Firstly, the phenomenon of crop circles is entirely anonymous and non-commercial. Those who do it were never seen, nobody gave them money for that, and they never published themselves.

It is true that two people in Britain claimed about themselves, that they made the crop circles, but their testimony is dubious, because:
- they received shitload of money for it from the media (Rupert Murdoch, if I remember)
- creating all crop circles in UK is beyond their possibilities
- they had only amateurish equipment
- crop circles appear in much greater numbers and complexity, while publicity and therefore funding of their supposed creators is rather small (none, as for what I have noticed)
It's also true, that many crop pictures are man-made, but usually these cases are widely published, otherwise there would be no point in it. For example, the Firefox logo.

However, there are also some distinct features, reported about some of the crop circles.
 - All the work is done very quickly, certainly not more than one night.
 - The size, proportion, shapes and details are flawless, everything fits with a laser-like precision, although the picture may be huge and terribly complex.
 - No people, machinery or light sources were ever observed. With exception of flying, maneuvering and glowing spheres, about 1 m in diameter.
 - Reputedly, the straws are not bent by force. They have a "knee", like they would melt in that place and lie down softly. After they lie down, they continue to grow. Microwave could possibly achieve that effect.
  - Reputedly, soil on the place contain regularly dispersed microscopic metallic globes.
  - Reputedly, there are measurable electromagnetic anomalies in the circles. People feel weird, watches stop, batteries lose charge, and measuring devices measure.

So this is basically the information I have. Of course, there are people, who claim that crop pictograms are a form of art and non-intrusive way of saying "hello" from our space neighbours. If someone objects why they just won't land in front of White House, then I have to reply, what about Kremlin? What about Buckingham palace? What about Prague castle? Only a certain self-centered nation can ask such a question. But studying all the evidence in that line of thought could take A LOT of time.
I'd say that behind this phenomenon could be American army, if it wouldn't be already tied in Iraq. Otherwise, there is nobody who would have enough money, technologies and political influence to ignore national borders. Of course, if you look at the video in my signature, you will see that I have a clear idea who's behind that, but that's not the approach you prefer.

Furthermore, it's not just geometric patterns, and not just crop circles. The Marree man geoglyph is a good example.
 

Why are we entertaining this vacuous "Elvis is alive" "Third man on the grassy knoll" bullshit!

Crop circles exist! NO DUH, and thanks for the update. But there are only two explanations for them. Humans made them. Or there are little green men fucking with us whom have the ability to bend time and space to avoid moving beyond the speed of light which would destroy any known element because of mass increase. As long as it sounds good, fuck it? Hey, ghosts fucking girls is good, why not scam people with crops?

Crop circles deserve the same attention as Thor, Isis and claims of farting Lamborghini's out of my ass. Crops exist and humans exist. The only rational explanation is that someone cooked up the scheme and figured out how to make it look real.

Penn can saw a woman in half, but how many people look at that trick and literally think Penn is sawing a woman in half?

Crop circles are a scam deserving as the same ridicule as Oujia boards and magical harems in the sky. People will sell anything for attention. Otherwise the parents of "balloon boy" wouldn't have tried their publicity stunt.

 

I find it slightly ironic to be dictated on how I "should" think rather than how I actually do think on a website which seems to be dedicated to the freedom of thought. However, I understand your position. It used to be my own. I will without hesitation agree with you on the principle that too many foolish believers are believing WAY too much nonsense based in WAY too little hard evidence when it comes to this phenomenon. Myself, I am a skeptic. I would strongly prefer if it could be proven once and for all that crop circles were and are man-made, but this is so far not the case. It is also a little incosistent with everything I know about human behaviour that nobody steps forward to claim credit for it (and those that do aren't able to reproduce anything more than the most rudimentary patterns).

 

Lastly, I must say that I'm puzzled by your mentioning of chronology. I ran a search on the word to see if there was something I had missed, but I couldn't find anything more than what I already knew; that it is a composite word made from the Greek words "chrono" and "logos", commonly used for the intellectual act of arranging events along timelines - which to the best of my knowledge is "neutral" in its capacity for attracting superstition.

