PDA

View Full Version : The Golden Ratio



scotsboy
26-Nov-07, 19:41
As Science V Religion seems to be a common thread on here, do you think the "golden ratio" is just a coincidence? Or does it provide some evidence of planning/structure?

northener
26-Nov-07, 19:42
errr, wot's that then Scotsboy?

Not something I've heard of before. I'm intrigued.

scotsboy
26-Nov-07, 19:44
Do a fred, northerner - try Google;)

ett23
26-Nov-07, 19:47
I would say it's no coincidence - got to be an intelligent creator behind something as complex as that!!

hotrod4
26-Nov-07, 19:48
the golden ratio = 1.61803399
Thats what Mr google said!!!!

fred
26-Nov-07, 20:16
errr, wot's that then Scotsboy?

Not something I've heard of before. I'm intrigued.

It's just the ratio of two numbers A,B where the ratio A:B will be equal to the ratio B:A+B.

northener
26-Nov-07, 20:23
It's just the ratio of two numbers A,B where the ratio A:B will be equal to the ratio B:A+B.

OK, so how does this work with Religion v Science then?

Are we saying that combining the two will result in it only being equal to one of the original two?

Or am i getting this totally wrong?

Rheghead
26-Nov-07, 20:26
I don't think that the 'golden ratio' can have such lengthy decimal places when applied to art and organic structures. So in a sense, the 'golden ratio' doesn't really exist. It is a bit of a Nostrodamus job in numbers.

fred
26-Nov-07, 20:32
OK, so how does this work with Religion v Science then?

Are we saying that combining the two will result in it only being equal to one of the original two?

Or am i getting this totally wrong?

Well the number sort of combines science art and nature. It is the ratio most pleasing to the eye, artists have known about it and made use of it for centuries. Many things in nature approximate it, the well known one is the ratio of the number of seeds in the rows of a pine cone, it does crop up a lot, even in the number of stars in galaxies.

northener
26-Nov-07, 20:40
Well the number sort of combines science art and nature. It is the ratio most pleasing to the eye, artists have known about it and made use of it for centuries. Many things in nature approximate it, the well known one is the ratio of the number of seeds in the rows of a pine cone, it does crop up a lot, even in the number of stars in galaxies.

I knew about Fibonacci numbers but the Golden Ratio is a new one on me.

Looks interesting, unfortunately Mathematics is something I've always struggled with, so it's going to take me some time to get it into my head!

Need a dark room and some whalesongs now.

shazzap
26-Nov-07, 21:13
Way above my head

Julia
27-Nov-07, 00:02
In other words...

Two quantities (positive numbers) a and b are said to be in the golden ratio http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/3/5/3/3538eb9c84efdcbd130c4c953781cfdb.png (phi) if a + b over a = a over b = phi

This equation unambiguously defines phi.


The right equation shows that a = bphi, which can be substituted in the left part, giving b phi + b over b phi = b phi over b


Cancelling b yields phi + 1 over phi = phi

Multiplying both sides by phi and rearranging terms leads to: phi 2 - phi - 1 = 0

The only positive solution to this quadratic equation is
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/c/1/6/c161684697a8600483748a1b1b162b1c.png

shazzap
27-Nov-07, 00:29
I came up with that answer aswell !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yehhhh

Moi x
27-Nov-07, 01:06
Is it just me or do some people go too far with this stuff?

It's looks a bit doggy (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.cafepress.com/phisource.49860075) to me. :confused

Saveman
27-Nov-07, 11:45
The golden angle is quite the thing,
With all flowers showing its joy in spring.
A spiral so perfect it spoils the eye
How can they design deny?

I’ve seen a forest so full of life,
And I’ve held the hand of my beautiful wife,
I’ve touched the sand on a sunny day,
Whom should I thank for my life today?

“It happened by chance!” the smart folks spout.
“It all came together of that there’s no doubt!
There is no designer of all that you see,
Trust in our science we’ll set you free!”

I looked at their science their bombs and their guns,
And looked at the priests, the clergy and nuns,
It’s all so opposed to the world where we are,
The grass and the wind, the leaf and the flower.

The fine-tuning of life is an art of its own,
Can chance really get blood from a stone?
Can chance create all the creatures we see?
Or is there design in the wings of a bee?

The wings of a plane are based on a bird,
A draftsman gets credit for what has occurred,
But if for that plane a draftsman’s required
How can a bird be uninspired?

