A new way of doing Golden Ratio?

[Anonymous No.10662631]

So, i was thinking about the golden ratio spiral the other day. And I thought "instead of fibonacci/lucas numbers, why not something simpler?"

If you look at the spiral in the picture, you'll notice that each curve is a perfect quarter circle, but once it goes past the quarter mark, another perfect quarter circle is draw, only 0.618 times as large.

My idea, was instead of number sequencing, we would look at the entire spiral in quarters and count from there.

The idea is that it starts from above, travel both right and down until it gets to the quarter mark, at which point it continues to travel right but less so, but now it also traveling UP. Because it changed one of it's directions, the next quarter circle is therefore smaller.

So the math goes like this. You start at top going right + down, gain right momentum slowly, and slowly LOSE down momentum.

We can imagine right as "gaining 50% of the directional pull, and down as LOSING 50% of the pull. So you comprise and get 25%. Ah, so 25% is a quarter, and subtract that from 100 and you get 75.

So if this spiral shows a car starting at 100 mph and slows down to 75 mph (completes first quarter circle), we can correlate that to the fact that it's a quarter circle.

Now, because we change direction from right+down to right+up, we cannot keep the same momentum and therefore the 1/4 circle's radius becomes shorter. So if we started dividing with quarters on the first circle, the next circle as it is smaller could be 8ths. So an 8th of 100 is 12.5.

Since we are now in the second circle, we are in the "50 -75" range.
75 - 12.5 = 62.5. That completes the second quarter circle.

62.5... is very close to 61.8. Move decimal 2 spots to left, and you have 0.618.

Certainly, not perfect, but then again an irrational golden ratio assumes things can have infinite growth/deceleration/size. That is simply not true. And you cannot show me where a perfect golden ratio is on a ruler, as you'd be searching forever and ever.

[Anonymous No.10662762]

>>10662631
>new way of doing golden ratio
>And you cannot show me where a perfect golden ratio is on a ruler, as you'd be searching forever and ever.

Don't feel bad, no one else knows what the golden ratio is either.

[Anonymous No.10662834]

>>10662631
that spiral has second-order derivative discontinuities

[Anonymous No.10662852]

π is 3.2, whole town agrees with me, end of story

[Anonymous No.10663689]

thought i'd bump this shit. I think it's pretty interesting. I believe though, that it's still missing something, because while 0.618 would be more mathematically sound, 62.5% (0.625) is pretty close, I think it's just missing an averaging of energy bleeding. Of course, both the golden ratio and my "fractional" golden ratio assume perfect conditions in a perfect vacuum of space, but of course, there is always energy bleeding into other directions and in different ways.

However, I'm proud of the 62.5% figure. It really does simplify building of the spiral, and it is damn close, if you had a 1.625 ratio and put a human face or a picture of a hurricane underneath, you'd see it adds up pretty darn close.

I don't know. I just wanted to try something new. I figured, just double the rate of deceleration after each quarter circle, it's just extremely easy to do it that way.

[Anonymous No.10663693]

>>10663689
rather, double the fractions of decelration.

[Anonymous No.10663698]

>>10663689
I'd also like to add, that within the fibonacci sequence, you do in fact find a 1.625 ratio at one point.

Now, 8 / 5 = 1.6, but 13 / 8 = 1.625
21 / 13 = 1.615....

So on and so on.

[Anonymous No.10664239]

>>10663689
>I think it's pretty interesting. I believe though, that it's still missing something, because while 0.618 would be more mathematically sound, 62.5% (0.625) is pretty close, I think it's just missing an averaging of energy bleeding.

I don't think you understand. It is "incommensurable" aka "math rine end here". It has no common measure and cannot (by definition) be calculated.

>>10662852
Didn't you drown after the Pythagorean threw you off a boat?

[Anonymous No.10664345]

>>10664239

my method clearly demonstrates a mathematical way to do it, or at least much better than the fibonacci sequence. It's so much easier to think of it in quarters, then add 8ths, 16ths and finally 32nds for the final turn before directions repeat again.

[Anonymous No.10664494]

>>10662631
>you'll notice that each curve is a perfect quarter circle
The golden spiral is a single continuous logarithmic spiral, they are not perfect quarter circles stitched together, that is an approximation called the Fibonacci spiral

[Anonymous No.10665313]

>>10662631
Can't you just go to /x/ with this dumb shit?
It has nothing to do with mathematics or science and clearly you don't even understand what the golden ratio is.

[Anonymous No.10665520]

Imagine doing this with music, art, etc. No longer do we have to rely on long and boring chores of number sequencing and measuring, we can just fractionalize everything and get the answer much faster and more reliably.

[Anonymous No.10667311]

>>10664239
Can you post manual on how to draw pentagram by compass?

Also there is new way of doing pentagram, you just use hexagon for grid and connect some centers of line to edges, it's pentagram, just perspective shifted.

>>10665313
Yes, just ration of a/b in in mathematical sequence is not mathematics.