If you are suggesting that people who achieved great things in Math studied "Sacred Geometry" and that therefore "Sacred Geometry" contributed to their achievements, that is a logical fallacy: "post hoc, ergo, propter hoc." If you are suggesting that because people who achieved great things studied "Sacred Geometry" it therefore follows that "Sacred Geometry" is important, it is another logical fallacy; argument by association. It is no more valid to make that claim than it is to assert that strip joints are important to Quantum Mechanics because Dick Feynman used to hang out in strip clubs (which, in point of fact, he did.)
Well then I guess the University of Arizona (amongst others) must be living in the stone age...
The Golden Ratio
As I said, modern Mathematicians don't waste much time on this sort of stuff. The fact that a few Mathematicians expend some minor effort to calculate irrational numbers to huge numbers of decimal places does NOT "phi" a matter of great Mathematical import. Did you bother to check out the URL of your link to the Univ. of Arizona? Check out the very end of it:
http://www.cs.arizona.edu/icon/oddsends/phi.htm [emphasis added to show that "phi" falls into the Mathematical category of "odds and ends"!]
As they say, "res ipsa loquitur".....
One example..
University of Buffalo - EGYPTIAN GEOMETRY
Not even in the ballpark, FL. I asked you for examples of top-50 Universities whose Math Departments had non-remedial, technical course offerings in "Sacred Geometry," and you give me professor William's web page of "Mathematics of the African Diaspora". Did you not see his comment: "Sacred Geometry (even less Mathematics and Religion) is something which only interests me periphally, and barely at that."? So your link fails to deliver the mail on the following accounts:
1. I asked for "top-50 schools" and you gave me Buffalo
2. I asked for examples of Math department courses in "Sacred Geometry" that aren't remedial or non-technical courses, and you have not even provided a SINGLE example.
I therefore renew my earlier objection:
If I am wrong about this, then there should be no shortage of non-introductory or non-remedial course offerings that are devoted to the study of "Sacred Geometry" in the Math Department course catalogs of virtually every top-50 University.But I've never heard of any of them offering such a course...
Your ignorance of the topic is quite obvious here. Phi is a universal constant that is used in Mathematics, Physics, and related fields such as Geometry and Astronomy. The Golden Mean is also widely used. Even DNA follows the Golden Section. [snip]
So is the number "1," but don't know of any cults based on it. The fact that a number appears in lots of different contexts doesn't bestow mystical properties on that number. "Pi," "i," "e," "1," and "0" are Mathematically far more important than "phi" will ever be. In fact, there is a fundamental expression that relates ALL of the numbers I just named:
As for Geometry, it suffices to note that modern Geometry is based on Hilbert's axiom system; if you can show me where Hilbert elevates either "phi" or "Sacred Geometry" to any status of significance in his system of Geometry, I will gladly reconsider my position. I would be even more willing to reconsider my position if you can show me which of Hilbert's famous 24 questions pertains to "Sacred Geometry," but you can't be cause they don't. Hilbert posed the 24 most important unanswered questions in all of Mathematics in 1900, and not one of them is about "Sacred Geometry."
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. The fact that Dick Duffin used to teach a course in "Mathematical Problems, Puzzles, and Paradoxes" doesn't make Puzzles a hot field in modern Mathematics. The fact that somebody writes a research paper on "Secrets of the Roman Numeral System" doesn't make Roman Numerals and important topic in Mathematics. And so, the fact that you can find numerous links on the web about "Sacred Geometry" doesn't make it an important topic in Mathematics.
They [Space Aliens] more than likely would depict something that you wouldn't understand, be it fractals or the Pythagorian[sic] Theorum [sic].
My, you are quick with the sarcasm, aren't you. If the "Space Aliens" really wanted to show us they were here, they could conclusively do so by posting a proof of one of the remaining unsolved problems from Hilbert's 24 questions, as mentioned above. A suitable candidate would be a proof (or refutation) of the validity of the Continuum Hypothesis, first proposed by Cantor in 1874. Since no human has been able to answer the question, a proof of the answer, stomped in a wheat field, would certainly get some attention, and imply that something of prodigious intellect was responsible for the proof. But, no; all we get is crop-circles which some people think are messages about "Sacred Geometry."
"Sacred Geometry" has been around since at least the Egyptians, and more than likely so have they.
Fairy tales have been around since the dawn of man; does that mean fairies are more than likely with us?
Your obsession with the mystical Mathematical curiosity you call "Sacred Geometry" and its attendant lunacy about "vibrational resonances" doesn't require Mathematicians to drop their current research and Math departments to revise their course offerings in response to the infatuation a few people have for the topic. Were it significant, Math Departments would be teaching technical courses on it. They aren't; it isn't.
Hehe...spectacular post!
Travis McGee pegged him down firmly a few pages back.
You sir, are a lunatic.Harmless, I am sure.
Interestingly, you ignore the importance of phi and the Fibonacci Numbers
If you REALLY think this field of Mathematics to be archaic and obsolete, drop me a line sometime.
Before I prove you to be a complete, total, utterly ignorant fool, why don't you retract some of what you said?