GENIUS FORUMS

Kunga:
Come on Geniuses....give us the answer !!!!!!!!

Carmel:
If you want answers, why not seek them out for yourself? A simple google search will prove useful. Here are a few suggested search terms:

1. crop circle artists
2. crop circle competition
3. crop circle contest

Kunga:
i will be happy to accept they're not alien produced.
but it seems like the only logical explaination.[/quote]

Carmel:
Why so, given that artists have admitted to and video recorded making highly elaborate circles?

Also, the "circles" of the 17th century were probably caused by swirling wind. The circles were not complex, like the ones seen in modern times.

Carmel wrote:If you want answers, why not seek them out for yourself? A simple google search will prove useful. Here are a few suggested search terms:

1. crop circle artists
2. crop circle competition
3. crop circle contest

Of course, all those subjects do is tell of human-made circles. They do not address the phenomena associated with the unexplained ones. It matters not a whit if 90% of all circles are made by human artist groups, if there are any at all which are not. And the evidence seems to point to at least a percentage being non-conventionally constructed.

"but what natural elemental phenomena would CREATE a intelligent design ???!!"

evolution for one.

"The shape that a snow crystal will take is dependent upon the temperature at which it was formed. The temperature in the highest clouds is around -30°F and they are made up exclusively of ice crystal columns. The other three shapes are formed in a narrow temperature range. When the temperature in the clouds is 3° to 10°F the star shaped crystals form. From 10°-18°F the plates form, and from 18°-23°F columns form. From 23°-27°F needles form and from 27°-32°F the plates reappear. As the snow crystals grow they become heavier and fall towards Earth. If they spin like tops as they fall then they may be perfectly symmetrical when they hit the Earth. But if they fall in a sideways fashion then they end up lopsided. Falling snow crystals clump together forming snowflakes. Each snowflake is made up of from 2 to about 200 separate crystals"

http://www.pa.msu.edu/sciencet/ask_st/100897.html

I showed how snowflakes can be made from an Aether, and gravity combined, but have you ever read the scientific papers on them? The maths that scientists use, compared with my simple code is phenomenal. I really don't expect nature to use a complex mathematical code to create a snowflake. I expect it to use gravity, and the Aether. My code wasn't even trying to make a snowflake, I didn't program it to. I just programmed it to shrink some hexagons due to cold temperatures. I got a snowflake.

Pincho Paxton wrote:[ I'm making new discoveries every day. Today I figured out that our Universe is just the Milky Way, and anything outside of it is another Universe.

I had this thought today, too. I think the other universe may be Andromeda. We are on a collision course (far future).

Pincho Paxton wrote:I showed how snowflakes can be made from an Aether, and gravity combined, but have you ever read the scientific papers on them? The maths that scientists use, compared with my simple code is phenomenal. I really don't expect nature to use a complex mathematical code to create a snowflake. I expect it to use gravity, and the Aether. My code wasn't even trying to make a snowflake, I didn't program it to. I just programmed it to shrink some hexagons due to cold temperatures. I got a snowflake.

Your theory doesn't satisfy Occam's Razor because rather than simplifying the equations that are based on observable phenomena you postulate the existence of an aether. As a consequence you complicate the equations by including unexplained and unobserved phenomena.

It would be even simpler to say "God makes snowflakes" but this has the same problems.

At any rate Pincho, the example of snowflakes was an example of symmetry, of apparent design, on the level of crop-circles, that does not have an intelligent creator. Even in your maths there can be no creator.

Maybe you aren't getting what the logical fallacy is, that of "begging the question".

In order to explain something which appears to you as "intelligent" you postulate the existence of intelligent agency. This only begs the question, who designed the intelligent agency, another intelligent agency? And another? and another?

This is a very basic fallacy common to any philosopher or scientist.

Carl G wrote:For example, the bent stalks with elongated nodes. How do these nodes get distorted? He doesn't address this in the interview.

It's a good example of the limitation of any research into "non-conventional" origins of crop circles. You have here an observation which relies on a lack of knowledge on node shapes on bent stalks. How are they supposed to look like in that situation and why? Which possible processes could have influenced the stalk after bending? In which circumstances elongation might occur?

Those are all questions that cannot be answered without a lot of research. But, and this is important, the lack of knowledge itself doesn't form an argument.

Much anomaly research out there seems to venture in this same fallacy: a topic is being researched often by someone operating outside the normal scope, which can be good or bad, and some observations are being made that seem to lack an obvious explanation. All these observations are then bundled, as if the quantity itself would prove anything, to support a hypothesis without any necessary linkage between observation and hypotheses. It seems like countless of other explanations are somehow disregarded as being somehow irrelevant.

Lets take this back to the crop circle at hand: how would any non-conventional theory explain the distorted nodes? A new element could be introduced: unknown type of radiation. Which is the origin of this radiation and how would it distort the nodes? How can one make certain the nodes wouldn't react to something a human circle-maker would do? How to exclude this?