 

 

Um... yes it is. You might want to read up on velocity and relativity. The C of Einstein's equation isn't as much "speed" as it is a conversion principle between matter and energy, as it were. The problem lies in acceleration. It will take an infinite amount of energy to propel anything that has mass to the speed of light. However, it is a commonly reoccuring theme in science-fiction to imagine an "antiverse" which exists beyond the speed of light, unable to decellerate to the for them relative standstill of C. (In principle the same problem as what occurs at the temperature of 0 degrees Kelvin.)

 

I would say the same thing to crop circle conspiracy theorists the same thing I tell fans of virgin births. Set up a model, get it tested and falsified and independently peer reviewed. I'd say it is a waste of time because the more rational explanation is that humans are making this crap up and selling hoo hoo for attention.

You don't see anyone taking this seriously other than the same group of droners who spew the garbage about the "third man on the grassy knoll". We landed on the moon too btw.

 

And I will go to my grave with inconclusive data that snarfwidgets exist.

I wouldn't lose any sleep over it or dwell on it. People come up with all sorts of elaborate scams and crop circles are just another scam.

 

Dude, I think our ways just parted in a really rather irrepairable way. Good luck to you, though.

 

I'll probably get a lot of flack for saying this, but...

One thing I'd heard that I found interesting is that evidently, the majority of the crop circles in the UK (at least until it spread as a kind of art form) lie on or very near to this sort of fault line or magnetic field or something (I can't remember) that runs up the island. But when I heard that, it seemed not implausible to me that it could be some strange, random weather phenomenon. There are far more complex patterns to be found in nature all over the place, and just because the conditions necessary to make this happen only converge on one part of the planet I don't think is sufficient to discount the possibility. Aurora, for instance, only occur at two very specific parts of the planet and are only really easily observable at one.

 

 

 

          Still believe in such things;   two Englishmen  Doug Bower & Dave Chorley admitted to the hoax years ago,  after which crop circles started showing up in other countrys, now is this a coincidence or copycatting.  Try this link.

 

 

  http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread528259/pg1   

You Stupid Retarded Idiot, and yes you require all three adjectives. Even if the Black Hole is not producing its own light, it would still shine with the light it reflects from all of the other not 'Burnt-Out' Stars around it. It is elementary Physics that Light reflects off bodies in space. Actually, no, its not elementary, its even before that, because KIDS learn this every time they look at THE FUCKING MOON!

Black Holes absorb other sources of light and most other sources of Radiation. They can only be detected by looking for Hawking Radiation or looking for another Stellar Body that Orbits what appears to be Nothing.  Both of which we have found.

Indeed it would, if the Source of Gravity didn't also provide a source of Friction you Stupid Retarded Idiot. This actually is Elementary Physics. I would call you SRI for short, but that is also the abbreviation given to one of my most favorite things ever, so I'm just going to call you LOON.

An Object in an ideal vacuum under the power of only an incorporeal Gravitic Body would accelerate endlessly. Likewise, if the Earth were in a Perfect Void around a Gravitic Body that never lost any of its mass, it would revolve forever. You see, we live in Reality. It isn't that Perpetual Motion Machines are Impossible Philosophically, it is that they are made Impossible by one or more factors in Reality. Your ability to think up a way for them to exist in some hypothetical Fantasy World is meaningless.

Also, Nice 'Evil Scientist Conspiracy' bullshit you whined about earlier.

Work is a Vector. It is therefore Conserved. Yes, Gravity does not do any work in the traditional colloquial sense, Science uses terms differently. I understand this might be difficult for a Neanderthal to understand, but try to keep up.

And Fridge Magnets DO eventually wear out and fall down. It just takes a really long time because they are FUCKING SMALL.

Oh, and Wow, Scientists admit they don't know everything! Who would have guessed that, I mean its not like that admission is inherent and fundamental to the Entire Scientific Method or anything. Get over yourself you retarded piece of shite.  That still puts them higher than you on the honesty meter.

I'm Done with this Bullshit. This guy couldn't pass High School Physics, no wonder he is selling his supposed 'Theory' and 'Miracle Book' on Amazon.

If this is who you listen to Luminon, this just further evidences that you don't know shit, about fuck, about anything in reality.  My suggestion; Why don't you actually learn about Physics before you criticize it, then you wouldn't say stupid stuff like relativity looking like nonsense.  If Relativity is such Nonsense, I've got a little Barefoot Kid who would LOOOOVE to talk to you.

