Phi

[tolenio]

Hello,

Conjecture...

If phi (1.61803399) is the path of least resistance as related to the quantum signature or power curve of the galaxy what can we infer regarding that power source?

I am assuming that given free movement in a structured environment matter will choose the path of least resistance unless acted upon by a greater force.

So if phi represents the dispersion pattern what can be deduced regarding the energy source?

Later,
Tom

[junglelord]

If phi represents the dispersion pattern what can be deduced regarding the energy source?

The Fundamental Aether Cycle and the Fundamental Quantum Spin that produce the ratio in the first place.
The path of least resistance applies to all fields. The path is determined by the Fundamental Field, Aether and its relationship to the matter it encapsulates. This PHI Ratio is the first Ratio produced by the marriage of the Aether Cycle of a Quantum 2 Spin Rotating Magnetic Field to its encapsulated Primary Angular Momentum and its Quantum number which is 1/2.

This means that a Aether Cycle to complete itself will therefore cycle four times before the Primary Angular Momentum reaches a Quantum Spin of 2. This is a complete Aether Cycle. At the start of the second Aether Cycle PHI appears as a direct result of the relationship between the Aether Cycle and the Quantum Spin. Its ratio grows from there.

[tolenio]

Hello,

Taking into consideration what you have said...

By applying phi four times to the Earth's surface can its energy dispersion pattern be aligned with tectonic plate movement?

This would be the angular momentum of phi directed in two different directions from either pole or

Aether Cycle to complete itself will therefore cycle four times before the Primary Angular Momentum reaches a Quantum Spin of 2

.

Or would there be a doubling with 8 aspects of phi unpn the globe to account for differation of poles (4 phi at each pole)?

Tectonic plate movement should correspond to phi dispersion if there is one energy source directing it. Yes?

Later,
Tom

[altonhare]

Mathematics is a language like any other, therefore its symbols must refer to something just as words do.

What, then, does a number represent? First off, does one refer to an object or a concept? Is it like a rock or is it like "up"? Can I hand you or throw you a one? No, I cannot, because it is a concept, a relationship among objects.

What, then, is the relationship of the object(s) referred to by a number? What is the relationship that distinguishes 1 from 2 from 3 etc.?

The answer is that each number refers to a set of criteria that distinguish it uniquely. A number indicates that there are X objects within a distance d of each other, each of which is at least a distance D from every object in some set Z (which could be every other object in the universe).

1: I
2: II
3: III
4: IIII
5: IIIII

The operations such as addition and subtraction refer to motion. The "=" symbol is just a separator to indicate that the criteria met by the objects indicated on the left are different from the criteria met by the objects indicated on the right.

1+1=2: I I = II
1+2=3: I II = III

A negative number has no physical significance. Zero only has physical significance when it proceeds the "=" symbol (i.e. the result of an action). Nothing cannot be the cause of an action, only something can perform an action. Therefore 0 has no physical meaning on the left side of the "=" symbol.

Decimals in our numerology are just a standardized scaling factor. The smallest number we use can be set to 1 and everything else scaled up from there so that we work only with whole numbers. Without this caveat a fraction has no physical significance. When you cut a pizza in half you don't have two 0.5 pizzas, you have two portions of pizza. Cutting a pizza in half is represented mathematically:

II = I I
or
2 portions of pizza separated by 10 angstroms = 1 portion of pizza + 1 portion of pizza separated by 1 inch

All you've done is move two objects further away from each other and identified them separately. What you identified previously as a "whole pizza" no longer exists. There are now two portions of pizza.

Carrying this to its logical extreme the smallest number would refer to a single fundamental constituent (the building block of everything, a continuous object). The pizza may contain 10E50 of these fundamental constituents. When we separate two portions of the pizza we would say:

10E50 Fund. Consts. =5E50 Fund. Consts. + 5E50 Fund. Consts

It's okay to not know what the most fundamental continuous objects of the universe are, we can apply this to whatever the most fundamental object we can quantify is. If it is an atom then we talk about the motion of atoms at specific distances. If it is an electron and a quark then we talk about the motion of electrons and quarks.

As such we never actually have to resort to fractions and decimals, although we use these as conveniences. Dealing with factors of 10^50 gets old very fast. These conveniences work well as long as we do not forget where they actually come from, as long as we do not forget the physical significance.