If by now the smell of a bog is not penetrating your nose, it probably never will! And it's time to put up proper warning signs: take great care when approaching research that supplies evidence like this, it might be a path but more likely you'll never be heard of again!

Carmel wrote:Kunga:
Come on Geniuses....give us the answer !!!!!!!!

Carmel:
If you want answers, why not seek them out for yourself? A simple google search will prove useful. Here are a few suggested search terms:

1. crop circle artists
2. crop circle competition
3. crop circle contest

Kunga:
i will be happy to accept they're not alien produced.
but it seems like the only logical explaination.

Carmel:
Why so, given that artists have admitted to and video recorded making highly elaborate circles?

Also, the "circles" of the 17th century were probably caused by swirling wind. The circles were not complex, like the ones seen in modern times.[/quote]


i did find some videos...but they were not convincing enough

WHY DO PEOPLE WANT TO BELIVE THEY WERE CREATED BY ALIENS ???
Why do i want to belive this ?

i will admit i am stupid compared to a genius....is that why ???? LOL

Would no intelligent person in their right mind belive anything that couldn't be explained rationally ?
i can understand that...but why is it so irrational to think it was created by extraterrestials ?
WOULD THAT BE THE LAST EXPLAINATION ????
WHY IS IT INTELLIGENT PEOPLE ARE SO AFRAID THEY WILL BE LAUGHED AT ?
MY EGO HAD BEEN DESECRATED ALL MY LIFE...MAYBE I DON'T CARE HOW I APPEAR ANYMORE.

WHAT ABOUT YOGIS ????

SOME OF THEM CAN WALK ON WATER
WALK THROUGH SOLID MATERIAL
SHAPE-SHIFT
ENTER ANOTHER BODY
SPEED-WALKING

CAN ALL THIS BE EXPLAINED SCIENTIFICALLY ?

OR IS THIS STUFF OF YOGIS BULL-SHIT FOR GULLIBLE PEOPLE ?

Animus wrote:At any rate Pincho, the example of snowflakes was an example of symmetry, of apparent design, on the level of crop-circles, that does not have an intelligent creator. Even in your maths there can be no creator.

Maybe you aren't getting what the logical fallacy is, that of "begging the question".

In order to explain something which appears to you as "intelligent" you postulate the existence of intelligent agency. This only begs the question, who designed the intelligent agency, another intelligent agency? And another? and another?

This is a very basic fallacy common to any philosopher or scientist.

Actually I am just writing a paper on how everything is made from just a few things. I think I'll post it in my Hexagonal Universe thread.

divine focus wrote:

Pincho Paxton wrote:[ I'm making new discoveries every day. Today I figured out that our Universe is just the Milky Way, and anything outside of it is another Universe.

I had this thought today, too. I think the other universe may be Andromeda. We are on a collision course (far future).

According to my theory we can't fly around, just go through a black hole, or be burned, or sit nice and still. I have accounted for nearly everything, I'm just discussing it with scientists now. They seem fairly interested, but still think of me as an artist. That's what I am really. But De Vinci did a lot, and he was an artist.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

Carl G wrote:For example, the bent stalks with elongated nodes. How do these nodes get distorted? He doesn't address this in the interview.

It's a good example of the limitation of any research into "non-conventional" origins of crop circles. You have here an observation which relies on a lack of knowledge on node shapes on bent stalks. How are they supposed to look like in that situation and why? Which possible processes could have influenced the stalk after bending? In which circumstances elongation might occur?

Those are all questions that cannot be answered without a lot of research. But, and this is important, the lack of knowledge itself doesn't form an argument.

Much anomaly research out there seems to venture in this same fallacy: a topic is being researched often by someone operating outside the normal scope, which can be good or bad, and some observations are being made that seem to lack an obvious explanation. All these observations are then bundled, as if the quantity itself would prove anything, to support a hypothesis without any necessary linkage between observation and hypotheses. It seems like countless of other explanations are somehow disregarded as being somehow irrelevant.

Lets take this back to the crop circle at hand: how would any non-conventional theory explain the distorted nodes? A new element could be introduced: unknown type of radiation. Which is the origin of this radiation and how would it distort the nodes? How can one make certain the nodes wouldn't react to something a human circle-maker would do? How to exclude this?

If by now the smell of a bog is not penetrating your nose, it probably never will! And it's time to put up proper warning signs: take great care when approaching research that supplies evidence like this, it might be a path but more likely you'll never be heard of again!

I agree with you.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

Carl G wrote:For example, the bent stalks with elongated nodes. How do these nodes get distorted? He doesn't address this in the interview.

It's a good example of the limitation of any research into "non-conventional" origins of crop circles. You have here an observation which relies on a lack of knowledge on node shapes on bent stalks. How are they supposed to look like in that situation and why? Which possible processes could have influenced the stalk after bending? In which circumstances elongation might occur?

Those are all questions that cannot be answered without a lot of research. But, and this is important, the lack of knowledge itself doesn't form an argument.

