Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.

[Alex K]

Pi and PHI are not ratios in the mathematical sense because ratio means rational number and they are not rational numbers,

But Pi is way better than yor stupid Phi, because while Phi is merely irrational, Pi is transcendental! Ha!

[Brakeman]

Phi & Pi are NOT rational numbers, so no, they cannot be written in fraction form.

Sure it can, 1/1 base Pi

Bergman (1957/58) considered an irrational base, and Knuth (1998) considered transcendental bases. This leads to some rather unfamiliar results, such as equating pi to 1 in "base pi," pi=10_pi. Even more unexpectedly, the representation of a given integer in an irrational base may be nonunique, for example
10 = 10100.010010101011_phi
(18)
= 10100.0101_phi,
(19)

where phi is the golden ratio.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Base.html

[Chas]

You are wrong and you contradict yourself. Ratio does not mean rational number.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_number
The term rational in reference to the set Q refers to the fact that a rational number represents a ratio of two integers.

Now what?

Oh, for fuck's sake - a spiral is a curve.

In relation to the Fibonacci sequence, it is known as the "Golden Spiral, not "Golden Curve"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_spiral
In geometry, a golden spiral is a logarithmic spiral whose growth factor is φ, the golden ratio.[1] That is, a golden spiral gets wider (or further from its origin) by a factor of φ for every quarter turn it makes

The idiocy is starting to run rampant, Don't know how much more of this I can take.

The idiocy is all yours. All spirals are curves.

curve, In mathematics, an abstract term used to describe the path of a continuously moving point (see continuity). Such a path is usually generated by an equation. The word can also apply to a straight line or to a series of line segments linked end to end. A closed curve is a path that repeats itself, and thus encloses one or more regions. Simple examples include circles, ellipses, and polygons. Open curves such as parabolas, hyperbolas, and spirals have infinite length.

All rational numbers can be expressed as ratios; not all ratios are rational numbers, e.g. π/2 is a ratio, as is i/π.

[Cyberman]

The idiocy is starting to run rampant, Don't know how much more of this I can take.

Funny; I was just thinking that myself.

[Jenny A]

Before we too sidetracked by whether Fibonacci numbers describe a curve or a spiral (silly as all spirals are curves) lets look how well the numbers really apply to nature shall we?

I reccomend this clever article by Donald E. Simanek: Fibonacci Flim-Flam

Here are some highlights:

1) The nautilus shell does not actually correspond to the Fibonacci spiral very well. It is a spiral, just not a Fibonacci spiral. This is true of virtually all shells.

2) There are many, many flowers with petals that don't correspond to the Fibonacci numbers.

3) If you lay washers, or buttons or other round or roundish shapes on a flat surface and compact them in a single layer, you will get a spiral pattern often one that is close to the Fibonacci spiral. It has to do with using space efficiently, not the mathematical hand of god.

4) The patterns of seed heads of sunflowers very rarely come close to Fibonacci spirals, but when they do, Fibonacci nuts get out the camera.

---

Pi has been mentioned as a sequence found in nature, and indeed there are many circles in nature. But why stop there? Pythagoras found a "divinity in numbers." The sequence that is supposed to have convinced him of this is found in the western music.

In Pythagoras's day the western music used seven tones still in use today: A, B, C, D, E, F, and G, i.e. the white keys on the piano. These notes can be generated using a simple formula often referred to as stacking fifths (a confusing nomenclature since the fraction one fifth is not involved) a process involving endless repetition of the ratio 3 to 2.

It works like this. If you take a guitar string and and pluck it, you get a tone. Play two strings of equal length together and use just get the same sound twice. Cut it in half, and you get the same tone an octave higher. Without simply playing the exact same pitch twice, a pitch and the same pitch in an different octave is the least dissonant combination of sounds possible to the human ear. Play two C's at different octaves together and you hear them as one.

So a 1 to 2 ratio produces the most consonant sound that is not a simple unison. Pythagoras then cut the string by a third and discovered that the 3 to 2 ratio is the next most consonant sound. Will it surprise you that the more complex the ratio between the lengths of the two strings, the more dissonant the sound?

