You assume the golden ratio is strictly limited to exact formations.... Its not and no one ever claimed it was.
The fact that you took the generalization that holds try when averaged then complained about individual examples not matching it perfectly shows a gross lack of understanding of the mathematical applications.
You are looking at a scatter graph complaining 8ts not linear.
Explain to me then why life conforms to the golden ratio? Why do flowers have 3 or 5 petal increments? Ratio x2 rounded or x4 rounded.
You ignore that this is a living number and that life rounds things as you cant have a partial petal or head as a standard.
Your pantheon example somehow measures the front? When the golden ratio is applied to the base....
The greatest issue is you clearly think that math is hard unflinching fact. No. Math is our description of the world. For example if i say no tree is taller than ten increments in height. Then we defining that increment does not change the height of the trees.
Additionally.... And most horrifying of all... You are using an incorrect equation to calculate the golden ratio. 1+root 5 over 2? No ...
Golden ratio is a mathematical feed back loop. X= 1+1/x.
When your equation is flawed and you are attempting to force it to work perfectly in a science that is widely recognized as variable aka soft science. And relies on generalization and not unbendable law.
You also face the issue that your convinced somehow that the ratio is a two dimensional rectangle being applied to three dimensional shapes....
Perhaps measure the branches of a tree and watch the ratio define how the branches split?
I have. Its accurate 75% of the time. When you apply mathematics to soft sciences that vary aka anything that is being used to measure living things. 75%-80% is enough to state a rule.
Your argument quite bluntly disproves all medical sciences because no two people have identical hearts and since its not identical mathematically it must mean the theory behind heart disease is wrong because EVERY heart is not identical.
To disprove a theory such as this you cannot disprove it as you have. That's not how science works. You have to attempt to prove it and find what breaks it so completely that is disproven. Please site an example that none of them matched (not just a majority). You seem to have made many test but refuse to examine the averages that fall almost exactly on the ratio.
No ones ratio will be exactly 1.6... But the more times you test it the closer to 1.6 it becomes. The golden ratio is not an exact answer. But put your results through calculus graphing. You'll find like limits, the more samples you take the closer to the limit 1.6 your graph will get.
Examining individual samples and not as a whole is not how you do math or science.
You have not disproven or even dented the golden ratio argument. You have only argued variable facts that supporters of the golden ratio theories have already successfully explained the apparent discrepancies of.
If you simply ignore the fact that math is the measurement of patterns in nature and that the golden ratio is the continuously occuring pattern in life... You did not disprove the golden ratio, you disproved math and science.
When math disproves itself it typically means the person was wrong as math cannot disprove itself by its nature. I believe that your mis-printing of the ratio fraction is the primary cause. Your equation is basically converting pi to 3.14 before calculations. That kind of early conversion of a fixed number causes massive discrepancies in your math. By not converting my ratios, my equations always had a smaller +- variable than my professor in calculus. I assume you expecting exacting answers in a soft science, refusing to view all of your result objectively (via scatter plot or averages) led to this extreme inconsistencies in your attempted disprovable of this theory.
The nature of life is its an approximation, a rounding of a universal equation we have not unlocked. But the golden ratio is ultimately part of it as the golden ratio is the closest number we can get to infinite.