Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


If you can read this message, please contact us immediately at the following email address:

We'd like to communicate.


Mathematical "Golden Ratio" Found in Temple Built By People with No Known Advanced Mathematics

Throughout history, some of the greatest minds around the world have been fascinated by the Golden ratio. Mathematicians since Euclid in the fourth century have studied this mysterious mathematical occurrence. The Golden ratio pertains to pairs of numbers, the sums of which have the same ratio to the larger of the two numbers as the larger number alone does to the smaller number. For example, take two numbers, a and b; number a is larger. If these numbers display the Golden ratio, then a+b/a = a/b.

Ok, that’s enough math lesson for today. The reason this ratio has mystified mathematicians, scientists, and artists alike is that it is seemingly found throughout the natural world in the ratios of the lengths of human limbs, the spirals of galaxies, hurricanes, or nautilus shells, in the proportions of the features of the human face, or even the dimensions of DNA molecules. Many philosophers have suspected that this ratio is somehow intrinsic to the physical makeup of the universe and that human perceptions of beauty are tied to this ratio.

The mystery of the Golden ratio deepens, thanks to a recent discovery by University of Arizona mathematics professor Sherry Towers. While studying an 800-year-old Pueblo Sun Temple in Colorado’s Mesa Verde National Park, Towers noticed that the dimensions of the structure seemed eerily familiar to her:

"I noticed in my site survey that the same measurements kept popping up over and over again. When I saw that the layout of the site’s key features also involved many geometrical shapes, I decided to take a closer look."


  • The Golden Ratio is fascinating because it's found everywhere, naturally.  If their idea that humans are simply hardwired to understand and make use of this ratio is true, then that raises more questions about our nature.

    The theory that we are descended from single-cell organisms that themselves formed out of inorganic compounds on a lifeless world offers no answers as to how we just happen to have these things programmed into us.  Things that, apparently by coincidence, allow us to obtain an even greater understanding of the universe.

    Scientists themselves freely admit that they don't know for certain what conditions were like on Earth at the time of the first life's formation.  Furthermore, they're not even able to say whether it happened quickly, or over the course of millions of years as various chemicals interacted.

    Scientists would probably chalk up the Golden Rule to mere instinct, but it doesn't seem that they have any clue where instincts supposedly came from in the beginning.  I'm not sure if anyone has even asked that question, because I see no evidence of attempts to answer it online. 

    So: did a series of chemicals randomly come together into a self-replicating life form complete with the compulsion to thrive and multiply?  If so, how could such a compulsion possibly have formed along with the chemistry of the life form?  Instincts and compulsions aren't even physical things, so how could they manifest from nothingness?

    Science has no answers, only theories.

    Interestingly, these theories are being combined into sandwiches that scientists are urging us to eat at the expense of other lines of thinking.  Let's look at the two possibilities people generally consider:

    1)  Life formed as the result of a random chemical reaction that we don't understand, complete with a hard-wired drive to thrive and multiply that came about by a means we also don't understand and can't explain.  These simple beings then somehow evolved over time into the billions of distinct and enormously complex life forms that currently and have in the past existed on Earth (including humans).

    2)  Life formed as the result of the intent of an omnipotent entity beyond our understanding that had already and always existed. 

    Both options sound like pure fantasy - the imaginings of people who have spent a lot of time asking questions they simply could not find answers to.  To believe either would be an act of pure faith, because neither has ever been provable or disprovable via any means that we possess.

    Option 1 requires the discovery, study and consideration of hints and suggestions based on our observations of the universe.

    Option 2 requires the study and consideration of a set of instructions and explanations that appear to have been put together via a mathematical method so complex and so intricate that humans would be unlikely to have ever produced them (and yet exist in spite of this).

    The interesting thing is that science does not and cannot disprove the Abrahamic scriptures.  Nor can the Abrahamic scriptures disprove science.  Indeed, the two seem to go well together:  Through science people can better understand the systems that God used and uses to maintain existence and, through the understanding of such systems, perhaps understand God a little better.  Through religion, people can acquire thoughts that lead them to learn about and make use of science and, in doing so, expand their minds.

    With all of that said, it seems almost childish when you consider the efforts the two opposed parties of Science and Religion go to in order to convince one another and others of their particular beliefs.

    Scientists point to a giant list of unproven speculations and tell everyone to believe.

    Religious teachers point to their own giant list of unproven speculations and tell everyone to believe.

    And then, also like children, most people accept whichever list they were told about first, or told about in the most compelling fashion, and then follow along for the rest of their lives by nodding and agreeing without doing any thinking of their own.

    It comes down to two symbiotic systems of faith being treated as mutually exclusive.

    I think the reality is that no person can truly understand the meaning of life without examining both religious scripture *and* the science that makes up the universe. 

    Just as a person can memorize the Bible or Quran without arriving at a greater understanding of the contents, a person can also become well-versed in science without ever having a unique thought of their own.

    What we ultimately believe comes down to the results of an internal struggle between ourselves and both knowable and unknowable things.  It is beyond the ability of any other person to permanently set in stone the outcome of that struggle, try as they might. 

