# The Great Phi Theory. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 7, 2001, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-phi-theory/92076 "2001-11-07T23:28:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![scotth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b9e5f3/32.png) [@scotth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotth)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-phi-theory/92076/141 "2001-11-14T15:02:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DaveW \* > \*\ ***scotth** wrote: > > > [@](#): > > > > hmmmm… the idea that Gravity which is an acceleration would be measure in Newtons is absurd to begin with. > > > > Accelerations are always measured in a distance/time/time format. > > > > Newtons are a measure of force. Period. The implication of that formula, explained that way, is that a snowflake and a semi truck would have the same amount of force holding each to the ground. > > Ummm… the only things which cause accelerations are forces. Don’t forget **F=ma** , or force equals mass times acceleration. If you know the force, and you know the mass, dividing the former by the latter will give you acceleration ( **F/m=a** ). A force of one newton acting on a one-kilogram object will accelerate that object at 1 meter per second per second, for example. > > Also, don’t get capital- **G** and little- **g** mixed up. **G** is the _force_ acting between two objects due to gravity, while **g** is the _acceleration_ imparted to objects by _Earth’s_ gravity. The semi has a much larger **G** with the Earth than does the snowflake (by many orders of magnitude), but they’ve both got the same **g** (which would be about 9.8 m/s[sup]2[/sup]). \*\* I guess I was a little unclear then. ACtually, the way you wrote makes a great spring board. If you are gonna get the force between two objects, the formula MUST have some info about the two ojbects, otherwise all objects (regardless of mass/size) would have the same force between them… make sense to you? ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-phi-theory/92076/142 "2001-11-14T15:31:39Z")
If I understand the source of the confusion, I believe I can also clear it up: **g** is the physical constant, acceleration due to gravity which is 9.8 m/s/s **G** commonly denotes the force of gravity, measured in newtons. _or alternatively it can denote:_ **G** the gravitational constant 6.672x10-11 N\*m[sup]2[/sup]/kg[sup]2[/sup] Hiyruu has not adequately defined which one he is talking about, or perhaps (_gasp_) he has made up his own definition. In any case, it is still not possible to balance his equation. Waverly[sub]still embarrassed over substituting distance for speed:o[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![scotth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b9e5f3/32.png) [@scotth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotth)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-phi-theory/92076/143 "2001-11-14T15:36:35Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Waverly \* > \*\*If I understand the source of the confusion, I believe I can also clear it up: > **g** is the physical constant, acceleration due to gravity which is 9.8 m/s/s > **G** commonly denotes the force of gravity, measured in newtons. > or alternatively it can denote: > **G** the gravitational constant 6.672x10-11 N_m[sup]2[/sup]/kg[sup]2[/sup] > > Hiyruu has not adequately defined which one he is talking about, or perhaps (_gasp_) he has made up his own definition. In any case, it is still not possible to balance his equation. > Waverly[sub]still embarrassed over substituting distance for speed:o[/sub] \*\* Exactly so, Waverly. if you were gonna use G in an equation, you would indicate some massess and distances between them make it useful right? You would need two masses and a distance squared in there to cancel out everything beside the force (newtons). ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-phi-theory/92076/144 "2001-11-14T16:06:14Z")
I assumed from the context that we were talking about calculating a force. What would be the value in redefining a constant? So, we have: N = (m/s)[sym]F[/sym][sup]n[/sup] Substituting Kg m/s/s for N: Kg m/s/s = m/s [sym]F[/sym][sup]n[/sup] Solving for n yields: n = log(Kg/s)/log([sym]F[/sym]) for the equation to balance Not likely units, especially since hero describes it completely in linear terms. My own understanding was that it was unitless to begin with. Check my math, I’m a bit rusty. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-phi-theory/92076/145 "2001-11-14T16:31:34Z")
Hijack-Sliderules As an Etherist, I have a few. Waverly your last post made me wonder, do you own any? There are quite a few math wizzes in this thread. Do you prefer a sliderule or a calculator? **Hiryuu** The link you provided goes to a sacred geometry website. I say again, you are not a scientist presenting a theory. You are a believer proclaiming your theology. What is Hiryuu’s Phi theory ??? (Doug Henning voice) It’s maaaaggggiiic! (/Doug Henning voice.) ---
