Tangent of 17 degrees approx equal to 1/3

See my http://vixra.org/abs/0907.0008

Is Ratio 3:1 a Comprehensive Principle of the Universe?

Steve,

I take walks in my head all the time.

BTW, the series that you list is simply the most commonly known. It was featured in the Da Vinci Code. There are others also. You simply pick two numbers and start to add.

The golden ratio is a favorite of mine. I suspect that it is actually the source of some of your observations rather than the Fibonacci series. I that really a face that I see in the cloud or does it just look like a face? Those galaxies definitely respond to physics though.

All in all, an enjoyable read. Thanks.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

    Dear Sir,

    Your essay has lot of potential for development into many branches. In ancient India, year was named with a base of sixty called Jupiterian cycle, which is followed even today. The base comes from the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn on the same straight line drawn from Earth, which happens every sixty years.

    The simplest answer to Zeno's paradox is that velocity is related to the mass of the body that is moving, the energy used (force applied) to move it and the total density of and the totality of the energy operating on the field. These are all mobile units against the back drop of the field that is static with reference to these. Middle of the distance is related to the frame of reference, which is static, while the other aspects are relatively mobile. Thus, it is like comparing position and momentum. They do not commute. Hence there is no paradox, which is borne out of experience. While the middle of the distance is gradually reduced, the velocity is not reduced by the same proportion. Hence the runner will reach the end point. These two aspects represent the first two digits of the Fibonacci sequence invented by the 8th century Indian mathematician Mahavira. The rest are the interactions. The same is true for life. One sperm fertilizes one egg and their interaction drawing from the environment grows. The same applies to other fields also.

    You have correctly stated that: "We believe in objects because of their qualia". But "mathematics is how we use reason to describe of the qualia of objects" can be misleading. Mathematics describes quantitative aspect of Nature, while physics describes the qualia. For example, color is differentiated by wave length of the light emitted by it. If we add blue to yellow, it becomes parrot green. But if you add or subtract the wavelengths, it will not match. We have discussed these aspects as well as space, time, relativity, equivalence and complex numbers etc., in detail in our essay.

    Language is the transposition of information to another system's CPU or mind by signals or sounds using energy (self communication is perception). The transposition may relate to a fixed object/information. It can be used in different domains and different contexts or require modifications in prescribed manner depending upon the context. Since mathematics follows these rules, it is also a language. Mathematics explains only how much one quantity, whether scalar or vector; accumulate or reduce linearly or non-linearly in interactions involving similar or partly similar quantities and not what, why, when, where, or with whom about the objects. These are subject matters of physics. The interactions are chemistry.

    Regards,

    basudeba

      5 days later

      In this epoch, yes. However, different epochs have different forces and so the answer depends on the epoch...I think...

      You may be right and the golden ratio may be the source. But the Fibonacci series is a simple growth by addition from a finite beginning and that is very appealing. The golden ratio is simply a nice symmetry...

      5 days later

      Language is a way to tell stories to other people. Mathematics is definitely limited as a language for quantitative reasoning, just as you say.

      The spectra of mathematics can describe qualia, but in a different sense than the words of language. For example, blue and yellow are both colors that we commonly see in reflected light because of absorption by pigments. The math of those absorption spectra is straightforward and so math can represent colors with spectra as long as a white spectrum of light from a source illuminates the object. So I still argue that math can add and subtract blue and yellow absorption spectra and math can fully represent the parrot green spectrum in reflected light given a white light source illuminating an object.

      However, the word "blue" also communicates more than the spectrum that math calls blue. The word "blue" communicates a lifetime of both singular and shared relational experiences with blue objects and so the word "blue" describes a blue object in relational ways far beyond what a math spectrum represents.

      17 days later

      Dear Stephen F. Agnew

      Our ideas nearly coincide. You say, "Mathematics expresses the relationships between the matter and time of objects and an action principle. Science uses math to represent action as motion in space but all motion is equally well a displacement of an object in time".

