Talk:Golden spiral

message: There is another name for this spiral (see heading) I think. This is because if you draw 8 lines from the centre of the spiral, the angle at which the spiral intersects them is always the same. Would this be worth mentioning?--CarrotMan 06:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The golden spiral is an equiangular spiral, but not the only one. It's already in the first sentence, if not explicitly. Melchoir 23:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equiangular spiral 

message: Why not use the formula from logarithmic spiral?  The current scheme with b raised to a power of angle in degrees is, I bet, not in any verifiable source, as it is abhorrent to a mathematician to do such a thing.  It would be nice if this article would say what value of b makes the logarithmic spiral a golden spiral, instead of defining a couple of new idiosyncratic b's. Dicklyon 06:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The formula 

message: The letter \phi is used in this article for the golden ratio.  A confusing point is the two different forms that the letter \phi takes, one in the opening paragraph, the other in the equation
:e^{b\theta_\mathrm{right}}\, = \phi
It took me a couple of re-reads to figure out that this equation referred to the same constant.  I'm not sure how to control the fonts used, but they need to appear in a consistent way.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.14.188 (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notation:  phi 

message: Uhhmmm.... If this is not vandalism... then at least this should be a more scientific source....  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.20.215 (talk) 01:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grimoire for the Apprentice Wizard...??? 

message: Is there a spiral that cuts every radius at an angle of 45 degrees and what would be its formula and name?WFPM (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Spiral inquiry

message: When the image is this small, the red and the green line form one orange line. It would be useful the scale the image up (to about 400px, maybe more), but when I do, the description disappears. Could somebody who has the knowloedge do that please? Thanks in advance.Bleistift2 (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The image 

message: I realize that there is a convergent point that the spiral is leading towards. If the origin is the lower left corner of the graph , what is the (x,y) location of the convergent point? Also, I realize that there is angle to the tangent line to the line from the convergent point is it constant? --John W. Nicholson (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Convergent point of graph 

message: I do not want to get into an edit war, so I am not touching it with a ten foot pole, I'm just going to say: the mouse corneas thing is crap. It's very "whoah" to see it said that corneas resemble galaxies and golden spirals. However, the study also brings in a bunch of other spirals. They're just imposing whatever they like on the data. It's pretty clear they were just looking for "cool numbers" - check their source for the "silver spiral".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamishtodd1 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Your chronology above suffers from the fact that you are not taking into account that there were several editors involved in this and they were dealing with different issues. My own involvement came after the mouse study citation had been removed. What was left was an unsupported POV that did not make much sense. Putting the source in did not really change my opinion of that statement and I support 's revert. First of all, the paper is a primary source and it is based on an observation of three samples. In scientific circles such a study provides evidence, not a conclusion. Your statement is way over the top and not supported by this paper. When the subject of this paper is brought up in a secondary source it might be useful in a Wikipedia article, but as it stands now, it isn't. Note that I am not attacking this paper, only your use of it to support your position. --Bill Cherowitzo  (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

text: Gahnett, you have done the right thing in removing the unsourced  unproven negative "Contrary to popular belief, golden spirals have not been found in any natural processes."  There's no evidence of such a popular belief even, though such a belief or claim does show up in little things here and there.  As far as I can tell, though, beliefs are not very relevant in all this. Dicklyon (talk) 02:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The mouse cornea study is dodgy