Now if you start with a tone on the western scale and cut the length of string necessary produce it by a third you will get another tone on the western scale. In fact you can generate all the notes on the western scale, abet in ever higher octaves, in this way. And Pythagoras demonstrated this for A, B, C, D, E, F, and G. The ancient Greeks didn't use flats and sharps so Pythagoras didn't go on cutting string to produce the half steps as well, but that is indeed how those tones are generated.

Perfect! The hand of god in numbers, right? Not so fast, if you keep cutting string until you wrap around to the original note on which you began, you come out one eight of a half tone off which will create enough dissonance to make your ears want to fall off. This problem is dealt with by spreading that eighth of a half tone out making all of the tones just a little off. The hand of god apparently needs human correction. But it's still, like pi and the Fibonacci sequence, really cool.

{By the way, the process of cutting the string by a third is called staking fifths because in any key in the chromatic scale, if you play the first note of the scale and the fifth note together, you will get that magical ratio of 3 to 2. Thus the perfect fifth.}

[Huggy Bear]

The idiocy is all yours. All spirals are curves.

we don't refer to circles as "curves" we call them circles

same with spirals.

I'm glad this thread exists as proof atheists are nuts.

Before we too sidetracked by whether Fibonacci numbers describe a curve or a spiral (silly as all spirals are curves) lets look how well the numbers really apply to nature shall we?

I reccomend this clever article by Donald E. Simanek: Fibonacci Flim-Flam

Rasetsu has already posted this link twice, which i already addressed.

---

Choosing sources from people who are touting the claim of fibonacci numbers instead of independent sources. Cherry picking number two. Do you think it's a coincidence that these people tout the numbers that fit and ignore the numbers that don't? If so, then you're naive.

First of all, the sources I referenced are not making any creationist claims, so they have no motive to fudge the numbers, they are simply stating cases in where the fibonacci sequence could be found, DNA is just one of many.
If my source was a christian website you'd have a point.

And this is where I call you a hypocrite for posting sources with a vested interest in debunking the fibonacci sequence.

your 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

Must be nice to have access to the most "popular swimsuit models" and when were they considered "real" people?

not only that, the claim that the golden ratio created beauty has been around since ancient times.

“Like God, the Divine Proportion is always similar to itself.”
–Fra Luca Pacioli (1445–1517), Italian mathematician

What swimsuit models was he checking out?

So what? It's also been claimed since ancient times that the Hindu Vedas were uncreated. A claim doesn't make it true. Facts do. Or in this case, they don't.

My point was, the body types considered beautiful in ancient times differ from now, so using swimsuit models to prove the claim wrong is just absurd.

---

Is this the only guy you guys could find to try and debunk the Fibonacci sequence? And you guys accuse me of cherry picking? smh

btw, i want to see that swimsuit model study...

[FatAndFaithless]

Good fucking god huggy is committing genocide on my brain cells. The is painful to read how bulshit ignorant he is.

[Jenny A]

There are some truly exciting and great things about the Fibonacci sequence, but the nautilus shell isn't one of them. Nor is the sunflower except under the most optimal growing conditions though it's certainly the plan. Nor are all flower petals. Nor are our aesthetics really based on the golden rectangle.

http://nautil.us/issue/0/the-story-of-na...th-as-myth

http://www.intmath.com/blog/is-phi-a-fib...d=noscript

http://dropbox.bachnetwork.co.uk/ub1/tatlow.pdf

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4325

https://philosophynow.org/issues/54/Bad_...Fibophiles

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread844170/pg1

The point is not that the sequence doesn't exist in nature, just that it's not nearly so prevalent or central as gee-whiz science programs suggest. And in the real world it tends to be rather imperfect at best. The very fact that the most common example given is the nautilus which doesn't actual fit, should give you pause.

[Huggy Bear]

Good fucking god huggy is committing genocide on my brain cells. The is painful to read how bulshit ignorant he is.

Ok, answer this. What is the very first step in any scientific discovery?

What a strange question.. I would say the first step would be to verify the result.

No, you must first make an observation (eye witness), and from there you form your hypothesis and test it, and eventually come to your conclusion. that's how the scientific method works.

it appears you don't have any brain cells to lose..

[FatAndFaithless]

Ugh...