Fibonacci Algorithm = God?

[Arcesious]

Scienceis limited to what can be tested. If it can be tested and proven by an equation, it is science. But that which has an equation but requires the probability system should be considered 'loose science', as it is neither provable nor unprovable. In my opionion, the probability sysem shoudln't be part of sceince, since it pretty much doesns't ever prove any theory, as the oddas aren't tested evidence, ony an estimation that is based on theory that may not even be true. So basing claims that thoeies are true in aurguments with the probability system as proof in it's core purely proves nothing, no matter what the odds are. We need a few good new theories if anything is going to be absolutely positiviely proven in these debates. Or we can learn to let go of the probability system.

[Samuel Dravis]

Nothing in science is certain - at least not in the sense that tautologies are certain. Science is just a way of doing things, and using probabilities in it has worked quite well so far. It is a matter of "good enough to explain the phenomena", not some kind of absolute truth. You can still use Newton's law of gravity in many situations and it would be perfectly acceptable to do so, even though there are more accurate theories available. It just depends on what you're trying to do with it. I see no reason why science can't use probability as it uses any other mathematical tool.

 

 

 

"The mathematician Pascal admires the beauty of a theorem in number theory; it's as though he were admiring a beautiful natural phenomenon. Its marvellous, he says, what wonderful properties numbers have. It's as though he were admiring the regularities in a kind of crystal." - Wittgenstein

 

As for the Fibonacci sequence, I find little amazing about how nature "uses" this feature of maths. Similarly, I also find little amazing about how nature "uses" the mathematical law of gravity. It seems strange even to think of it in the way the OP suggests. Admiring a crystal, indeed...perhaps we should instead wonder: why do we give numbers the properties they possess?

[Arcesious]

Everything proven in science is certain. But theories aren't. Just because we like to believe certain theories won't prove them true. Probability will only prove the hypothesis of the thoery- and the hypothesis isn't meant to prove anything, unless if someobdy suddenly amended the scientific method in a very wierd way, which is what it seems with how you people present your evidence... That's why it's still a theory, because the observations aren't complete. Even though we give the thoery a conclusion, the observations and results aren't complete. Therefore the theory is unproven and probability system won't prove anything exept to create a hypothesis for the theory.

[Samuel Dravis]

Try this. Suppose you said that your parents love you. Why would you say that? Because they do things for you, hug you, say they love you, etc? But now you're saying: I can't know for sure, because none of the things they have done proves that they love me... But what do you mean by proof if you won't accept ANYTHING as proof? Clearly, you're not interested in any kind of proof that I know of.

 

Please explain what you mean by proof.

[Ray Jones]

I see how I am wrong about stars. I rest my case about that. Obviously stars formed by chemical reaction, and the friction made heat. Solid matter wouldn’t be directly compatible with gases, but the metallic cores would be melted to a liquid state, liquid and gas being very miscible, hence the way a star would form. Sorry for the ignorance about stars...

 

Actually, stars form due to gravity, not chemical reactions. The heat is produced through the fusion of atomic nuclei, not friction. And it happens the other way around -- gas-liquid-solid-star-boom:

 

 

There are *huge* clouds of matter out there in space. And in these clouds there are spots which happen to get dense over time, more and more, at some points these denser spots get so much mass that the gas becomes fluid and later solid.

 

Cloud with stars forming:

 

Due to the increasing mass more and more gas is attracted and eventually a critical mass is reached and causes the atoms within the giant rotating sphere of gas to collapse under indescribable pressure of itself - et violet - core fusion -> the birth of a star.

 

Thanks to Hubble it looks like this:

 

or like this:

"This composite image, made with two cameras aboard NASA's Hubble Space Telescope, shows a pair of 12 light-year-long jets of gas blasted into space from a young system of three stars. The jet is seen in visible light, and its dusty disk and stars are seen in infrared light. These stars are located near a huge torus, or donut, of gas and dust from which they formed. This torus is tilted edge-on and can be seen as a dark bar near the bottom of the picture.

 

Apparently, a gravitational brawl among the stars occurred a few thousand years ago and kicked out one member (on the left edge of the bright blob above the disk). As a result, the two other stars were joined together as a tight binary pair and flew off in the opposite direction, and appear as a red blob below the disk. "

 

If there is balance between its mass and energy the fusion is producing, in other words if there's balance between expanding and contracting forces, the star will not stop "burning" until that balance goes downhill (because the star whether had blown out so much matter that it will explode or produced so many heavy elements that it will collapse), or if it was big enough until every single core has been fused to iron eventually. All other elements are formed during the death of a star, in novae and supernovae, or some later through nuclear fission.

 

Death of a star:

 

In fact, without stars our Periodic System of Elements would (if at all) show only a handful elements at best, most probably Hydrogen or Helium which were supposedly created during the Big Bang.

 

 

 

Please Google "singularity" before proceeding further with this train of thought. Unless of course you really do want to posit that "god" was a ball of energy less than a Planck-length in size that was more or less destroyed 13.7 billion years ago when the universe was created.

"God is everything and everywhere. We all are made of god."

 

That even supports this. No?