    That struggle is important, and no one should give up on it by becoming complacent.  To give up on the struggle would be to give up being human, and deprive us of the ability to ever recognize the truth if and when it is made visible to our individual minds.

  • GrumpyGuyGrumpyGuy Member
    edited January 2017
    To add, I think a lesson we can take from the above is that people should avoid the temptation of telling one another, "It is the truth because I believe it." 

    Instead, people should tell one another, "This is what I believe.  What do you believe?"

    By sharing and discussing our beliefs we can discover items of value previously unknown and piece them together until, I think, we can all arrive at something I'll refer to as "peak understanding."

    Of course, for this to happen we must first create a world state wherein all people are free and motivated to spend their days discussing and learning things together.  Fortunately, a good first step to take is for small communities of people who do this to form and, hopefully, grow as others enticed by what they see desire to take part.

    Even more fortunately, such a community exists right here.  Small steps towards big horizons.

    Even though no one, as I said, can truly set in stone another person's beliefs we can help each other a lot by asking questions and sharing answers.

    Even though we exist as individuals, and even though the test of belief in God comes down to the individual, we are also a community of sociable creatures that are capable of more together than alone.  Whatever the truth behind our origins, it seems certain to me that we are meant to use that combined strength to our mutual advantage.

    What are the thoughts of the rest of you?  We should share and discuss for our own mutual advantage and growth.
  • I believe it's time for a beer.  Maybe it'll help with the new headache.

    "How do you tell a communist?  Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin.  And how do you tell an anti-communist?  It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."

    *Ronald Reagan*

  • Matt_ADMIN_Matt_ADMIN_ Administrator
    Some of my own thoughts:

    (1) I think conflict arises between "scientists" and "the religious" because the scientists aren't actually scientific, and the religious don't actually believe what they say they do, otherwise the scientific method would be employed to realize that maybe there is indeed a guiding force, and scripture would be obeyed in that minds would be employed in order to arrive at certainty.

    (2) I think we do indeed have material proof that scripture is true, but most of that evidence is either ignored or hidden from us on purpose. For instance, the likelihood of a firmament of some sort existing above us, and some sort of boundary existing around us, which is obfuscated by all sorts of space agency trickery, military guards, false education, etc. The fact that scientific methodology is replaced by ridicule, and exploration replaced by rules and punishment indicates that something is going on. But aside from that, the mathematical encryption of the Quran, and other mathematical codes discovered within other scriptures provide physical evidence in themselves that a guiding hand is in play, unless all these people had super computers capable of breaking statistical probabilities hidden beneath their camels.

    (3) There is simply too much innate knowledge at this point, very particular pieces of knowledge, for people to continue thinking that chance (called "evolution" to make it more palatable) played a role. In fact, the more I observe this situation, the closer I come to the conclusion that our "reality" is indeed just thousands of years old as scripture suggests, and that mankind and all that we see are set pieces put into play for a distinct purpose in which all this highly particular innate knowledge plays a role.

    (4) For people to begin successfully growing themselves with knowledge, they must first delete and reprogram the paradigm by which they acquire knowledge. Right now, everyone works from the position that, "I am right until you convince me sufficiently otherwise", leading to an unproductive trench-warfare interaction of minds, rather than the Quranic position of, "Evaluate all information provided, and incorporate the best of it", which quietly suggests that a person must take an opposite stance and say to themselves, "You are right and I will take the best of what you say and add it to my own knowledge."

    (5) There is so much to think about and discuss that mankind requires a specialized economy in which material needs are met, even on a basic level, so that the maximum amount of time can be spent on knowledge growth. 
    "...Say, 'GOD is sufficient for me.' In Him the trusters shall trust." (Quran 39:38)
  • I believe in both, divinity and evolution.  I don't think they are mutually exclusive.  I believe that evolution is guided by God.  Everything evolves.  We see it all around us every day.  A child evolves into an adult, a seed evolves into a plant and a tadpole evolves into a frog.  God created us to evolve and we are fulfilling that purpose.

    The only place I see us falling short, is in our spirituality.  We may not do it in the same way but we do worship the same Gods as our ancestors.  The same Gods as the Vikings, the ancient Greeks and the ancient Egyptians.  Zeus, Odin and Ra have become Jehova and Allah.  The lesser Gods have become Angels and Archangels.  I don't mean it as a blasphemy, I mean it to say that Our God has always been there.  He was just worshipped differently and named differently in the older times.

    Where we fall short is in allowing ourselves to be seduced by material things and pleasures.  By insisting on tolerance and acceptance of the carnal.  We can only hope that God allows mankind the time for our spiritual evolution to catch up to our physical and intellectual evolution.

    "How do you tell a communist?  Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin.  And how do you tell an anti-communist?  It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."

    *Ronald Reagan*

  • The revolution of the various planets and synchronicity of the earth within the solar system, the effect of the moon on life cycles and tides, division of night, day and seasons, movement of wind patterns, jetstream and gobal tides and the reappearance of stars in the sky each night are sufficient proof to me of a master Creator. Each one of us is free to choose belief or disbelief in our chosen way without listening to scientists or those who would question belief.

    "We are shaped by our thoughts; we become what we think. When the mind is pure, joy follows like a shadow that never leaves."

Sign In or Register to comment.