Much anomaly research out there seems to venture in this same fallacy: a topic is being researched often by someone operating outside the normal scope, which can be good or bad, and some observations are being made that seem to lack an obvious explanation. All these observations are then bundled, as if the quantity itself would prove anything, to support a hypothesis without any necessary linkage between observation and hypotheses. It seems like countless of other explanations are somehow disregarded as being somehow irrelevant.

Lets take this back to the crop circle at hand: how would any non-conventional theory explain the distorted nodes? A new element could be introduced: unknown type of radiation. Which is the origin of this radiation and how would it distort the nodes? How can one make certain the nodes wouldn't react to something a human circle-maker would do? How to exclude this?

If by now the smell of a bog is not penetrating your nose, it probably never will! And it's time to put up proper warning signs: take great care when approaching research that supplies evidence like this, it might be a path but more likely you'll never be heard of again!

Well there are probably a few ways to explain it, but if it's fake it's very good fake. If it's real then it's like when lightening forks. Something has forked out of the hole. It's pretty realistic fakery. I have a very strange idea, and posting it is sort of odd. But my theory of the universe seems to indicate that a single electron works around in our brain. Just wondering if electrons are trying to tell us about the message. They just use aliens to make us more interested.

Yeah.. a bit silly. But funny that I keep getting the electrons doing things in my theory.

Ahhh I should have known all along. The messages are about that Hadron Collider. I should have wrote my paper ages ago. If you create a sun on Earth you change our gravity, and if it's a bit bigger you can send the Earth out of orbit. That's what the message is. I have posted it on science forums. That thing needs to be stopped. Read my Hexagon Universe, you will see that our sun, and a Black Hole are a circular flow like a river. You mustn't alter that flow with another sun.

Pincho Paxton wrote:Ahhh I should have known all along. The messages are about that Hadron Collider. I should have wrote my paper ages ago. If you create a sun on Earth you change our gravity, and if it's a bit bigger you can send the Earth out of orbit. That's what the message is. I have posted it on science forums. That thing needs to be stopped.

You live a lot closer to that creature .. get 'er done!

Pincho:
I'm making new discoveries every day. Today I figured out that our Universe is just the Milky Way, and anything outside of it is another Universe.[/quote]

divine focus:
I had this thought today, too. I think the other universe may be Andromeda. We are on a collision course (far future).[/quote]

Carmel:
We live in the Milky Way galaxy. Andromeda is a galaxy. The words "galaxy" and "universe" have very different meanings.

Our star, the sun, is one of hundreds of billion stars that lie within the Milky Way Galaxy. The Milky Way Galaxy is one of hundred of billions of galaxies that lie within the Universe.

The Universe consists of all galaxies, intergalactic space, everything between and beyond, all matter, all energy...

Carmel wrote:Pincho:
I'm making new discoveries every day. Today I figured out that our Universe is just the Milky Way, and anything outside of it is another Universe.

divine focus:
I had this thought today, too. I think the other universe may be Andromeda. We are on a collision course (far future).[/quote]

Carmel:
We live in the Milky Way galaxy. Andromeda is a galaxy. The words "galaxy" and "universe" have very different meanings.

Our star, the sun, is one of hundreds of billion stars that lie within the Milky Way Galaxy. The Milky Way Galaxy is one of hundred of billions of galaxies that lie within the Universe.

The Universe consists of all galaxies, intergalactic space, everything between and beyond, all matter, all energy...[/quote]

Yeah you are right, I should be saying Galaxy. I was trying to connect things together at a smaller scale.

so...it's not possible that other Universes exist ?

Kunga wrote:so...it's not possible that other Universes exist ?

Who can say .. with complete certainty :-/

what does your intuition tell you ?

The galaxy song!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRA6nfZRWMg

Kunga:

so...it's not possible that other Universes exist ?[/quote]

Carmel:
"Multiverses" or "parallel worlds" may comprise part of the Universe according to some scientists.

I only have a vague understanding of these theories, but find them intriguing and would like to learn more about them...

Kunga wrote:what does your intuition tell you ?

One universe is the all.

That being said, I'd take a ride on the space shuttle and hitch up with the Int'l Space Station (ISS) in a heartbeat.
Then, to clone (mind meld) with Hubble telescope and wander off to.......... Space Truckin'ville

Kunga:
so...it's not possible that other Universes exist ?

Tomas:
Who can say .. with complete certainty :-

Carmel:
The unknown is an inherent part of the "Universe".

Pincho Paxton wrote:

divine focus wrote:

Pincho Paxton wrote:[ I'm making new discoveries every day. Today I figured out that our Universe is just the Milky Way, and anything outside of it is another Universe.

I had this thought today, too. I think the other universe may be Andromeda. We are on a collision course (far future).

According to my theory we can't fly around, just go through a black hole, or be burned, or sit nice and still. I have accounted for nearly everything, I'm just discussing it with scientists now. They seem fairly interested, but still think of me as an artist. That's what I am really. But De Vinci did a lot, and he was an artist.

I'd love to see your artwork Pincho :)