Nowhere have I said what you attribute to me. I have not said on word about Fibonacci.
Are you now saying that you didn't post the following statement?
Your extensive links on "phi" and it's relation to "Mandlebrot sets" and Fibonacci numbers, etc., merely reaffirms my previous objection: it, like all of "Sacred Geometry" is a Mathematical curiosity, a legacy of a mystical era in Mathematics, that today is nothing more than a hobby or curiousity for a few Mathematicians.
What I DID say is that "Sacred Geometry" and it's "vibrational resonances" is simply not a mainstream topic in modern Mathematics, and you haven't provided a single piece of evidence to the contrary.
And where pray tell have I ever said that "Sacred Geometry" or "Vibrational Resonances" ARE a mainstream topic in modern Mathematics? Why should I prove something that I've never claimed? I've only stated that MANY mainstream concepts ARE in fact derived from that which IS termed "Sacred Geometry". I've proved it with the Fibnocci numbers and related material, as the Golden Mean IS ONE item of so-called "Sacred Geometry" from the ancients.
As I said earlier, you harp and screech about these so-called "vibrational resonances". I only provided a definition that I had found concerning "Sacred Geometry" and had no other comment concerning it. YOU are the one that is treating it as a major item here, not me....
Your extensive links on "phi" and it's relation to "Mandlebrot sets" and Fibonacci numbers, etc., merely reaffirms my previous objection: it, like all of "Sacred Geometry" is a Mathematical curiosity, a legacy of a mystical era in Mathematics, that today is nothing more than a hobby or curiousity for a few Mathematicians. [emphasis added]
You really aren't very good at reading comprehension are you?
I've put in the bold the two relevant words: "phi" and "it". As can be seen by anyone familiar with the workings of English grammar, the pronoun "it" refers back to the word "phi," NOT to Mandlebrot, or Finonacci, or anything else. Thus, my comment was about "phi" and not Fibonacci.
Please learn to read before misrepresenting what I wrote.
Red herring. Never said you did.
Why should I prove something that I've never claimed?
Because proving that "Sacred Geometry" with its "vibrational resonances" is foundational to modern advanced Mathematics MIGHT just provide a rational basis on which to assert it would be a likely topic for Space Aliens to want to communicate, which is what this whole thread was about, right? And the surest way to prove to EVERYBODY here that "Sacred Geometry" with its "vibrational resonances" is foundational to modern advanced Mathematics would be to show that Math Departments in the top-50 Universities are TEACHING courses in it! Conversely, absence of such courses would strongly suggest that "Sacred Geometry" with its "vibrational resonances" is NOT foundational to modern advanced Mathematics, which in turn would suggest that it would be silly for Space Aliens to travel across the galaxy just to communicate it to us.
I've only stated that MANY mainstream concepts ARE in fact derived from that which IS termed "Sacred Geometry". I've proved it with the Fibnocci numbers and related material, as the Golden Mean IS ONE item of so-called "Sacred Geometry" from the ancients.[emphasis added]
Related; yes (as I have repeatedly stipulated). Derived; no. As I explained to you previously, modern Geometry is based on (that means "derived from") Hilbert's axioms, not Euclid's, and not from ancient "Sacred Geometry" with its "vibrational resonances." Furthermore, during my entire undergrad career as a Mathematics major, I never saw a single thing "derived" FROM "phi" (the Golden section ratio). You either don't understand the meaning of the word "derived" as it is used in Mathematics, or you simply don't understand Mathematics. Fibonacci numbers are related to "phi", but they aren't "derived" from it. Thus, "phi" is not foundational (i.e., part of the underlying axiom system) for Fibonacci numbers, Mandlebrot sets, or anything else you like to link.
As I said earlier, you harp and screech about these so-called "vibrational resonances". I only provided a definition that I had found concerning "Sacred Geometry" and had no other comment concerning it. YOU are the one that is treating it as a major item here, not me....[emphasis added]
Yes, it's YOUR definition (YOU chose it; you're stuck with it). In Mathematics, we are required to use the ENTIRE definition of a thing, not just the portion that suits us. That's what sets Mathematics apart from less rational activities, like interpreting crop-circles, for example.