The Crop circles you cited are wonderfully quaint. I really like the idea of Aliens quoting Bible Verses in Hebrew for no readily apparent reason, or how every alien 'contact' seems to involve the Grays, aliens made up for bad sci-fi movies, or how they add information to a signal that we could also add, and it took them 30 years to respond (hey, speed of light right, only you don't think it is actually a barrier). Butterfly man? Really? People draw People as all sorts of crazy things, a man with butterfly wings and antennae isn't even close to weird or interesting. Hell, I've drawn weirder looking people on my good days.

So just how hard is it to make a crop circle anyway?

 

Here, I will admit that I have not done that myself, so I lack the practical experience. However, since they are mostly basic geometry writ large, I have to wonder if it is really that hard.

 

For the ones that we know as fact to be artificial, we know that tools are fairly basic. A board with a bit of rope for a hand hold will push down the crops. A stake with a rope around it will define a circle. Two stakes with a loop of rope will make an ellipse. Three stakes with a loop of rope will make all manner of parabolic curves.

 

Further, if you can establish a grid early in the project, it may not be apparent in the final design but it will let you make all manner of triangles. Of course the 3:4:5 triangle will produce visually pleasing angles. A special case of right triangle 1:1:X sets up the situation where X=the square root of 2.

 

Seriously, I suspect that you may be caught up by the fact the a Julia set looks complicated. However, if you google the math that is used to make them, they really can be made with simple series of fractions.

 

As noted above, I am not a crop circle maker but I can see how combining a number of fairly simple precursor steps could result in something that seems more complicated to create than it really was.

 

Let me even go one step further. Is it possible to get a list of circles by the date of construction? If so, did they start out as simple structures that became more complex as the circle makers became more experienced? Perhaps there is even a relationship where the introduction of computers with graphical operating systems could be seen as a great aid in planning out the construction.

 

 

 

           The complex geometrical patterns CAN be done WITHOUT Laser measuring devices,  engineers like myself have been doing it for centurys before lasers were invented.  It is NOT complicated,  the video I saw had the hoaxters useing a four foot long board,  tied at both ends by a rope. With one hand on each rope and their right foot atop the center of the board, they walk forward.  It is a bit awkward--if your right foot is on the board you will have to move counter clockwise but the circular motion is hard to avoid, keep your left shoulder aimed at the center point and the board from your right shoulder out can sweep 6 foot or so, it depends how long your legs are,  In less then a minute or 5 to 7 steps you have 4'diameter circle.  Then step sideways by 3'10", keep the 2" over the already downd grass and repeat,  within  3 minutes or 12 to 15 steps you would have a 8' diameter circle.   You can continue to make this circle bigger or move onto the next circle.

 

 

          Btw  if you are more comfortable with your left atop of the board, you do the same thing but reversed--clockwise.

 

 

         I did the same  type of doodle circles in art class in 3rd grade,  we used protractors and pin compasses;  the geometry was perfect because the toys were simple.  The two Englishmen figured out how to do it on a larger scale, that's all.

 

OK, now that's a whole different ballgame. My intuition tells me that we don't know nearly enough about gravity yet. It may just be the most basic force behind the organising principle of the entire universe. They say it is a weak force. But rather than weak, I would call it an undramatic force. Like a constant tug which will simply "wait" while other, "stronger" forces are raging.

 

It is of course impossible to imagine what is happening inside of a singularity. There is no language and not even any mathematics that can imagine the all-out breakdown of all structures that they rely upon for their own existence. I like to compare it to a geographical singularity in order to place it into context. Imagine going to the exact north pole. The cardinal compass directions will cease to exist. Your only option is to go south. Likewise, a singularity is the ultimate breakdown of all complexity of "higher" purposes: All that is left is the urgency of gravity. Will.

 

 

OK, who mentioned modern surveying equipment?  What I was saying is that one can build a pattern that appears to be complex from a series of fairly easily constructed primitives.  With enough advance planning, you could reduce the construction time considerably.

 

Although, now that you have mentioned surveying tools, if they would serve to simplify the construction of a large structure, then I see no reason not to use them where they would shorten the construction time.

