Nice, you figured it out :-)

> make sure to google ostrich mating call

Just did, can recommend :D (Link for the lazy among you)

> The right triangle you'd create based on their radiuses is Phi.

What does that even mean? A triangle is just a number?! Still begging the question what drug you are on.

> If you knew as much as you'd like to think, you could have corrected that.

Correct it to what? I gave you the correct ratio!

> Like, go look at a piano

Read up on musical theory and don't act the way you do if you have no idea what you are talking about...

> Everything else stands

Like... all the other things I debunked, such as you seriously claiming that human DNA is only 3.4 nanometers long (and while so, by your own claim, not even twice as long as wide!), when in reality it is centimeters per strand and ~3 meters total, per cell?

To put it mildly, your post is full of lies and blatantly wrong statements. Most of them not even close even if one rounds the numbers very generously.

> It mimics the way cells divide

No.

> the ratio between any successive numbers gets closer and closer to Phi

Yes but that is definitely not behind the hype. I can write down a lot of sequences that converge to whatever number you like.

> the western musical scale is based on the sequence with one octave having 13 notes and a scale having 8 notes

It is actually based on powers of 2^(1/12), namely those close to rational numbers.

> tons of architects over many cultures have used that ratio in their buildings

Tons? maybe one in a thousand, at best. Which is not because the number is great, but because they fell for the hype.

> Our DNA strands measure 34 angstroms long by 21 angstroms wide for each full cycle of its double helix spiral

This is completely random, measure it with any other unit and it becomes wrong. And it is completely false, too. Their length is way higher (in the order of centimeters per chromosome!), varies between chromosomes a lot, and more. And googling says it's actually 18 Angstroms in diameter, not 21, but whatever, that is random at this point anyway.

> the ratio between our moons radius and the Earth's radius is phi

Just no. Don't invent random things. The ratio is ~3.667, what the heck did you even smoke to confuse that with phi? At least check your claims sometimes?

Edit: fixed quote.

The hype is just that: a hype. It is not based on anything real. Also, it was a fad at best, it never was THE big thing everyone talks about.

Anyway, the explanation goes as with most hypes: a few people made up things, consciously or not, excitedly told others, and it spread. What else do you want one to say?

I did not say there are none, only that almost all of them are random and won't be there in another of the same species of object.

> A nice illustration of the pattern is how seeds are distributed in sunflowers.

That is literally what I mentioned as the only potentially correct occurrence!

There is absolutely no physical process that favours the golden ratio for spirals. The factor for a logarithmic one simply is not too large, and not too small. Like 1.3, 1.5, 1.61, or 1.8, maybe even 2 or 3. Some humans attribute patterns where there are none.

The only exceptions I've ever seen where Fibonacci numbers really (roughly) appear are growth patterns that mimic its recursion. Sunflowers are often mentioned, never checked if even those actually work but they might.

> Natural examples include the spiral shapes of shells and galaxies.

No, those are at best just any logarithmic spirals, the factor is not the golden ratio or otherwise Fibonacci-related.

There are multiple ways to define Fibonacci numbers:

• Set the first two to be 0 and 1, and every after as the sum of those two preceding it: 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, ... .
• The number of different ways to form a strip of fixed length by glueing strips of lengths 1 and 2 together.
• The number of binary (only 0 and 1 allowed) sequences with a fixed number of digits, and 1s must not be consecutive.
• Via Binet's formula as ( φ^n - (-1/φ)^n ) / sqrt(5).
• [many more]

> how it it's supposed to be in all nature and that's sacres geometry...

That's a myth at best, and a lie at worst. There are some very few instances where they somewhat appear, but those are one in a million things. None of the claims of golden ratios appearing within humans, plants or animals has ever withstood scrutiny, sqrt(2), 1.5 and sqrt(3) are just as probable and nonsensical.

Edit: spelling.

> Is this because we are using AC

In addition to the other answer: the strongest example you will likely every see is DC: lightning.

