Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

kemakol t1_jegghia wrote

Reply to comment by Chromotron in ELI5-What is the fibonacci sequence? by amsdys

They wanted the hype explained. Why would you answer if you don't get it either?

−12

Chromotron t1_jeghsj9 wrote

The hype is just that: a hype. It is not based on anything real. Also, it was a fad at best, it never was THE big thing everyone talks about.

Anyway, the explanation goes as with most hypes: a few people made up things, consciously or not, excitedly told others, and it spread. What else do you want one to say?

17

kemakol t1_jegmi6a wrote

It mimics the way cells divide, the ratio between any successive numbers gets closer and closer to Phi the higher you get, the western musical scale is based on the sequence with one octave having 13 notes and a scale having 8 notes, tons of classical musicians used that ratio as a template in the process of making music, tons of architects over many cultures have used that ratio in their buildings, Our DNA strands measure 34 angstroms long by 21 angstroms wide for each full cycle of its double helix spiral, the ratio between our moons radius and the Earth's radius is phi... And so on.

You know... reasons for hype.. like they asked

−18

Chromotron t1_jegq6cj wrote

To put it mildly, your post is full of lies and blatantly wrong statements. Most of them not even close even if one rounds the numbers very generously.

> It mimics the way cells divide

No.

> the ratio between any successive numbers gets closer and closer to Phi

Yes but that is definitely not behind the hype. I can write down a lot of sequences that converge to whatever number you like.

> the western musical scale is based on the sequence with one octave having 13 notes and a scale having 8 notes

It is actually based on powers of 2^(1/12), namely those close to rational numbers.

> tons of architects over many cultures have used that ratio in their buildings

Tons? maybe one in a thousand, at best. Which is not because the number is great, but because they fell for the hype.

> Our DNA strands measure 34 angstroms long by 21 angstroms wide for each full cycle of its double helix spiral

This is completely random, measure it with any other unit and it becomes wrong. And it is completely false, too. Their length is way higher (in the order of centimeters per chromosome!), varies between chromosomes a lot, and more. And googling says it's actually 18 Angstroms in diameter, not 21, but whatever, that is random at this point anyway.

> the ratio between our moons radius and the Earth's radius is phi

Just no. Don't invent random things. The ratio is ~3.667, what the heck did you even smoke to confuse that with phi? At least check your claims sometimes?

Edit: fixed quote.

20

kemakol t1_jegsbbh wrote

The earth/moon thing is a little off, but not incorrect. The right triangle you'd create based on their radiuses is Phi. If you knew as much as you'd like to think, you could have corrected that. Everything else stands and your first sentence is just you projecting. Like, go look at a piano, wise guy... Missing the forest for the trees

−16

Chromotron t1_jegt060 wrote

> The right triangle you'd create based on their radiuses is Phi.

What does that even mean? A triangle is just a number?! Still begging the question what drug you are on.

> If you knew as much as you'd like to think, you could have corrected that.

Correct it to what? I gave you the correct ratio!

> Like, go look at a piano

Read up on musical theory and don't act the way you do if you have no idea what you are talking about...

> Everything else stands

Like... all the other things I debunked, such as you seriously claiming that human DNA is only 3.4 nanometers long (and while so, by your own claim, not even twice as long as wide!), when in reality it is centimeters per strand and ~3 meters total, per cell?

10