**Author:** ![DaveW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@DaveW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DaveW)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-phi-theory/92076/146 "2001-11-14T16:42:04Z")
**scotth** , it makes perfect sense to me, the reason I responded was your apparent separation of force and acceleration when they’re intimately tied together. Let me be more clear: in no way do I support **Hiyruu** at all. Going back to the question of units, it seems pretty clear that if **G** is measured in kg-m/s[sup]2[/sup] (Newtons), and **C** is measured in m/s, then the quantity represented by **[sym]F[/sym][sup]n[/sup]** must be measured in kg/s, _regardless_ of what **n** is. So what the heck is measured in kilos per second (besides my weight gain after buying my first car)? Of course, if **n** can be any artbitrary value, then **[sym]F[/sym][sup]n[/sup]** can take on any value above 0 (as can **C[sym]F[/sym][sup]n[/sup]**), and the equation reads “ **G** equals anything I want it to.” Contrary to what **Waverly** says, **Hiyruu** _has_ stated that **G** is a variable, and not a constant. Newtons appear to be the only good measure. Unless, of course, **Hiyruu** is trying to _define_ the universal gravitational constant. Eeek! If so, then if **G** is 6.672x10[sup]-11[/sup], and C is 299979246, then **[sym]F[/sym][sup]n[/sup]** must be equal to 2.24x10[sup]-19[/sup], and so **n** must be very close to -89.2423, if **[sym]F[/sym]** is 1.618. Wheee. That was fun. ---
**Author:** ![scotth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b9e5f3/32.png) [@scotth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotth)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-phi-theory/92076/147 "2001-11-14T16:51:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DaveW \* > \*\ ***scotth** , it makes perfect sense to me, the reason I responded was your apparent separation of force and acceleration when they’re intimately tied together. > > Let me be more clear: in no way do I support **Hiyruu** at all. > > Going back to the question of units, it seems pretty clear that if **G** is measured in kg-m/s[sup]2[/sup] (Newtons), and **C** is measured in m/s, then the quantity represented by **[sym]F[/sym][sup]n[/sup]** must be measured in kg/s, _regardless_ of what **n** is. > > So what the heck is measured in kilos per second (besides my weight gain after buying my first car)? > > Of course, if **n** can be any artbitrary value, then **[sym]F[/sym][sup]n[/sup]** can take on any value above 0 (as can **C[sym]F[/sym][sup]n[/sup]**), and the equation reads “ **G** equals anything I want it to.” > > Contrary to what **Waverly** says, **Hiyruu** _has_ stated that **G** is a variable, and not a constant. Newtons appear to be the only good measure. Unless, of course, **Hiyruu** is trying to _define_ the universal gravitational constant. Eeek! > > If so, then if **G** is 6.672x10[sup]-11[/sup], and C is 299979246, then **[sym]F[/sym][sup]n[/sup]** must be equal to 2.24x10[sup]-19[/sup], and so **n** must be very close to -89.2423, if **[sym]F[/sym]** is 1.618. > > Wheee. That was fun. \*\* Actually, I agree with what you are saying. You can take the existing G (newtonian) and find the value n. But, still don’t see what good that does us. My understanding from the first time that equation was bandied about was: 1. It was a NEW definition of G. 2. Phi was unitless or tied to any value 3. n wasn’t tied to any value These taken together prohibit finding anything useful for G So, I guess I was abandoning that his intent was that. ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-phi-theory/92076/148 "2001-11-14T16:58:56Z")
**DocCathode** : You callin’ me a sliderule-usin’ geek? Actually no, I don’t at present have one, though I have owned one in my younger days. I retired it in favor of my first calculator; a contraption form HP that took about 20 D-size batteries and rivaled a toaster oven in size and weight. **DaveW** : You are confused. Clearly I am talking about G being a variable representing a force, I merely submitted the other two definitions I am aware of because there seemed to be some confusion. Read my last post and you will see the units I used for it are newtons. You cannot go adding units to [sym]F[/sym], even if it is necessary for the equation to balance. It is, [by definition](http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/pbourke/analysis/phi/), a ratio and is unitless. While it is used in ‘new age’ mode here, it _is_ a known number, and hero need not specify in order for us to determine that it has no units. ---