So, an irrational number has no physical significance because it indicates an infinite number of objects. It implies there is no fundamental constituent/component. We cannot scale an irrational number to a whole number via a physical interpretation.

Mathematics is an excellent tool, but we get into trouble when we forget that it is merely a tool.

[tolenio]

Hello,

If phi was not so omni-present in the galaxy, let alone the planet I could let it go as an irrational abstract, but that is not the case.



Since the fractal dimension of earthquakes is 1.6 I am sure there is a correlation that can be attained when looked at properly.

Tom

[altonhare]

Tolenio people have been finding mathematical patterns and correlations in everything since "1" was first conceptualized. There are even disorders where people see certain numbers in *everything*. They find a way to justify it, some complex series of operations, that leads to this number.

In any event, the *only* thing a pattern or correlation among numbers can mean is some kind of pattern or correlation among the relationship(s) of objects. 1 is just a mark on your screen unless it refers to an object like a chair or a brick. When you look for patterns in numbers you are looking for patterns in objects. So it is not 1.6 that is significant, it is the *physical* interpretation of 1.6.

Additionally, irrational numbers cannot have any physical significance. 1.6, sure, but not "Phi" or pi or E etc.

If we look at any circle closely enough we will find that it is not a "perfect" circle. Everything is made of some smallest fundamental object, therefore we will always get a rational value for the distance or length of something, even if it looks circular or spherical. The circles and spheres of geometry are *idealized* shapes. What you draw on the page is an actual shape, and the ratio between its circumference and diameter is always rational!

We must distinguish between the *concept* circle (C/r=pi) and the *object* circle (C/r=number). The concept is in our head, it is an idealization. What is actually there, is there, and is composed of finite pieces. The reification of concepts such as numbers and idealized figures is rampant in modern "science", we must think with our own heads and recognize this as reification and not science.

[junglelord]

I agree 100%
It is universal and therefore demands attention.
It is not in any way BS math. To even begin to try to discredit it Alton shows your total lack of knowledge on the subject of the Golden Mean and therefore you have a personal agenda. You really should refain from player defender of your faith.

Try this out. If you agree with something step in.
'If you do not, don't.
My mother always said, if you got nothing good to say, ....

[webolife]

Altonhare, yours is a very interesting view...
I knew you were a materialist, but you are much more a "concretist" than I realized.
So you are saying that just because our limited ability to draw, measure or detect objects requires they be countable,
therefore the irrational numbers that define their relationship have no physical significance? Is this really your position?
Negative numbers used to indicate opposite direction have no physical significance even if they are describing physical forces or motions of objects operating in opposite directions? Patterns of structure measurable in terms of phi or pi, have no physical significance even though these patterns seem to persist at every scale in the universe? Of what scientific value is this position? How does it help or enhance physics? I have been accused of being closeminded because I disallow complex numbers in physics. But you go way beyond that...

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Alton,
You wrote:

There are even disorders where people see certain numbers in *everything*.

Who say it is a disorder? Perhaps it could be a clue.

[tolenio]

Hello,

Tough room when simply raising a conjecture gets you labeled mentally ill. Let me rephrase the question...

When matter found in a energy stream tends to arrange itself in an arcing ratio of 1 to .61803399 as demonstrated in branching, crystaline structures, and cellular arrangements what can be inferred from the energy stream?



Can this inference then be applied to other knock-on energy release as related to the primary energy stream?



Thanks

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Tolenio,
Have you seen this thread:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... f=3&t=1176
Space Travellor (the last post I think), has ideas similar to yours.

[altonhare]

Try this out. If you agree with something step in.
'If you do not, don't.

I will present a clear, cogent, coherent, on-topic argument in whatever thread I please. Censorship of science has led us to the pathetic state we're in now.

So you are saying that just because our limited ability to draw, measure or detect objects requires they be countable,
therefore the irrational numbers that define their relationship have no physical significance?

Mathematics is solely about measurement, and by extension about concepts. Can you quantify a tree? Does it have any meaning to say the tree is 5? No, the tree is an object. But you can quantify (measure) the tree's height, a concept. You say the tree is 5 bricks tall. 5 refers to an object. You don't say the tree is 5 tall. Mathematics studies only concepts, how will your concepts have any meaning without objects? How will you use numbers, web, if not to refer to objects?

