balrog666: Yep.
Wow, you're better educated than a radio astronomer who was the Chairman of the Astronomy department at Boston University, eh? How many degrees so you have balrog666? And where do you conduct your research and teach class?
balrog666: Poor guy, he's gone senile. It's no wonder he published his geometry claims and his "challenge" in a teacher's journal.
You're forgetting that he published his "challenge" in Science News as well..
balrog666: I'm sure any respectable journals he submitted his article to would have tried to disuade him from making a fool of himself.
Well obviously HE didn't make a fool of himself even though he was published in a highly regarded publication, while YOU just did here on FR..
balrog666: From EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY OF CROP CIRCLES :
Ok, you said "From EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY OF CROP CIRCLES", but you didn't post anything from there..
balrog666 : 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.
You're saying that mathematicians and scientists haven't the slightest clue what constitutes a theory, but balrog666 does? You think quite highly of yourself don't you...
Additionally, it is quite obvious that you wouldn't be very successful as either a mathematician or a scientist due to your inability to understand that there is MUCH that remains to be discovered.
balrog666: All they really have is some rules derived from crop circles from years ago (presumably to tell "true" circles from the "artistic" ones).
From the link I posted to Science News:
Several years ago, astronomer Gerald S. Hawkins, now retired from Boston University, noticed that some of the most visually striking of these crop-circle patterns embodied geometric theorems that express specific numerical relationships among the areas of various circles, triangles, and other shapes making up the patterns (SN: 2/1/92, p. 76). In one case, for example, an equilateral triangle fitted snugly between an outer and an inner circle. It turns out that the area of the outer circle is precisely four times that of the inner circle.
Sounds to me like Dr. Hawkins is doing it in his spare time as a hobby now that he's retired..
balrog666: Given that later circles display none of these rules, I see no reason to even bring it up.
You're wrong, they do.
From Some fairly recent circles:
Part 4
Andrews Catalog T482
This combines the side of a hexagon, OB, with the side of a pentagon, AB, to get the radius of circle 1, OA. From Ptolemy's theorem of chords, with G equal to the golden mean and OF=1, we can prove that: 20A= G+AB (square root 3), or OA= 1,82709. Therefore by Rule 2, circles 1 and 3 give a ratio of 3.338, note A in the second octave. By crop circle theorem 4 the hexagon circles 1 and 2 give a diatonic ratio of 4/3, note F.
Is the raised circle a clue? D is the center of the arc of the crescent E. Angle CFD is 72 degrees, so CD is also the side of the pentagon.
This example of mathematical art gives the same diatonics as T448, notes F and A2, but the design is better. The diatonic circles now go through the tips of the moon, not the center, and the accuracy is 0.1%, not the previous 0.5%. Artistic as it is, the pattern contains math, and no previous artist has used mathematics as a theme. Ptolemy's theorem of 150 AD is a prehistoric landmark, because it is the foundation of trigonometry.
T487 (Andrews Catalog)
By rule 2, the area of the outer circle is four times the area of the inner circle, giving a diatonic ratio of 8/1, note C''', and letter C by the crop circle code. It is a double application of crop theorem 2, one equilateral triangle drawn inside another.
(Note that due to angle of original photo, correction is slightly off- FS)
Photo correction & diagrams © Freddy Silva 1997. Photos: T482 © Lucy Pringle, T487 © Steve Alexander.. Text © Gerald Hawkins.
Return to Part 1 of Latest Work
Return to Part 2 of Latest Work
Return to Part 3 of Latest Work
Return to Gerald Hawkins' main page.
Gerald Hawkinsbalrog666: 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.
Dr. Hawkins never lost his respectablity, whereas you lost yours long ago with your unsubstantiated claims and remarks.
balrog666: But why do you keep posting this link as if it means something to anybody else?
Is there something about this that you want to hide balrog666? I've only posted this link ONCE, so is that ONE time too many for you to deal with?
balrog666: It's clearly as meaningless as your nonsense about Sacred Geometry, the Golden Ratio, the Fibonacci Series, and the rest of your junk.
So if the facts are difficult to refute, resort to labelling it all as nonsense and junk. Spoken like a real trooper.