**Author:** ![sturmhauke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e47c2d/32.png) [@sturmhauke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sturmhauke)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-phi-theory/92076/149 "2001-11-14T17:12:25Z")
See, Hiyruu, all this geometry involving phi is interesting and all, but what you haven’t explained is how it relates to the real world. So, again, some questions for you: Why should the golden spiral have anything to do with gravity and light? What do the platonic solids have to do with the organization of matter? Why are toruses the only self organizing shape, and again, what does that have to do with anything? (This one seems to contradict other things you have said.) What is a nautical mile grid second? There are plenty of other questions floating around, unanswered. Since you seem to be getting nowhere with the phi[sup]n[/sup] thing, why don’t you work on one of those? ---
**Author:** ![DaveW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@DaveW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DaveW)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-phi-theory/92076/150 "2001-11-14T17:31:11Z")
**scotth** wrote: > [@](#): > > These taken together prohibit finding anything useful for G. Well, those plus the fact that **Hiyruu** ’s “explanations” make even less sense than his OPs. I completely agree that the whole equation is worthless, I’m just playing around with the units and numbers as a method of showing _how_ worthless it is. To rephrase from my last post, “ **G** is anything **Hiyruu** wants it to be.” Everything **Hiyruu** has linked to so far supports this interpretation. For just one example, one of the references was an obvious and pitiful application of the Law of Fives, and as long as the numbers found were “close to” **[sym]F[/sym]**, or some multiple of it, the game could continue. That they weren’t _exactly_ **[sym]F[/sym]** supports the “anything I want” interpretation very well. **Waverly** wrote: > [@](#): > > DaveW: You are confused. Clearly I am talking about G being a variable representing a force, I merely submitted the other two definitions I am aware of because there seemed to be some confusion. Read my last post and you will see the units I used for it are newtons. Perhaps I was not clear. When I said “Contrary to what **Waverly** says,” I was referring to your statement “Hiyruu has not adequately defined which one he is talking about…” **Hiyruu** did state, with no uncertainty, that **G** is a variable, and not a constant, which leaves out the possibilities of both little- **g** and the universal gravitational constant. So, unless he is making something new up, we’re left, through elimination, with **G** as the force of gravity as the most-reasonable (ha!) choice. ---
**Author:** ![scotth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b9e5f3/32.png) [@scotth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotth)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-phi-theory/92076/151 "2001-11-14T17:43:23Z")
Perhaps if Hiyruu could channel the late (very) great Richard Feynman, he could help him makes some sense of it. If there is one person that ever lived that could make a difficult idea clear he is the man. But (much) more likely, he would just be laughing along with us. ---
**Author:** ![Hiyruu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/7bcc69/32.png) [@Hiyruu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiyruu)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-phi-theory/92076/152 "2001-11-14T20:32:46Z")
G=C\*Phi^n Phi^n is simply a mesure of how many times the Phi-spiral has re-cursed upon itself. ‘n’ is the number of recursions present. When a Phi spiral is complete it has infinite recursions, but think of a Phi (equi-angular) vortex/spiral emerging in space. When that vortex first emerges it will only have so many recursions, if it is phi-based then more and more recursions will emerge and the spiral will re-cur to infinity. If it is not Phi-based the recursions will eventually cancel themselves out, because they will not be equi-angular. Only a Phi-Spiral can continue to infinity. So, **G** (the force of gravity) = C\*Phi^(the number of recursions present in a Phi-vortex). A Phi-vortex is an equi-angular vortex. Again: n = the number of recursions present in a Phi-vortex Which makes sense, because this is how the Phi power-series behaves also. ---
**Author:** ![Hiyruu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/7bcc69/32.png) [@Hiyruu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiyruu)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-phi-theory/92076/153 "2001-11-14T20:42:19Z")
Oh, and ‘C’ is the speed of light. ---