The main question has been answered in comments, I think, but to further put things into perspective:

The total energy of Earth's magnetic field is very roughly our current energy consumption over a thousand years. This on one side sounds seriously huge, it's enough to boil away the Caspian sea (twice, actually). On the other hand, it is not at the absurd scales most other cosmic things are (e.g. dismembering the entire planet, solar energy output, or worst, supernovae), we could get there if we very very seriously want it even with current tech.

(I hope I remembered the total energy correctly, as modern Google is utterly useless when trying to verify them; all other numbers have been re-calculated.)

They are not even pedantic, they are just wrong. Even pedantry would be about objectively true statements instead of pushing the opinion that "viruses are nothing more than chemicals" like that means anything.

> Viruses do not reproduce.

That's nonsense. They do, by hijacking cells. Do humans not reproduce because they need external air, water and nutrients? Heck, do men even reproduce if they just "hijack" women to grow the little things?

They never said that viruses are alive, so I have no idea why you even mention it. And it doesn't matter anyway, unless you can show me an objective universal definition of that word which at least a majority of relevant researchers can agree on.

Being alive and having a "reason" is not the same. A complex but definitely not alive machine like a car has a purpose and does it's functions for a reason. Ultimately, all things do what they do for a "reason", be it just the laws of physics.

If instead you meant "reason" in its second meaning, based on consciousness, then it fails just as well. Bacteria are considered alive by almost everyone, yet they have no mind to speak of. They don't reason with themselves at all, they just do like a bio-machine.

If you think that it matters if viruses or prions are "alive", then you are wrong. It simply does not matter, what counts is what they do (with or without "reason"), and that is exactly what the post your responded to described. No researcher would suddenly change their approach for treating or preventing rabies or covid if you or anyone else decides they are (not) alive.

> In reality, eventually, 'the hat' tiling does repeat, but not anywhere near enough for it to be noticeable.

To clarrifiy (for OP): that's only because your photo only shows so much of the thing, and there are is only a finite (but very huge) number of possibilities your photo could show. If your photo zooms out more when needed, every part of the wall would be truly unique.

> A lot of large companies would suddenly not be needed, which would cause a very large number of people to be suddenly unemployed.

This is the worst reason ever. The true reason why the US cannot change is that those huge companies lobby the sh*t out of politicians and spend billions on spreading propaganda such as that.

The pressure leaves immediately, and so does necessarily some steam. Otherwise that pot would turn into a bomb very very fast. Actually very little pressure is needed to lift the lid up; one atmosphere of pressure is some hundreds of kilograms on a decently sized one, so maybe 1% of that is enough.

The lid prevents air convection that carries the hot and especially wet air away. While as one answer says the resulting circulation of air cools the water, this is not the main factor. Instead, it is evaporation. Water evaporates all the time, and the closer it gets to boiling, the faster it gets.

Water uses a lot of energy to become steam, way more than it takes to get it to boiling temperatures. Every bit of steam that escapes is enough to heat way more than this amount of water all to boiling. So you want to prevent evaporation. but the speed of evaporation depends on the wetness of the air above the water. Hence a lid, to keep enough wet air inside.

And as a bonus, it prevents circulation, which would also carry away wet & hot air. Lastly, there is also a bit of energy recovered when water condenses on the lid. Condensation releases just as much energy as vaporizing takes. That effectively improves the total insulation, meaning that less heat escapes to do whatever else outside the pot.

The pressure leaves immediately, and so does necessarily some steam. Otherwise that pot would turn into a bomb very very fast. Actually very little pressure is needed to lift the lid up; one atmosphere of pressure is some hundreds of kilograms on a decently sized one, so maybe 1% of that is enough.

You are confusing thought experiments with reality. A thought experiment is under strict specific assumptions; it does not matter if reality looks different or this cannot actually be.

For example: "if I flip a coin once a second for all eternity, I will get heads at least once"; humans not living for eternity, the coin very slowly ablating away, the sun possibly swallowing Earth some day, or everything being turned into paperclips by a rogue AI don't matter and are not viable scenarios for this. They are idealized away, ignored.

They are usually done to either explore and understand some concept, or to show effects (paradoxical or not) of extreme settings, or are just a kind of game for its own sake. Like a science fiction book.

> Over an infinite period of time the probability of the universe ending is 1, right?