 

Take your linked pattern from post #1 as an example:

 

Once you have the central circle made, you need an equilateral triangle that just fits inside the thing as a set of three starting points for the arcs.  Then you need to establish the foci for the parabolic curves and have someone swing the arcs with a board that is only as long as his shoulders are wide.  From there, all that you need to do is make a series of circles of decreasing size along the arcs.  Assuming a team of six guys and an average of a minute per circle, all three arcs of circles could be made in a couple of hours.

 

I'm sorry to provoke you. It's not fair from me if I don't shorten my life with anger, when you do. Again, I come in peace, I mean no harm. There's nothing personal about it, just curiosity. I basically want to confront various models of reality, and see if there will be any synthesis out of it. Poetically said, I believe the truth is somewhere on the golden middle path. I don't care about your emotions, insults, or whatever, I'm interested in cold-blooded answers, to perform the synthesis of worldviews. I search for the synthesis of both, and even if I find it, it will not be a final step, just beginning of testing the results. I'm not someone that is trying to convince you, you can think of what I do as asking you (or anyone) on your opinion on a thing that caught my attention, nothing else. You don't need to call me an idiot as if I would actually own that thing and consider it better than anything else. I don't - this is why I seek to confront it with other opinions. Is that clear?

There is no need - in order to violate physics - to revolve or hold somewhere forever. The only thing that is needed is surpassing the input energy. Perpetual motion machines are nonsense. Nobody ever seriously thought of making them. The only thing that engineers ever attempted, is harnessing energy in environment, where it is plentiful. It is nothing else than applying the principle of sail or windmill to other areas of physics. But physicists constructed this imaginary nonsense called "closed system" and applied it everywhere. But nothing is a closed system, specially not things like electric circuit or gravitational field. Therefore, you can't stamp the 2nd law of thermodynamics anywhere you want, in contemporary science it's vastly overemphasized. There may be over-unity machines, which can work long, for decades, though not forever, thanks to wearing out of material.

Study market forces, and you will see that there is no conspiracy, this is just how market works.


So basically, this vector is like a black hole (joke intended) where energy can disappear endlessly? For example, continual struggling against gravity (or magnetic attachment, for example) can consume energy without limits, as long as it does not surpass it's momentary strength? Or is it all converted? Then the inexhaustible vector performs work endlessly, as it seems. Vector is a mathemathical description of behavior, as it is observed. So what is a difference between a vector, and force field powered by constantly replenished source of energy? For the purpose of observation they would be the same. How can we be then sure that such a thing as vector exists?

Or because they are in Earth's magnetic field. And even if they fall, they hold their weight so long, that the potential expenditure of energy is enormous, compared to their size. It is much greater, than was needed for magnetizing them.

Are you so sure? It's easy for scientists to say that they don't know everything, when they say with the same breath, that nobody can possibly know more than them. So it's almost the same thing. Instead, I don't say I know everything, I only say that I know certain things that some other people don't. I don't say that I can replace science, I say that I can contribute to science.

Maybe he's so popular, because he insults people less Really, don't you see how bad propagation you make for the science? What can I think and say to others about you, if you behave like that? Do you really expect that I will automatically lick your shoes, oh great master? If Carl Sagan would be so vulgar, they wouldn't even let him on TV. The funny thing is, that this is exactly how these so-called scientific authorities behave. They are conceited, and when confronted, they resort to rudeness, dogmatic stance and insults. When someone will ask me about the so-called rational people, I can only say that there is no reasonable talk with them, and it will be truth. So let's be clear, you can not insult me, convert me, or scare me away. You can inform me, or do something even better, you could inspire me.

Good. I'm curious about this relativity thing, but don't expect I will just automatically fall on the great side of The Only Possible Truth. Because, one side calls it reality, the other side calls it an utter nonsense. I'm curious what is it about. Since there are people that have picked the pro-relativity side, I logically must study the offensive side, so the discussion may actually begin. But that doesn't mean I want to erradicate unbelievers in my hypothesis, because it is not my hypothesis, I'm interested in the result.

Playfulness does not need a reason.