**Author:** ![scotth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b9e5f3/32.png) [@scotth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotth)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-phi-theory/92076/154 "2001-11-14T20:46:10Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Hiyruu \* > \*\*G=C_Phi^n > > Phi^n is simply a mesure of how many times the Phi-spiral has re-cursed upon itself. ‘n’ is the number of recursions present. When a Phi spiral is complete it has infinite recursions, but think of a Phi (equi-angular) vortex/spiral emerging in space. When that vortex first emerges it will only have so many recursions, if it is phi-based then more and more recursions will emerge and the spiral will re-cur to infinity. If it is not Phi-based the recursions will eventually cancel themselves out, because they will not be equi-angular. > > Only a Phi-Spiral can continue to infinity. > > So, > > **G** (the force of gravity) = C\*Phi^(the number of recursions present in a Phi-vortex). > > A Phi-vortex is an equi-angular vortex. > > Again: n = the number of recursions present in a Phi-vortex > > Which makes sense, because this is how the Phi power-series behaves also. \*\* Bravo for probably your most detail laden posting to date. However, it still has problems. The idea that ONLY a Phi Spiral can continue to infinity is demonstratably false. **G** (the force of gravity) = C\*Phi^(the number of recursions present in a Phi-vortex). This still doesn’t present us with a way to get a useful value of G… To prove me wrong, use this and calculate a useful value for G that can be applied to ballistics, orbits, etc… Physics, in the end, is applied mathmatics. Math found to describe how real events in the real world works. We haven’t gotten there yet. It isn’t physics at all if it doesn’t meet that threshold. ---
**Author:** ![Hiyruu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/7bcc69/32.png) [@Hiyruu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiyruu)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-phi-theory/92076/155 "2001-11-14T20:48:24Z")
When I say (the force of gravity), I mean that the force ‘G’ is dependent on the other side of the equation. So, ‘G’ is dependent. ---
**Author:** ![gazpacho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6f9a4e/32.png) [@gazpacho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gazpacho)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-phi-theory/92076/156 "2001-11-14T20:55:50Z")
Do the units match up on those equations? G is a force C is a speed, phi is unit less. They don’t look like they match up to me. ---
**Author:** ![scotth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b9e5f3/32.png) [@scotth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotth)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-phi-theory/92076/157 "2001-11-14T20:57:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hiyruu \* > \*\*When I say (the force of gravity), I mean that the force ‘G’ is dependent on the other side of the equation. So, ‘G’ is dependent. \*\* Ok, please… calculate this… show us how this is useful… I can’t see a way. But, you have been studying this for several years, so maybe you see something I don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Hiyruu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/7bcc69/32.png) [@Hiyruu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiyruu)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-phi-theory/92076/158 "2001-11-14T21:00:24Z")
Look, the Phi-spiral is simply the geometric expression of the Phi power-series, and because of how the Phi power- series behaves, the spiral is equi-angular from “top” to “bottom”. The power series for any other number will result in a spiral that will eventually cause itself to reach a limit, where 1 more recursion would fold over on itself, and you would get a point. ---
**Author:** ![scotth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b9e5f3/32.png) [@scotth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotth)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-phi-theory/92076/159 "2001-11-14T21:05:27Z")
ok, granted… phi is very interesting mathematically when it comes to making spirals. PLEASE link this to real world useful values. PI is a very interesting mathematically also, and very useful for making circles. That doesn’t automatically make it the solution to all of physics. ---
**Author:** ![Hiyruu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/7bcc69/32.png) [@Hiyruu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiyruu)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-phi-theory/92076/160 "2001-11-14T21:05:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gazpacho \* > \*\*Do the units match up on those equations? G is a force C is a speed, phi is unit less. They don’t look like they match up to me. \*\* Well, the unit for ‘n’ would be “Recursions present”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-phi-theory/92076.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-phi-theory/92076.md?page=9)