Crop circles and other puzzles

[hollandr]

>Crop Circle had been made by an agency other than human.

There has been at least one new theorem of geometry derived from crop circles

www.lovely.clara.net/hawkins.html

This suggests that some of the makers have knowledge that is not in the public domain. That would tend to exclude old-timers with planks but not necessarily some military establishments

Also the well known electromagnetic and psychological disturbances that occur inside new circles suggest that electromagnetic means are used in their construction

[Tamrin]

Aug 19, 2008 23:57:54 GMT @hollandr said:

There has been at least one new theorem of geometry derived from crop circles

While a pattern, whatever its source, may, intentionally or not, inspire a theorem, any derivation is from the mind of whomsoever formulates the theorem. For instance, one may derive the Golden Ratio from the shell of a nautilus, without having to suppose the creature understood the concept of Phi. Similarly, a child may produce complex designs with a Spirograph, without any understanding beyond their aesthetic appeal.

[hollandr]

"Hawkins' fifth crop-circle theorem involves a triangle and various concentric circles touching the triangle's sides and corners. Different triangles give different sets of circles. An equilateral triangle produces one of the observed crop-circle patterns; three isoceles triangles generate the other crop-circle geometries.

What is most surprising is that all geometries give diatonic (musical) ratios. Never before have geometric theorems been linked with music.Curiously, Hawkins could find no reference to such a theorem in the works of Euclid or in any other book that he consulted."



"When he challenged readers of Science News and The Mathematics Teacher to come up with his unpublished theorem, given only the four variations, no one reported success.In July 1995, however, "the crop-circle makers . . . showed knowledge of this fifth theorem,"

Just lucky I guess

[Tamrin]

I suggest you read again:

Aug 26, 2008 10:33:44 GMT Tamrin said:

While a pattern, whatever its source, may, intentionally or not, inspire a theorem, any derivation is from the mind of whomsoever formulates the theorem. For instance, one may derive the Golden Ratio from the shell of a nautilus, without having to suppose the creature understood the concept of Phi. Similarly, a child may produce complex designs with a Spirograph, without any understanding beyond their aesthetic appeal.

If humans are able to read such theorems from such patterns, then there is no huge leap to allow that we have the capacity to formulate both the patterns and theorems ourselves.

Why would one suppose that the creators of crop circles are aliens, are there not already wonders aplenty all around us? If one entertains the notion of the circles being the result of attempts by extra-terrestrials to communicate with us, one might be agog at the quixotic nature of their expression: Why not be simpler and clearer and, if seeking to demonstrate such "messages" are "from beyond," why not use some means beyond our human capacities of reason, ingenuity and humour?

Conversely, being demonstrably beyond our current capacities, we might more credibly deduce that the nautilus was created so we might comprehend the theorem associated with Phi!?

[maximus]

Aug 26, 2008 11:06:38 GMT @hollandr said:

In July 1995, however, "the crop-circle makers . . . showed knowledge of this fifth theorem,"

Infinite Monkey Theorem.

[hollandr]

>This dosen't mean anything. Infinite Monkey Theorem.

I am humbled

[maximus]

Aug 26, 2008 20:12:43 GMT @hollandr said:

I am humbled

Surely not?

Keep 'em coming, theories have to be falsified, you know. Scientific method and all.

[lauderdale]

As a matter of interest, and from one who holds an open mind on Crop Circles and their origin, if Extra Terrestrials were trying to communicate with us why would they produce these complex geometric designs?

I assume that if they are that far in advance of ourselves they would be able to monitor our communications and thus would have recognised our languages. That being the case and as English is just about the most widespread of world languages, I would have thought it far easier for them to either broadcast a message to us in that tongue or if they wished to use Crop Circles they would spell "out words or use images which would be easily recognisable?

Of course if they are being produced by Supernatural entities then it would be a different situation.

As I have said before I have absolutely no wish to mock or deride, far be it from me any such intention, but I have to say that I have seen too many cases reported of Crop Circles, even some of the most intricate and beautiful, subsequently being claimed to have been made by human hands, or more likely human feet, a length of rope and a board to tread down the crops.

"Keep 'em coming, theories have to be falsified, you know. Scientific method and all"

Ah yes, Einstein and his dodgy maths etc.