Beware of those who say there’s no God,
Does “luck” as creator not seem odd?
Look for yourself and open your eyes,
There’s wisdom and beauty in all of our skies.

Rheghead
27-Nov-07, 17:59
Does “luck” as creator not seem odd?

Luck has very little, if anything to do with it.

Saveman
27-Nov-07, 18:05
Luck has very little, if anything to do with it.

Yep you're right. In fact that was the point of the exercise....

Rheghead
27-Nov-07, 18:09
Yep you're right. In fact that was the point of the exercise....

You are wrong from your point of view because it would take luck in that case.

Saveman
27-Nov-07, 18:11
No it wouldn't. You are wrong.




Though saying that....you're probably a crazy creationist on another forum in cyberspace.....

Rheghead
27-Nov-07, 18:25
No it wouldn't. You are wrong.

I think you are wrong if you are arguing for creationism on the basis of probability when surely the 'probability' of creation happening by chance must be shorter than a creation happening via a supreme being who has all the knowledge to create such an improbable creation?[lol]

scotsboy
27-Nov-07, 18:35
Maybe Scorrie could help us out here with the odds. As a former bookie, if you were to run a book on this subject what odds would you give? I reckon that the Creationists may just be favourites;)

Julia
27-Nov-07, 19:56
Is it just me or do some people go too far with this stuff?

It's looks a bit doggy (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.cafepress.com/phisource.49860075) to me. :confused

I had a look at that site, they've even got a 'Phee Phi Pho Phum Thong' for sale LOL

scotsboy
27-Nov-07, 20:01
Don't know what is on the site - my ISP has it on a banned list!!

northener
27-Nov-07, 20:32
As Science V Religion seems to be a common thread on here, do you think the "golden ratio" is just a coincidence? Or does it provide some evidence of planning/structure?


Alas, ScotsBoy, all the answers are on your ISP's banned site.

You will never know the pure joy of True Enlightenment, the answer to the confict between Science and Religion and the result of Caley Thistles' match next Saturday.

I weep for you.

They've got some ace T-shirts' for dogs too!:D

scorrie
28-Nov-07, 00:35
Maybe Scorrie could help us out here with the odds. As a former bookie, if you were to run a book on this subject what odds would you give? I reckon that the Creationists may just be favourites;)

Well, let's consider the possibilities. The history of long shots reveals some interesting facts. For instance, at one time, it was possible to get bigger odds on a British Singles winner at Wimbledon than it was to find life on another planet!! There was also the famous £600 wager on Elvis being alive, at odds of 500/1, with a Wick bookmaker in the late 1980's. Sadly, The King was a no-show and those evil bookies pocketed the cash.

Looking at the form, it seems that most of humanity's fanciful notions have been exposed as material for very young humans only. Only the notion of a God really endures as something we often carry into adult life. We wait for Santa, he doesn't turn up, we accept that he does not exist. We wait for the tooth fairy, she doesn't turn up, we accept that she does not exist. We wait for God, s/he/it doesn't turn up, we create a million reasons why it didn't happen.

To sum up, squillions of highly improbable things occur in life. Probable things occur much more frequently. Random chance or a mysterious mannie in sky? One is no more probable than the other in the science of betting but looking at the nature of the human being in relation to other animals and other natural wonders, I see nothing to indicate any real purpose to our lives, other than continuing the circle of life. Our "Guide Book" was written so late in our history, yet has no credible authenticity, given its relatively ancient status compared to modern mankind.

I cannot offer odds, as it would be sure to upset someone, somewhere.

Moi x
28-Nov-07, 01:13
I had a look at that site, they've even got a 'Phee Phi Pho Phum Thong' for sale LOLDid you notice that very few of the slogans are available on a thong? :confused:

Why don't we club together and buy one for scotsboy so he can see what he's missing? It might be a religious experience for him.

I don't see what this number has to do with religion anyway. Can anyone enlighten me?

Moi x

Saveman
28-Nov-07, 03:12
I think you are wrong if you are arguing for creationism on the basis of probability when surely the 'probability' of creation happening by chance must be shorter than a creation happening via a supreme being who has all the knowledge to create such an improbable creation?[lol]


I would never argue for "creationism" in its strictest form.

But your reasoning that everything (including complex lifeforms) came about by chance and that it is more likely than intelligent design is just silly.