There is no physical reason for this to be so. It might be, but we are definitely not certain about it nor the opposite.

(For OP or whoever is interested)

Note how electric and magnetic are (almost) interchangeable, each one induces the other in the same way. The only weirdness is the second rule by which magnetism might not have basic charges ("monopoles") in nature. Otherwise, we would replace (2) by the corresponding variant of (1) to account for free magnetic charges, and the symmetry of the 4 laws would be even more obvious.

Even deeper(?), the 4 equations are actually only one when one interprets magnetic as an imaginary variant of electric. This single equation is

∇F = μ_0 c J.

Apart from what people already said about "cold" quite possibly meaning "10000°", it's also not like you need something to be hot to create power. Photovoltaic, hydroelectric and wind power are not boiling hot either. And neither are batteries or fuel cells. A cold fusion cell that works akin to a hydrogen fuel cell is not unthinkable, just pretty unlikely to exist.

However, many liquids cannot be fully separated by distillation, including ethanol plus water. The best one can reach by pure distillation is an azeotrope, where the liquid and gas phases both contain the same percentages of constituents. For drinking alcohol that's at 95.6% ethanol, above what almost all drinks offer, so most people don't care. Chemists and industry do, though.

If electric current flows in a straight cable, it creates a magnetic field circling around it. If you bend the cable into a ring or a coil, then those little magnetic circles arrange to form electromagnet. What we take from this is that if electric charges are circling, there will be a magnet.

Now matte has lots of electron in it. Those things are electrically charged. But they also "spin". They are however infinitely small, so this spinning is a bit weird, but the same ideas apply. Hence they have a magnetic field by our previous observation; they are microscopic magnets. To get a macroscopic magnet, they need to be aligned so that their little magnets don't just cancel each other out.

In most matter, there are a lot of those little buggers, chaotically swirling around (metals, very hot "gas" [plasma]) or orbiting in atoms. The chaotic ones usually contribute nothing unless we create a current again or apply a magnet from the outside. They just point wherever they want.

Those in atoms follow some quantum rules, which tends to pair them in opposing directions; hence they cancel. They pair up, but sometimes one or more cannot find such a partner. This turns the entire atom into a slightly larger (but equally strong) magnet. Now most metals have those lonely electrons on the outside and they tend to join the swirling chaos, leaving their atom behind. But some atoms like iron or nickel have them a bit further on the inside where they stay. Thus those metals are effectively a lot of little magnets.

They are however still probably just pointing wherever they want. But if one gets them arranged properly in the same direction ("magnetizing"), then we finally got a magnet! This can be done in several ways, e.g. by an external magnet (might be electrical) forcing them to arrange; one usually then heats the piece of metal and cools it again, this will lock them in place so that they stay a magnet even if our external magnet is removed.

If inside the same space:

Let t be a real number running from 0 to a(ge of universe). We contract space to a point inside itself by sending each vector v at time t to (a-t)·v. So at t=0, v is wherever it should be, and at t=a we get 0 (italic to denote it is the vector 0, not the number 0) regardless of v. And in-between, it moves towards that inevitable 0.

This does not "jump" (it is continuous), but from an external view, v does move with speed |v|/a (with |v| the distance of v from 0) all the time. So points far away move arbitrarily fast, similar to how some parts of the universe move away from us faster than the speed of light. But "locally", so if every point only observes those close to it, points have almost the same speed and direction. So within a close bubble, the rest of space moves only slowly.

Now we have the issue that the real universe is not contracting/expanding "within itself". This requires some slight fixes and makes the calculations a bit more ugly (hence why I did the above first):

One should think about the universe at each time t as its separate thing: imagine the Universe as a planar flat thing; now draw a time-scale in another dimension (so we need 4D if we do the real thing); lastly, fix a random point B ("Big Bang") at distance a from U and draw all the "rays" starting in B towards each point of the universe.

If U were a perfect circle, this gives you an actual cone, and this is indeed called the cone construction. Whatever U was though, one can now contract towards B in this cone(ish) thing we made as before.

Now that is still pretty far from what General relativity tells us, but I hope it explains how one can model such a thing.