitch of the DNA helix is 34 Å, this would make the ratio of pitch to width far enough from Phi as to disqualify Phi as a reasonable approximation of its ratio. Wikipedia also notes that the major groove of DNA is 22 Å, and the minor groove is 12 Å. This ratio too does not in a reasonable sense approximate Phi. Thus the two ratios which in your initial figure showed both as being approximately Phi, the conclusion based upon the numbers that have been suggested as accurate is that the ratios given in your initial figure are inaccurate and that Phi is not obviously reflected in the dimensions of DNA.

Do you agree or disagree with any of this data or the conclusions formed based on that data?

(October 6, 2014 at 11:40 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:

(October 6, 2014 at 11:33 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Actually I was going to use the people denying the lunar landings as an example, but then it occurred to me(based on this thread), you guys may actually agree with them.

You see, that'd also be a silly example because the lunar landings are events that actually happened, and can be demonstrated to have happened.

Nothing you've ever written on numerology could be said to be even remotely similar to this.

ALLAH!

Not talking a bout numerology, we're talking about the fibonacci sequence, big difference. What exactly are you saying here? Are you saying you are denying it's existence?

Huggy, nobody denies the existence of the fibonacci sequence. We're denying all the unbelievable and ridiculous conlusions that you're drawing from it.

(October 6, 2014 at 11:46 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Not talking a bout numerology, we're talking about the fibonacci sequence, big difference. What exactly are you saying here? Are you saying you are denying it's existence?

There is no such thing as fibonacci sequence, except as mental construct that so happen to seem to resemble to a large variation in degrees another mental construct - the numericalization of some cheery picked collections of measured traits found nature.

The only thing that made fibonnacci sequence seem notable to jesus freaks like you is the degree of resemblence between it and any seemingly satisfactory mental representation of nature is considerably closer than between the other mental construct more dear to your feeble mind - christianity - and any seemingly satisfactory mental representation of nature vetted by other people.

That's why you jesus freaks try to impress Fibonnacci sequence into the service of rescuing your christianity, in much the same way fat slovenly reprobate former loan shark might hire a clean cut and seemingly fit bouncer to reinforce his own influence.

Are you happy now?

(October 6, 2014 at 10:39 am)Huggy74 Wrote: all curves are not circles or spirals.

But all circles and spirals are curves.

Curves is a set comprising circle, spirals, hyperbolas, parabolas, ovals, ellipses, etc.

(October 6, 2014 at 11:45 am)rasetsu Wrote: Huggy, it's been proposed to you that 23.7 Å is an accurate measure of the width of the most common configuration of DNA in solution, B-DNA. Since the agreed pitch of the DNA helix is 34 Å, this would make the ratio of pitch to width far enough from Phi as to disqualify Phi as a reasonable approximation of its ratio. Wikipedia also notes that the major groove of DNA is 22 Å, and the minor groove is 12 Å. This ratio too does not in a reasonable sense approximate Phi. Thus the two ratios which in your initial figure showed both as being approximately Phi, the conclusion based upon the numbers that have been suggested as accurate is that the ratios given in your initial figure are inaccurate and that Phi is not obviously reflected in the dimensions of DNA.

Do you agree or disagree with any of this data or the conclusions formed based on that data?

I'll explain my position, but need you to clarify one thing, you never stated what the ratio of the pitch to the width is, (the reason for this whole debate) please make clarify, to make your position clear.

(October 6, 2014 at 11:46 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Not talking a bout numerology, we're talking about the fibonacci sequence, big difference.

Quote:Numerology is any belief in divine, mystical or other special relationship between a number and some coinciding events. It has many systems and traditions and beliefs. Numerology and numerological divination by systems such as isopsephy were popular among early mathematicians, but are no longer considered part of mathematics and are regarded as pseudomathematics or pseudoscience by modern scientists.

(September 26, 2014 at 11:10 am)Huggy74 Wrote: No, this is the part where I say that the golden ratio is behind everything from the shape of the universe, galaxies, shape of the human body, and botanical life.

(October 6, 2014 at 11:47 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Huggy, nobody denies the existence of the fibonacci sequence. We're denying all the unbelievable and ridiculous conlusions that you're drawing from it.

(October 6, 2014 at 11:51 am)Chuck Wrote: There is no such thing as fibonacci sequence, except as mental construct that so happen to seem to resemble to a large variation in degrees another mental construct - the numericalization of some cheery picked collections of measured traits found nature.

you guys seem to contradict one another...

(October 6, 2014 at 11:57 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(October 6, 2014 at 11:47 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Huggy, nobody denies the existence of the fibonacci sequence. We're denying all the unbelievable and ridiculous conlusions that you're drawing from it.

(October 6, 2014 at 11:51 am)Chuck Wrote: There is no such thing as fibonacci sequence, except as mental construct that so happen to seem to resemble to a large variation in degrees another mental construct - the numericalization of some cheery picked collections of measured traits found nature.

you guys seem to contradict one another...

Obviously I meant it in the way that Chuck is talking about. The fibonacci sequence isn't a physical entity. It's a patterned construct that we created in the mind.

Christ Huggy, if you spent half the time on the actual substance of your argument that you spend on semantics and 'gotcha' bullshit, we might be able to have an intelligent conversation.

(October 6, 2014 at 11:56 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(October 6, 2014 at 11:45 am)rasetsu Wrote: Huggy, it's been proposed to you that 23.7 Å is an accurate measure of the width of the most common configuration of DNA in solution, B-DNA. Since the agreed pitch of the DNA helix is 34 Å, this would make the ratio of pitch to width far enough from Phi as to disqualify Phi as a reasonable approximation of its ratio. Wikipedia also notes that the major groove of DNA is 22 Å, and the minor groove is 12 Å. This ratio too does not in a reasonable sense approximate Phi. Thus the two ratios which in your initial figure showed both as being approximately Phi, the conclusion based upon the numbers that have been suggested as accurate is that the ratios given in your initial figure are inaccurate and that Phi is not obviously reflected in the dimensions of DNA.

Do you agree or disagree with any of this data or the conclusions formed based on that data?

I'll explain my position, but need you to clarify one thing, you never stated what the ratio of the pitch to the width is, (the reason for this whole debate) please make clarify, to make your position clear.

Surgenator claims the ratio is 34/23.7, or in decimal, 1.4346. I make no claim specifically other than as noted that the width of DNA has been given as multiple values in the literature.

Now, get on with it.