If they don't refer to objects it's just an elaborate game of which symbol in our symbol-box goes where. There's no meaning.

A^A=A
A^B=C
A^C=D
...
and on.

We can memorize all the symbols and what order they go in. What have we learned?

Negative numbers used to indicate opposite direction have no physical significance even if they are describing physical forces or motions of objects operating in opposite directions?

You almost understood my point. A negative number has no significance, but subtraction does. Addition means objects are moving closer and subtraction means they are moving further away. A negative number by itself has no physical significance, it demands a positive number to its left. We work with negative numbers often, but always with whatever's on the left implicit. That's fine for the sake of convenience (like dropping 10^50) but modern mathematicians and physicists have forgotten the implicit number on the left.

Patterns of structure measurable in terms of phi or pi, have no physical significance even though these patterns seem to persist at every scale in the universe?

This is just incorrect. A perfect circle has never been found and never will be. Likewise for other irrationals. We use the symbol pi or E etc. as conveniences because they are capable of approximating so closely we cannot tell the difference.

Again, an irrational number implies an infinite regression. When will we stop measuring the circumference? When will we decide we've reached infinity and lay down our bricks? An irrational number is an abstraction. You will never actually find an irrational number or measure an irrational quantity. The universe is composed of some finite continuous object. That object's smallest dimension is 1. All other dimensions may be measured in terms of it. You will never find an irrational relationship except in your imagination because it demands an "infinitely small" continuous object. Something "infinitely small" is called nothing.

Of what scientific value is this position? How does it help or enhance physics?

Because this position involves treating math as what it is, a tool. Specifically a tool for measurement/quantification. You can't quantify something infinitely. At best you can quantify something incessantly. Unfortunately you'll never quantify an irrational number. It keeps science rational (pun intended) instead of inviting mysticism and contradiction. The irrational number is an inherent contradiction. A number refers to an object so there is no such thing as an irrational number. It implies an infinite number of objects. We cannot count objects infinitely, at best incessantly, but when will we stop and decide we're at "infinity"? It is a logical fallacy, a contradiction. Simple as that.

This standpoint is valuable to science because it does not ask us to contradict ourselves.

Who say it is a disorder? Perhaps it could be a clue.

Perhaps it is not a "disorder". The point was not to insult anyone. The point was that recognizing a numerical pattern is great, but numbers must refer to objects. When we grant numbers inherent value, detached from objects, it's called reification.

Tough room when simply raising a conjecture gets you labeled mentally ill.

Let's try to keep the slander to a minimum. I did not label anyone mentally ill. I said that patterns arise all over the place to point out that is not the pattern itself that is significant, but the physical cause. An irrational number has no physical interpretation. I just want people to be careful and think about things carefully and critically before "running with them". That is the point of my posts in this thread.

Sorry if I insulted you Tolenio, I just meant to give you something to think about and hopefully get you to think about numbers in a new way.

[webolife]

Let me try one more proposal regarding the concept of infinitely dense... in the universe, I must agree, there must be a smallest object, regardless how close it apparently is to a point... atoms, electron, quarks, or the "planck distance", for example. Given the extremely small value of the planck distance, even the distances between objects, atomically or astronomically, are ultimately measurable as counting numbers, is that your point? Nevertheless, the value of phi or pi, or root2 or root3, taken to say the 20th decimal place, is still a valuable ratio for describing patterns of electrical motion, galactic arms, etc.; and if we marvel at the pattern we see, and name it phi, even if it is deemed to be not equal to the ideal irrational concept, is that not of some value? Does nitpicking about its irrationality get us anywhere? I don't think I've ever heard or seen a description of a pattern described as exactly phi anyway... just genuine amazement at its [approximate] occurrence at all scales and in so many disciplines...

One more trivial thought... any repeating decimal is a rational number, yet can be seen as an infinite regression.
Obviously we don't throw out 1/3,1/7,and 1/9, etc. as having physical significance?

[altonhare]

One more trivial thought... any repeating decimal is a rational number, yet can be seen as an infinite regression.
Obviously we don't throw out 1/3,1/7,and 1/9, etc. as having physical significance?