      My view: Any 'change' in the physical world happens 'by way of motion'; there are no other ways. And, 'motion' is a space- time relation that follows 'mathematical laws'. So all changes in the world follows 'mathematical laws'. The physical world has no 'laws' of its own; it has only some basic 'properties'. Mathematics decides the 'laws', and that is the only role of mathematics in the domain of physics. Please read my essay: A physicalist interpretation of the relation between Physics and Mathematics

        16 days later

        Dear Dr. Agnew,

        I thought that your engrossing essay was exceptionally well written and I do hope that it fares well in the competition.

        I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

        All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

        Joe Fisher

          Wow, I am really running out of gas on this topic. You may have missed my point, though.

          There are two equal but complementary math representations for action; motion in space with the conjugates of dx and dp and evolution in time with conjugates dt and dm for changes in time and matter.

          It is really only math that allows us to consider these two representations of physical reality. While spacetime is a huge mostly empty universe filled with a few objects of matter, matter time is a universe of time that is nearly filled with the possibilities of objects of matter.

          So far, using space and momentum, it has not been possible to unite gravity and charge forces since the path integrals between GR and QM are so different. By doing path integrals with just matter and time, it is now possible to unite gravity and charge forces. This is because there is an expectation value for proper time.

          Well, mathematics is really only a tool and a very useful tool. This is because there are many physical things that conform very well to math, like counting objects.

          Dear Steve,

          Thank you for reading my essay and for leaving an honestly felt comment about it. Reality is not optional. Only abstraction can be abstractly right or abstractly wrong.

          Do you have a real complete skin surface? Does every single thing you have ever seen in your life have a real complete solid, liquid, or gaseous surface? Can I predict with absolute certainty that every object that will ever come into existence will always have a real complete surface? Yes I can and I do.

          One needs a real surface to practice mathematics on. Please name me one event that mathematics can predict.

          Joe Fisher

            Okay...math can predict the number of cattle that a farmer must give as tax to the government given a tax rate of 1 in 5.

            16 days later

            Steve,

            Glad I got to your essay, I won't get to many. I'm in full agreement with the importance of Fibonacci etc, indeed the spiral concluded a recent video where I tried to show a relation of the charge path... anyway time is short. I would appreciate your comments on it as I know you've been skeptical of charge/EM coupling. VIDEO Time Dependent Redshift.

            I found your 'no chapter' style a little difficult and apparently rambling at first but it worked ok and the message came across well. I'm not quite sure why it's not better rated. Perhaps we need to bow more to the god of mathematics. You may not get time to read mine to score mine but I hope you'll read it and comment anyway.

            Best wishes

            Peter

              Thank-you for your kind remarks. The rating system seems to be based on more of a Monte Carlo type of realization than on any reasoning.

              I watched your video and am always amazed by the significant effort that you put into your DFM plasma. This is something that you obviously believe in very deeply, but DFM could still use a few more quantitative examples.

              The shock fronts of nebula are beautiful shots, but there are very well grounded alternative explanations for these features as supernova remnants. You need something with a little more mystery than a supernova remnant to argue that DFM is useful.

              Well reasoned and enjoyable Steve..

              You started and ended strongly, with a little stretch near the end but a solid finish. I really appreciate learning more about the history of Fibonacci numbers, and I like the application to Galaxy evolution. Many models are unduly complicated but fail to be realistic. I liked your essay overall, and I will have more to say when there is time. Perhaps I'll finish reviewing one or two more before midnight.

              All the Best,

              Jonathan

                I am pleased that at least a few people have read and liked my essay. I realize that my writing is not always the best that it could be. Things that seem simple to me are not always that simple to others.

                I too like simple models and a simple universe built on a few simple axioms. Why no one else can see the simple underlying primitive reality of matter, time, and action is a mystery to me. My naive expectation was since matter time is so simple and has proven to be useful for a variety of problems, that matter time would then be worthy of a more rigorous vetting by the trolls of mainstream science.

                Thus far, that has not proven to be the case.

                Write a Reply...