I don't know anything about Grays, it's just a pop-culture symbol. And so it's used because it's a symbol, not because they're real. But I'm surprised how you are ready to throw away your rationality. Instead of seeking a true cause behind everything, you're so ready to attribute everything to coincidence, or dismiss it as meaningless, since you have done even more meaningless things by yourself.
Did anyone ever study this phenomenon from a psychologist's point of view? What would be a motivation of such a person? I guessed the playfulness. But not boredom and randomness. The crop patterns are big and precisely designed. There are often symbols. Whoever the creator is, he is familiar with our symbolics, because we're not particularly secretive about it. Symbols are a great chapter in our psychology. And butterfly is a particularly meaningful symbol - the symbol of development and fundamental self-transformation, and if it's applied to a human being.... Really, maybe you're expert only on physics, not psychology, but is that really so diffcult to figure out?

 

 

Point one: I was calling this 'Mark McCutcheon' an idiot. I made little reference to you, and will consider you an idiot only if you listen to his provably idiotic 'criticisms' of honest science. Speaking of which;

Point Two: It tends to make me mad when idiots who clearly know nothing about what science actually says start firing off blatantly false 'criticisms' of current scientific theories in random paper back dime store books that the uneducated masses then eat up and go away from thinking science is populated solely by idiots in lab coats. There are honest criticisms that can be made of current scientific theories, no one disputes that, this fool has not raised any.

Though, I may have to retract that, he does say he has a Physics degree (doesn't say where he got it but eh, I can roll with that.) so that means he actually might know what he is talking is bullshit, in which case he isn't an idiot, he's just willfully dishonest on the level of Creationists.

Point Three: Shorten my Life? Some things are worth fighting, an uneducated moron trying to drag us all back into the dark ages just so he can make a buck is one of them.

 

Once again, if any of his criticisms were valid and not answerable with but a basic understanding of what science actually says, I wouldn't call him a moron.  Alternatively, if he was just asking me these questions and not publishing them in a book where he attacks something for being too complicated for his littel brain to understand, I would be far more kind to him.  Carl Sagan was polite, and a brilliant speaker.  I didn't start The Flame War; Mr. McCutcheon drew the first sword when he asserted that he had 'sensible' answers to 'Science Flaws'.

Which is pretty much exactly what I said. And you are correct, nothing is a true 'closed system' except perhaps the Universe itself, however considering things to be closed systems is useful for teaching the basics of the principles, and in most cases ends up being a useable approximation.

Take the Solar System, it is by no means a True Closed System, however the energy it receives from other Stars and Bodies in the Universe is miniscule compared to the amount of energy it produces itself in the Sun, so it can be considered a Closed System to save on Computation Time and Power and to make the Equations easier, giving us a workable approximation that we can actually use in reality instead of just having to spend the next five decades computing the energy input from all of the other bodies.

And now you get into the Evil Capitalist Conspiracy, or start whining about how no one will listen to you, not because this guys 'theory' is riddled with holes a High School Physics Class could fire a catapult through, but because no one is allowed to.

Spare me.

You literally don't know anything about physics do you? A Vector is a measurement combined with a direction. One Mile is a Scalar, One Mile Due East is a Vector. A Magnet sitting motionless on a Fridge does not do any 'Work' in the Physics Sense, nor does it expend Power in the Physics Sense. I was pointing out that he was trying to misdefine what Physics actually says into some stupid strawman argument. Force is still continuously applied to an object, and this Force translates into Energy, whether Potential or Kinetic, which can still be conserved in an ideal vacuum.  Most energy is lost to friction and heat, and yes, Energy is continuously consumed by everything.  Fortunately for us, there's a helluva lot of energy for us to use.  Getting it can be a bit tricky sometimes, but its all there.

I did mispeak in my post, I should have said 'Gravity does not do any work in the Scientific Sense' Not Colloquial.
Regardless, my point was to once again demonstrate either Mr. McCutcheon's Ignorance or Willful Dishonesty.

Yep, also because they are in the Earth's Magnetic Field which bolsters them. And actually, when you look at their weight, their potential expenditure of energy is actually not that amazing. Regardless, Yes; Big things can come in small packages, and small things can be extremely strong, just take a look at Carbon Nanotubes. There are a million mysteries on this planet that make scientists legitimately scratch their head and go 'I've got no fuckin' clue what the hells going on here'. Magnets are not one of them, and when even I can answer his question, despite only taking one Electromagnetism course, his question is not a valid criticism.