[Tamrin]

Aug 26, 2008 20:32:33 GMT @lauderdale said:

Ah yes, Einstein and his dodgy maths etc.

Was Einstein a fake?
Cosmos article by John Farrell, Issue 11, October 2006

(Excerpt)

There's nothing quite like Einstein and his theories of relativity to bring out the doubters, the cranks and the outright crackpots. Do they have a point? Was Einstein a fake?

[Tamrin]

Aug 26, 2008 20:32:33 GMT @lauderdale said:

That being the case and as English is just about the most widespread of world languages, I would have thought it far easier for them to either broadcast a message to us in that tongue or if they wished to use Crop Circles they would spell "out words or use images which would be easily recognisable?

[Tamrin]

Crop circles
hoaxes or natural phenomena?

<www.science-frontiers.com>

(Excerpt)

The question posed by the above title was answered presumptuously and onesidedly by Time (September 23) and more objectively by Science (August 30). While Time implies that all crop circles are hoaxes, the Science article states that the "really bizarre" circles are hoaxes and that the simpler circles may have acceptable meteorological explanations. Unfortunately, the ridiculing tone of the Time article will probably set back the budding scientific interest in crop circles reported in Science. The real losers, as we shall see below, are those crop-circle experts who assert that they can always detect hoaxes.

[lauderdale]

The good old Scottish Legal verdict of "Not Proven" then as far as Crop Circles are concerned. I do assume that a vortex whether of air or of an electrical charge perhaps during a thunderstorm could flatten grass or growing crops in a circular pattern.

[Tamrin]

Aug 26, 2008 20:59:10 GMT @lauderdale said:

The good old Scottish Legal verdict of "Not Proven" then as far as Crop Circles are concerned.

'Not Proven' AND Occam's Razor, as one cannot prove a negative.

[maat]

I reckon that if I were an extra-terrestrial or an extra-dimensional entity trying to communicate with a less experienced and totally different species, I would begin with simple stuff, like mimicking (to get their attention) and then gradually progress to more complex ideas, or their representation thereof. They do this in (what appears to us as 'dumb') animal communication experiments... Maybe from their perspective, we appear dumb.

So some of we monkeys may have figured out how the representations can be duplicated - so some of we monkeys may be mathematical genius' - but how come the mathematical genius' seem to have the money to play around with what must be very expensive equipment which can easily moved around the world in season and at will? Could be some Govt initiative I guess. But my inner voice says 'no'.

There is more to this than meets the eye. That the vast majority just cast this phenomenum aside with a derisive thought indicates to me that they know they can't, or are not ready to handle, what it could/might indicate.

We delight in, and share, much less beautiful things... stories, movies, adverts, fashion... why does the world at large not marvel what are very beautiful designs in crops. I think that is odd.

Maat

[hollandr]

>they would spell "out words or use images which would be easily recognisable?


Perhaps they belong to a lodge and are veiling in allegory and illustrating by symbols

[hollandr]

>why does the world at large not marvel what are very beautiful designs in crops. I think that is odd.


A useful observation.

I wonder what sort of influence could dampen the human race's well known curiousity?

[Tamrin]

Aug 26, 2008 23:48:29 GMT @hollandr said:

I wonder what sort of influence could dampen the human race's well known curiousity?

A plethora of more credible subjects.

[maximus]

Aug 26, 2008 21:48:51 GMT Tamrin said:

Aug 26, 2008 20:59:10 GMT @lauderdale said:

The good old Scottish Legal verdict of "Not Proven" then as far as Crop Circles are concerned.

'Not Proven' AND Occam's Razor, as one cannot prove a negative.

"entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"

Occam's Razor

[hollandr]

I suspect Occam's Razor is of most use when there is no intention or possibility of obtaining evidence for or against the hypothesis.

In other words Occam's Razor is for philosophisers rather than scientists

[Tamrin]

Aug 27, 2008 19:57:53 GMT @hollandr said:

I suspect Occam's Razor is of most use when there is no intention or possibility of obtaining evidence for or against the hypothesis.

In other words Occam's Razor is for philosophisers rather than scientists

In the case of evidence AGAINST, one repeatedly encounters confessed hoaxers:
In the case of evidence FOR, one cannot prove a negative.
In other words, the onus of proof is on those who assert the proposition.