balrog666 I am. It's utter crap.
So balrog, you're claiming that you're more of an expert in Euclidean geometry than astronomer Gerald S. Hawkins, former Chairman of the astronomy department at Boston University?
From EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY OF CROP CIRCLES :
Hawkins found that he could use the principles of Euclidean geometry to prove four theorems derived from the relationships among the areas depicted in crop circles. He also discovered a fifth, more general theorem, from which he could derive the other four (see diagram, left). "This theorem involves concentric circles which touch the sides of a triangle, and as the [triangle] changes shape, it generates the special crop-circle geometries," he says.
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 When he challenged readers of Science News and The Mathematics Teacher to come up with his unpublished theorem, given only the four variations, no one reported success.
Jedi Master Yoda 4. The researchers also claimed a relationship between the crop circles and music.
balrog666 One "researcher". Of course, it's only interpretable by him. Just more crap.
Again you're wrong balrog.
From EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY OF CROP CIRCLES :
"Three other patterns also displayed exact numerical relationships, all of them involving a diatonic ratio, the simple whole-number ratios that determine a scale of musical notes. "These designs demonstrate the remarkable mathematical ability of their creators," Hawkins comments.
See also:
You really should research a topic before you claim to be an expert in it, otherwise you might find your foot in your mouth...
Yep. Poor guy, he's gone senile. It's no wonder he published his geometry claims and his "challenge" in a teacher's journal. I'm sure any respectable journals he submitted his article to would have tried to disuade him from making a fool of himself.
From EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY OF CROP CIRCLES :
Euclidean geometry is about as ironclad, nailed down, and played out as it gets in mathematics, so I tracked down the essence here. Unfortunately, they don't have the slightest clue what constitutes a theory.
All they really have is some rules derived from crop circles from years ago (presumably to tell "true" circles from the "artistic" ones). Given that later circles display none of these rules, I see no reason to even bring it up. I guess having a formerly respectable scientist say something that agrees with your beliefs is hard to let go of - the creationists have the same problem.
But why do you keep posting this link as if it means something to anybody else? It's clearly as meaningless as your nonsense about Sacred Geometry, the Golden Ratio, the Fibonacci Series, and the rest of your junk.
Prove me wrong by posting one.