And I and all other scientists invite you to try, the worst we can say after all is 'no, not quite, that doesn't explain This; ' and invite you to try again, that's what science does after all. And so far, the only one claiming to know something better than anyone else is Mr. McCutcheon with his 'Landmark Physics Theory' which he can't get published in an honest Peer Reviewed Journal and likely doesn't have any experimental evidence to back it up. Scientists don't say they know more than anyone else, and I challenge you to find a statement from a scientist actually stating such.

I'll wait.

Though actually sure, I will claim to know more science than him, but I never claimed to know more than anyone, and only make that claim having seen what he foolishly thinks is science.

I've tried being nice, it never worked, and you cought me on an off day. As for scientific Authorities behaving like this, again, I challenge you to provide examples of this 'conceit'.  

The big problem is that most of the people actually doing the attacking against science don't care about the science. For instance; No matter how much evidence we could ever prevent, it will still not be enough to convince the Creationist Morons, Ridicule is the only recourse we have, because honest discussion doesn't work on them. The fact that we have explained what actual science is and does and says to you Several Times and you persist in believing people like this says enough about politeness' usefulness in such discussions.

And no matter what I do I will never 'convert' you? Well then, I guess you're the one with the dogma. If you or he could provide any evidence of your claims, or if any of your criticisms of science were actually valid and not easily answerable by anyone with a basic understanding, I would agree with you, or at least give you the benefit of the doubt.  But when you start 'criticisms' of science that are just your own misunderstanding of what the subject actually says, don't be suprised with the calling of spades.  All of the points I refuted of his are basic things, either he doesn't know about these explanations, which makes him a moron, or he doesn't care, which makes him dishonest.

I take it you didn't get the reference? Oh well, it was pretty obscure. When you figure it out, then I'll start explaining Relativity. Or you could present some of your evidence of Relativity's 'Nonsense' for me to explain. I'll do my best, but relativity is not my speciality.  Regardless, Einstein's Relativity is the Reason GPS works, so there's some evidence.

So these aliens have chosen Playfulness over trying to help? What is this, is our planet being vandalized by the Extra Terrestrial equivalent of Drunk Suburban Middle-Class Kids out partying?

Where did I say it was meaningless, or coincidence? Hmm? Oh right, never. Seriously, it would be nice if ONE person could actually have a discussion with me without trying to shove words in my mouth.  
No, you see, I'm not throwing away my rationality, you are. Because I have easily explained all of these using things which we KNOW exist, like, say, People with too much free time on their hands, instead of resorting to Magic Space Aliens, something which we do not have even the slightest bit of decent evidence for.

You are the one leaping to some hypothetical entity to explain something that is all too easily explained by people.

Motivation? Its bloody Art. It doesn't need a reason, Art Never NEEDS a reason and anyone who thinks it does is a fool who misses the entire point of art. I never suggested they were motivated by boredom or randomness, though boredom can be a cause, I have started writing a Massive Ahistorical Account of The Renaissance, complete with dozens of massive full maps, just because I could, and felt like it. I'm working on one of the maps right now on my other computer. Likewise, I have drawn several dozen large and complex designs, purely because I think they look cool. I maintain (although I recently let it slip so I could start over with a new design) a large Design on my forearm and hand which I have to re-draw, or at least touch up, on a daily basis, with a sharpie, not even one of the fine tips.

No Motivation is needed beyond the fact that most of these designs are bloody awesome, Beautiful designs, and one of the only remaining forms of megalithic art.

@Marquis: THIS IS THE ROOM!!!!!!!!

 

Yes yes. I do not mean to contest the intellectual prowess of men and their possibilities. All I am skeptical about here is the logistical problems of assembling a team of "crop circle makers" and then have them practically carrying out very precise depictions of very complicated patterns. If I was a desk clerk I would maybe accept the idea, but I'm not. I am VERY versed in the ways of constructing physical objects. Give me a week and some talented people and I can make crop circles like nothing you have ever seen, but that's not the issue. The issue is that these patterns are appearing within "impossible" time frames. Like 45 minutes to create the original "Stonehenge" Julia set? Please. Try it out for yourself. Have six guys help you do something very simple and practical, like moving house. You know and I know that it will collapse into chaos within minutes.

