# Divine proportion in many world theory

1. Aug 7, 2004

### Matrixman13

ok....im 14...so i am not expecting anything at all out of this theory....i just wanted to play around with it and see where it could go....

okay my idea first needs an understanding of the divine proportion in the gowth of trees...many of you probably already know this....but just in case...tree limbs grow following the fibonacci sequence....in most cases that is...not in all....but if you observe the growth of a tree...you will se that it will start off with the trunk...one branch will grow off of that....two will grow from that...three from there....then five....eight...thirteen....twentyone...and so on....so what we get is 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,........which is of course, the fibonacci sequence..

okay now that thats covered....i decided that if it is found in gowth in nature...then why not growth in universes.....okay i know that the string theory has found two different numbers of dimensions: 10 and 26....now those numbers can be fit into a similar sequence as shown....2,2,4,6,10,16,26......now my idea...is that in the beginning there was one universe...a two dimensional flatland.....from that sprouted another flatland....and from that flatland, our 4 dimensional universe was created....and then a six dimensional universe....and then a 10, then 26.

From what i have read.....it is a common theory that our universe actually may have a twin 6-dimensional universe.....and that both of these universes actually arose from what was at-first a ten dimensional universe...this all follows my theory..except its backwards...where actually the ten dimensional universe sprouted from the 6 dimensional...which in turn, came from our universe.

i have decided that all these are connected via wormhole......this just seems like the most logical explanation....i actually can not imagine any other way the universes can be arranged....but then again i dont know much about this topic...

okay now the only thing mising...is any kind of mention of the 16 dimensional universe.....and the two flatlands......either they just havent been discovered yet...or my theory is just a bunch of crap......but i wanted to post it and see what people thought about it....please explain any flaws in this theory...that is the only way to make it stronger...thanx

2. Aug 7, 2004

### Matrixman13

i also have other ideas connecting Phi with physics.....i have seen a site....i cant find it at the moment...that found a ratio between the proton and electrons's mass....that was put in terms of Phi.

if they can do that...then there must be some kind of significance to Phi in the string theory....probably vibrations...because thats where the mass of the particles comes from....i am very intrested in trying to find a tie bewteen the golden ratio and physics....it seems like there should be atleast something.....if so many things in nature...actually maybe all of it, if you count DNA...is infused with 1.618.....so why cant the laws governing our world also contain Phi?

3. Aug 7, 2004

### Chronos

Those types of number sequence patterns occur in many systems. They are symptomatic of more fundamental underlying principles. For example, a honeycomb cell is hexagonal because because it has the lowest surface area to volume ratio for compacted containers.

It is natural and appropriate to look for commonalities between observations that display similar patterns. We should, however, avoid allowing numerology to cloud our objectivity. It has pretty poor predictive power.

4. Aug 8, 2004

### Lama

Dear Matrixman13,

First, I like very much the simple and clear way that you use to represent your ideas.

In my opinion, the most important concept here is Symmetry.

Symmetry is the invariant common source that stands in the basis of infinitely many variations of it.

Form this point of view, to understand something is first of all to discover the connection between, so called, different things through their common source.

For example:

A ball is the invariant symmetry of a closed cube, closed cylinder, closed cone, closed pyramid, .... , and so on.

The ball (which is the most symmetric closed 3-D form) is the "gateway" to make a transformation from one closed 3-D shape to another, and by this ability we have a better and deeper understanding of any of the above closed shapes.

In general, if we find "gateways" between simpler levels and more complex levels of some system, we increase our abilities understand and act in better ways.

If you ask me, than I think that the most important research is:

To find the relations between the Symmetry concept and the Information concept, where our cognitionâ€™s abilities to search these possible relations, has to be included as a part of the research.

For example, please look at my papers, where I try to develop a new framework for the Language of Mathematics, which is based on the above attitude:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/ONN1.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/ONN2.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/ONN3.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/My-first-axioms.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/No-Naive-Math.pdf

I hope that some of my work can be useful for you.

5. Aug 8, 2004

6. Aug 8, 2004

### Matrixman13

okay those sites are great.......but what does that have to do with my theory....i just want someone to tell me anything extra i should know....or anything that disproves my theory, if thats possible at the moment......thanx

7. Aug 8, 2004

### arildno

I'd like to give you some advice here:

1. You have pointed out a curious truth about some numbers occuring in very advanced mathematical theories.
Basically, the only way to find out whether there is anything more to it than just a curious fact, is to learn and understand those theories first.

This will take you about 10-15 years from now on; you've got a long way in front of you, but it is not impossible

2. You must not fall in love with your idea!!
(Fall in love with a nice girl instead )

The reason why I mention this, is that in order for you to truly find out if your idea has any significance, you must first of all study and understand the maths and physics already existing; you cannot achieve this if you go to physics looking after confirmations of your pet theory.

You must keep your mind sufficiently open to appreciate and find deep interest in standard science; otherwise, you will never be able to develop the skills which is required of any scientist (however "creative" he may be)

If you become too enthused with your own finding, convincing yourself that it just "has to be true" because it is "so beautiful", ordinary science and math will start to look plodding and dreary, and you will not find it in you to bother to learn these disciplines thouroughly (rather, the flights of fancy connected to your own idea seems so much more interesting)

What I've sketched above, is how you may end up as a crank; and you won't end up there, will you?
Despised and ridiculed, being frustrated at the lack of recognition you sorely
need and think you deserve..

You need to develop your skills in "standard" areas and gain recognition there before you try to develop anything "new", not the other way around!!

So, make a note of your idea somewhere (store it for later reference, perhaps), and stop thinking about it too much.

Think like this:
Since almost every single idea men have had about nature has been proved wrong, why should I think of my idea as much different?
I really ought to study those extremely few ideas (called science) which seems to be right, they have to be truly interesting..

Assuming you've reached the level of competence, you may always take a look on the scribblings you did as a fourteen-year old, perhaps you'll get a good laugh of it..(or it just might..)

8. Aug 8, 2004

### NEOclassic

any 2 numbers, m snd n in the fibo type sequence: m, n, m+n, m+2n, 2m+3n, 3m+5n, etc will end up with p large, that the p+1st entry divided by the pth entry will be phi =1.618.. and where 1/phi = 0.618... interestingly phi squared = 2.618... Cheers NEOclassic/ Jim Osborn

9. Aug 8, 2004

### Matrixman13

thanx "arildno"........you've given me new insight on what i really should be doing.....i'm not completely engrossed in this theory, but i now know that if anything can come out of it, i need to first find an understanding of the science itself.

i cant let my own theory weigh me down!......thank you very much.