Can a watch/house/car/tv/lightbulb/calender/microwave/mouse/rat/duck-billed platypus/human come about by chance?

NO. They need a designer.

Rheghead
28-Nov-07, 06:35
NO. They need a designer.

The man made contraptions need a designer but the lifeforms don't.

Are you suggesting that God designed the two-headed kid?

Mr_Me19
28-Nov-07, 08:58
This seems an odd thread but I though I would give a rather interesting fact. Fred said this:


It's just the ratio of two numbers A,B where the ratio A:B will be equal to the ratio B:A+B.

Basically another way of putting this is that if you take a peice of paper with demensions that correspond to the golden ratio (I think A4 paper has this property) then if you cut it in half then the sides of the two new bits will have sides that have the golden ratio between them. This continues infinitely. Also this wouldn't come out of italics for some reason.....

Saveman
28-Nov-07, 09:14
The man made contraptions need a designer but the lifeforms don't.


Riiiiight.....yet the lifeforms are more complex....hmmmm.



Are you suggesting that God designed the two-headed kid?


Mankind's choice to be independent resulting in imperfection has a lot to answer for.

Lolabelle
28-Nov-07, 09:56
I am hopeless at this kind of thing. So needless to say, it is way over my head. But it does look interesting, but I cant see what it has to do with religion, and creation v's evolution. Am I missing something???

fred
28-Nov-07, 10:04
This seems an odd thread but I though I would give a rather interesting fact. Fred said this:
[/I]

Basically another way of putting this is that if you take a peice of paper with demensions that correspond to the golden ratio (I think A4 paper has this property) then if you cut it in half then the sides of the two new bits will have sides that have the golden ratio between them. This continues infinitely. Also this wouldn't come out of italics for some reason.....


No, to achieve that you would need sides in the ratio 1:sqrt2 which is 1.414.

Mr_Me19
28-Nov-07, 17:14
Your absolutely right there. I think... Lol. I seem to have got my facts mixed up. But yes I seem to remember now that it is 1:Sqrt(2)

fred
28-Nov-07, 17:20
Your absolutely right there. I think... Lol. I seem to have got my facts mixed up. But yes I seem to remember now that it is 1:Sqrt(2)

It's obvious if you think about it, a golden rectangle is pleasing to the eye and there aint nothing pleasing about any of the sheets of paper that land in my letterbox.

scotsboy
28-Nov-07, 17:56
Well, let's consider the possibilities. The history of long shots reveals some interesting facts. For instance, at one time, it was possible to get bigger odds on a British Singles winner at Wimbledon than it was to find life on another planet!! There was also the famous £600 wager on Elvis being alive, at odds of 500/1, with a Wick bookmaker in the late 1980's. Sadly, The King was a no-show and those evil bookies pocketed the cash.

Looking at the form, it seems that most of humanity's fanciful notions have been exposed as material for very young humans only. Only the notion of a God really endures as something we often carry into adult life. We wait for Santa, he doesn't turn up, we accept that he does not exist. We wait for the tooth fairy, she doesn't turn up, we accept that she does not exist. We wait for God, s/he/it doesn't turn up, we create a million reasons why it didn't happen.

To sum up, squillions of highly improbable things occur in life. Probable things occur much more frequently. Random chance or a mysterious mannie in sky? One is no more probable than the other in the science of betting but looking at the nature of the human being in relation to other animals and other natural wonders, I see nothing to indicate any real purpose to our lives, other than continuing the circle of life. Our "Guide Book" was written so late in our history, yet has no credible authenticity, given its relatively ancient status compared to modern mankind.

I cannot offer odds, as it would be sure to upset someone, somewhere.

The Black Swan Theory;)

Rheghead
28-Nov-07, 18:00
Riiiiight.....yet the lifeforms are more complex....hmmmm.

A screwed up ball of office paper is grossly more complex than a new plain sheet. It requires no designer and it is almost impossible to replicate but is far easier to create.

northener
28-Nov-07, 20:57
No, to achieve that you would need sides in the ratio 1:sqrt2 which is 1.414.

Dammit.

Now everyone tells me.

I've got through a whole ream of A4's trying to make Mr Me's equation work, and I've bloody well cut myself with the scissors.

Stuff this equation mularkey, I'm off to the pub. It's the Metaphysics Quiz and Fancy Dress Night. (Free pies!).

I'm going as Descartes.

I drink, therefore, I am.

.