There are not just 6 guys anymore either. The original guys have posted their techniques on their website and are encouraging others to join in.

New groups can invent new methods. Equipment has come a long way recently; laser levels and measures, etc.

Having isolated pockets of crop-circle geeks getting off on overplanning a night time exercise sounds like the most likely explanation to me.

"Geeks" implies that brainy people can't believe false things. Just because you have a high IQ does not make one immune to inserting "feel good answers" into gaps. Newton, on top of the REAL math he contributed also believed in Alchemy and a disembodied being. Being smart doesn't mean you are right.

Others have had patience with trying to deconstruct your affinity as to why crop circles exist. I have the same amount of patience with crop circles as I do with claims of disembodied beings. Just because someone can come up with elaborate justifications for their position, doesn't mean they can replicate it or falsify it. It merely means they are looking for reasons to justify it.

GOOD LOGIC and method is not about justifying anything, it is about insuring quality control to insure good process and outcome and going where the evidence leads, not where one wants it to go.

Claims of crop circles have been around even when I was a kid. If they were so credible, we'd have PHD professors teaching crop circle physics in every accredited university in the world. The simple answer and least complicated is that humans make up superstitious scams and convince others that they are credible.

 

Eh.... no. Not really. Professors only teach valid physics; that is to say that which is acceptable. "Crop circle physics" is not.

Nobody knows how and why they are made. This is the problem.

Sorry, I couldn't let this pass:

Force does not translate into energy. Force moving an object at a steady rate through a distance converts mechanical energy ( e = Force X distance) to some other kind, ultimately Heat energy.

If it is moving an object against the force of gravity, it is converting mechanical energy into gravitational potential energy by increasing the distance between the object and the center of the Earth. If it is not moving it away from the Earth , NO ENERGY is flowing.

If a force is applied to an object in free space, or perpendicular to gravity, mechanical energy is converted to mechanical energy of motion, e = mass X velocity² , to increase the velocity of the object.

If a force is applied to slow an already moving object down, then some of the kinetic energy of the moving object is converted to mechanical energy in moving whatever is pushing on the moving object backwards.

It there is no motion, there is no necessary energy transfer or conversion or CONSUMPTION. I say 'necessary' since some mechanical systems consume energy to maintain a steady position against gravity, but only because of their design. If you want to support something on a column of air or water, energy will be required to keep the air or water flowing, all of which will ultimately be lost to heat. Our own muscles consume chemical energy just to maintain a steady force. In both cases, a system capable of exerting a moving force is being used merely to hold something in place, and has energy losses even if it is not producing useful energy out.

Whereas a simple solid support would not require any flow of energy to hold the object in place, but would also not be capable of moving the object either. 

Energy is never really 'consumed', just converted from one form to another. Energy available for doing 'work' is 'consumed', by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and converted ultimately to a small rise in the temperature of the environment, where it is no longer available for conversion to mechanical or other energy unless a cooler object can be found for that heat to flow to.

 

Whoa..

"Aurora, for instance, only occur at two very specific parts of the planet and are only really easily observable at one."

I'll ask for clarification on this point before going on a rant.

Btw, crop circles don't interest me.

Oh, I assume you mean that they're however many hundreds of square miles in size? I just meant that, being caused by the earth's magnetic forces, they only occur at the two poles. From what I've heard, the one at the southern pole is much more difficult to observe except for at high altitudes.

 

Here are the typical specific areas at which auroras occur:

From this site: http://www.exploratorium.edu/learning_studio/auroras/seethem.html

Pictures from NOAA Space Environment Center show activity for March 5, 2001 (about solar maximum):

    

Very interesting, thanks. Yes, of course, aurora are extremely large, but my point was that they only happen at specific parts of the planet. If you describe this planetary phenomena in words: "multicolored swirls of light flying around in the sky," it's not all that less bizarre than the possibility that something perfectly scientifically measurable could cause geometric patterns in the land, imo. I mean, for crying out loud, we still don't REALLY understand weather patterns all that well, we can only make educated guesses about what they're going to do. 

I'm not saying that I think crop circles are caused by anything other than human amusement, and certainly many of them have been, but the plausibility that it could be something else does fascinate me.