Ok, here's the thing: many people are very lazy about how they refer to resistance and support, and that can mislead people who are trying to learn about it.
What they should do is refer to things like "historical resistance/support" and "recent resistance/support". That's how resistance and support are really determined. It doesn't mean they're necessarily going to be
future resistance/support. If they turn out to be, then ok, it means that with hindsight they
turned out to be good indicators of forthcoming resistance/support. But until that actually happens, they're
not resistance and support, they're only "
potential resistance/support". (Still very valuable, though.)
It is true that recent (and sometimes historical) resistance and support can become future resistance and support, just as they were before. It's also true that recent (and sometimes historical) resistance can turn out to be future support, and vice-versa. And there are reasons for that (they're particularly well-explained in Dr. Alexander Elder's book
Trading For A Living, if you want a recommendation). But they're no "cert".
It's exactly like what I explained in my post just above, about the difference between specific instances and collective instances: there's no certainty about individual cases. These things are all a
probability-function.
The difference is that potential resistance/support comprises largely areas/levels which have been proven to be resistance/support before, and Fibonacci levels are only putative, often as-yet-undemonstrated resistance/support to people who believe in Fibonacci levels.
I can't help you at all with Fibonacci.
Personal opinion only (and there will be many people here who disagree with it, and some of them quite strongly), but in my opinion anything to do with Fibonacci, in trading, is 100% bullsh!t, and the only "evidence" for it is anecdotal, cherry-picked, subjective nonsense; certainly the few genuine, objective, academic studies that have been done on it have very consistently shown that Fibonacci levels have no more significance than any other randomly selected levels around the same places. Speaking for myself, whenever I've encountered anything Fibonacci-based or Fibonacci-influenced, I've not only ignored it but looked pretty much askance at anything else presented as "information" by the same source, as well. But there you are: admittedly I'm a notorious skepchick, and some people do believe in it.
Some people believe that analysing the phases of the moon helps their trading, too. Which is fine for them, if they like that sort of thing.
As long as they don't ask me to be interested, too, or to respect their claims about it.
(Or to discuss it with them at any length or in any detail, because long and sometimes frustrating experience has taught me that I won't manage to change their minds, and - a little arrogant though it may sound, I'm afraid
- I've gradually, increasingly come to realise that my time is actually too valuable to be wasted in trying!).