Ahh ok now I see how they were getting it. Except the diameter is actually 20 Angstroms. I looked at the link and they do say 21, but if you look at a bio website instead of a golden ratio website they'll say thats its 20, although 34/20 is 1.7 which is still close, but I feel like their just manipulating numbers in different ways to get what their looking for.
The Watson and Crick model of DNA said that dna has a distance of 3.4 A between nitrogenous base pairs. I'm a bio major so this has been crammed into my brain over and over. But heres some web pages to confirm: http://www.nature.com/genomics/human/wat son-crick/ http://www.msu.edu/course/lbs/149h/DNA&CD.html
I'm not questioning where he got the 1.618 from, I'm questioning where he got the information that there was a distance of 1.618 vertically between nucleotides, because the distance is 3.4, not 1.618.
Slashdot Mirror
Ahh ok now I see how they were getting it. Except the diameter is actually 20 Angstroms. I looked at the link and they do say 21, but if you look at a bio website instead of a golden ratio website they'll say thats its 20, although 34/20 is 1.7 which is still close, but I feel like their just manipulating numbers in different ways to get what their looking for.
The Watson and Crick model of DNA said that dna has a distance of 3.4 A between nitrogenous base pairs. I'm a bio major so this has been crammed into my brain over and over. But heres some web pages to confirm:t son-crick/
http://www.nature.com/genomics/human/wa
http://www.msu.edu/course/lbs/149h/DNA&CD.html
I'm not questioning where he got the 1.618 from, I'm questioning where he got the information that there was a distance of 1.618 vertically between nucleotides, because the distance is 3.4, not 1.618.
There are 3.4 Angstroms vertically between nitrogenous bases in DNA, one complete turn is 34 Angstoms, where do you get 1.618 from ?