Ah, here we must distinguish between a ratio, a scaling factor, and the imaginary concept of an "infinitely small" object. When I pull out my brick and measure something's width, I find that it's 10 bricks. Then I measure its length and find that it's 30 bricks. I want to express this succinctly to someone so I tell them that the ratio of the object's width to its length (L/W) is 10/30. This becomes convention and I just write L/W=10/30. If I want to reduce my units down I state that I will be measuring in tens of bricks and write L/W=1/3. This is called a ratio. It explicitly relates whole objects to whole objects. On the other hand 0.5 implies a scaling factor. If I'm working on the scale of tens of bricks then 0.5 really means 5 bricks (half of a "tenbrick"). The decimal is just there to maintain my standard scaling factor. If I'm working on the scale of a billion bricks then L/W might be 1.958439274 which just means the length is 1958439274 bricks and the width is 1 brick. For brevity and convenience I work on the scale of a billion bricks and truncate the ratio at 1.958 or 1.96 or maybe even just 2. So yes, 1/3, 1/7 etc. have physical significance, they are ratios. The concept of an "infinitely small" object does not have physical significance. The decimal result of 1/3 implies an infinitely small object. An object either has size or it doesn't.

On the flip side, lets say I am using my measuring brick and I find that an even number of bricks do not fit across an object's length and/or width. For instance I lay it down along the width and measure 2 but my third one is too long. What do I do? I break my brick in half. Maybe I measure 5 broken bricks exactly. What if the fifth one is too long also? I break in half again. I can keep breaking my brick in half until it can be broken no more (I have only continuous objects).

What if I can't even get an integer number of continuous objects to fit? What if I'm laying bricks down around something that looks like a circle? Or maybe I'm measuring an object that is composed of connected bricks, and the bricks comprising it are separated from each other by some distance that is smaller than the size of my brick? I will just have to take my best guess. For something that looks like a circle I can assume it's a "perfect" circle, but obviously this is just an assumption. I have no way of confirming it at all. In the latter case I know that, even though I cannot perfectly quantify the object's width, the width cannot be irrational. Obviously the object stops somewhere. Its surface is not constantly expanding by some tiny amount as it measures itself again and again to get closer to some "irrational" or "repeating" value. 1/3 is fine as a ratio but when we try to "solve" the above equation we get into trouble. A continuous object cannot be divided into any parts. 10 objects cannot be divided into 3 equal groups. 100 objects cannot either. No group of objects numbering as a finite multiple of 10 can be subdivided into three groups with an equal number of objects.

Fundamentally multiplication is just an extension of addition (objects approaching each other), division is multiplication, and subtraction means objects are moving away from each other.

[altonhare]

Let me try one more proposal regarding the concept of infinitely dense... in the universe, I must agree, there must be a smallest object, regardless how close it apparently is to a point... atoms, electron, quarks, or the "planck distance", for example. Given the extremely small value of the planck distance, even the distances between objects, atomically or astronomically, are ultimately measurable as counting numbers, is that your point? Nevertheless, the value of phi or pi, or root2 or root3, taken to say the 20th decimal place, is still a valuable ratio for describing patterns of electrical motion, galactic arms, etc.; and if we marvel at the pattern we see, and name it phi, even if it is deemed to be not equal to the ideal irrational concept, is that not of some value?

Of course it is, just as E has value in mathematical models of bacteria growth etc. E is a convenient number to work with because Y=E^x changes as its value (its value is equal to its derivative). This makes things convenient. Likewise anytime we're working with something close to circular we can ALL use pi instead of everyone using a slightly different number (and making it difficult to compare results). Again, this is convenient. It should never be forgotten, however, that these are chosen because of their ease of mathematical manipulation and/or for standardization.

Does nitpicking about its irrationality get us anywhere? I don't think I've ever heard or seen a description of a pattern described as exactly phi anyway... just genuine amazement at its [approximate] occurrence at all scales and in so many disciplines...

It's not nit-picking. Many people use irrational numbers as evidence that "science has proven God" or other such claims. Many lay-people don't know how to interpret an irrational number and will believe a mathematician if s/he states that it has direct physical significance. We must always keep concepts and abstractions in their proper context/place. As conveniences. It's not nit-picking when books have been written about "pi philosophy" and other such crap. This is a widespread misconception in almost every facet of society. Kids are taught this stuff as early as third grade and are practically never taught about the physical significance.