Crop Circles

Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Crop Circles

I suppose this phenomenon is more "Fortean" than scientific, but there are a few problems connected with it.

 

Obviouisly, many crop circles are man made. Then thee are the ones that are so designed, so well crafted and accurate both in details and relative measurments within the structure such as "the Julia set" series) that I would REALLY like to meet the guys who carried them out.

 

The thing is, I have spent the first half of my professional life on working with creative and performing arts. During the course of this I have been a part of much "land art" and large scale works of art so I know first handedly how difficult it is. Then add the second half of my carreer, which has been spent working with engineering and construction. It is HARD to transport a design from blueprints to actual, physical reality.

 

In conclusion: If somebody actually designed and made "the triple Julia set" just for the hell of it, I would very very VERY much like to hire these guys to come and work for me, a.s.a.p. Not only are they good at designing complex patterns, but they are veritable geniuses at the noble art of creating image representations of said patterns out in the field, with such precision and on such a scale that you have to feel awe.

 

www.cropcircleconnector.com/Millennium/kris96a.html

 

The question is: Does anyone here have ANY clue about what is behind this phenomenon? Scientific and apropriately skeptical approaches are preferred.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Firstly, the phenomenon of

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.
 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Then you should contact

Then you should contact these guys. Their work is indeed awe-inspiring. They have filmed themselves creating circles that were later claimed to be of non-human origin. For those doing the claiming, that's gotta hurt.

I love crop circles. It is an under-appreciated modern art form.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13668
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Why are we entertaining this

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.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13668
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Then you

nigelTheBold wrote:

Then you should contact these guys. Their work is indeed awe-inspiring. They have filmed themselves creating circles that were later claimed to be of non-human origin. For those doing the claiming, that's gotta hurt.

I love crop circles. It is an under-appreciated modern art form.

It is an "art form" like a ponzy scheme is an art form. Penn an Teller are honest about what they do and do not sell it as truth like Benny Hinn sells his trinkets scamming people out of their last dime in hopes of a fictional after life. If I spend my last dime on Penn and Teller I know what I am watching is entertainment. Scams are not honest, no matter how productive they are to the person who benefits from them.

Crop circles should be as appreciated as chronology or alchemy. Only as an example of how credulous humans can be.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Crop circles

Brian37 wrote:

Crop circles should be as appreciated as chronology or alchemy. Only as an example of how credulous humans can be.

 

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.

 

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Crop circles

Brian37 wrote:

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?


The speed of light limit is not necessarily impossible to surpass. We can't achieve it in accelerators or observe it in nature, because electromagnetic fields, explosions and so on, are too slow. They can never accelerate anything beyond their own speed, no matter how strong (dense) they are.
With our way of thinking (the bigger fuel supply, the closer to the speed of light) we will get nowhere, specially when we don't know what is gravity, vacuum, electric charge, dark matter, and so on. Our gaps in knowledge are so big, that there is no wonder we're still race of land rats. And perhaps it's better that way. I wonder how long would the extraterrestrials laugh, if they would read Einstein's theory of relativity.
 

Brian37 wrote:
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.
You forgot one more thing. Humans need a motivation, because they need to earn their living. If we would have an utopistic society where everyone would get what they need without work or money, then I'd believe that humans are capable of making crop circles.
But UFO exists too, unidentified objects with flight characteristics uncomparable to anything we know. For example, one local astronomer observed something flying at 6000 km/h, then it slowed down to 3000 km/h, did a sharp 90° turn and just disappeared on spot. And then there are thousands of observations per year... So what, want to shoot them for violation of local laws of physics?

Marquis: as for the freedom of thought, there is one rational saying:
It's good to be open-minded, but not so much that your brain falls out.
But how can others know who's open-minded and who's brain had fallen out, if there is nobody who can know that about them, et cetera? The solution is - the list of irrational topics, which are too irrational for any rational person to even think about. They were refuted so many times by so many well paid people in our benevolent media, that there is no reason to start the conversation again. The interesting thing is, that everything on the list is irrational, no matter if it's a belief, (which is irrational) or direct experience. (which just is)

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:The speed of

Luminon wrote:


The speed of light limit is not necessarily impossible to surpass.

 

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.)


 

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3391
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is onlineOnline
Brian37 wrote:nigelTheBold

Brian37 wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

Then you should contact these guys. Their work is indeed awe-inspiring. They have filmed themselves creating circles that were later claimed to be of non-human origin. For those doing the claiming, that's gotta hurt.

I love crop circles. It is an under-appreciated modern art form.

It is an "art form" like a ponzy scheme is an art form. Penn an Teller are honest about what they do and do not sell it as truth like Benny Hinn sells his trinkets scamming people out of their last dime in hopes of a fictional after life. If I spend my last dime on Penn and Teller I know what I am watching is entertainment. Scams are not honest, no matter how productive they are to the person who benefits from them.

Crop circles should be as appreciated as chronology or alchemy. Only as an example of how credulous humans can be.

yeah, but there's a big difference between benny hinn, alchemy, etc., and crop circles.  benny hinn et al. sell a bogus ideology, while crop circles and their makers are, as far as we know, utterly silent.  it's we who observe them that make up the hoo-hah to explain them, and it's the hoo-hah makers who sell the books. 

for example, there have been a bunch of wretched, vacuous books about the alchemical and templar symbolism in the plays of shakespeare and how they're actually coded messages about how to find the grail or some shit like that.  you wouldn't blame shakespeare for that, would you?  or da vinci for dan brown's mindless claptrap?

until we can prove that the people who push the hoo-hah behind crop circles are the same people who make them (and i seriously doubt that, since people usually start pushing hoo-hah precisely because they themselves are hopelessly uncreative), we should reserve judgment about the "message" behind them, if indeed there is any.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13668
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I would say the same thing

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.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:crop circle

Brian37 wrote:

crop circle conspiracy theorists

 

In my opinion, it is a conspiracy theory (and the most common one) to suggest that all crop circles over all this time and in all these different countries have been created by some sort of secret cabal of practical jokers for purposes unknown. However, the possibility exists. It just doesn't seem very likely. Whatever constitutes "a waste of time" is to some extent a relative question which connects with your personal tastes, interests and preferences. For instance, it would seem to me a waste of time to be passionately discussing a subject which is of no interest to you, particularly when it seems hard to reach a common ground of agreement. Personally, my choice so far is to suspend my judgement until I have more data. I look at the phenomenon and get a feeling that there's definitely something "wrong" with the picture, I just don't know what. Yet. I can sympathise with the feeling that somebody's fucking with me. That's my feeling too. I just don't know who (or what), much less why. So I choose to sit back and wait for more information to emerge. If it doesn't - which is a very real possibility - I shall simply go to my grave with only inconclusive data on this subject.


 

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13668
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote: I shall

Marquis wrote:
I shall simply go to my grave with only inconclusive data on this subject.

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.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote: Luminon

Marquis wrote:
Luminon wrote:
The speed of light limit is not necessarily impossible to surpass.
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 have read upon it, and the relativity theory sounds like a nonsense.
I have read an article by author of The Final Theory and it was very interesting. For example, there were shown illicit and unacceptable mathemathic operations in Einstein's theory of relativity.
Also, the E=mc2 equation is obviously derived from
p = E/c  (+) p = mc (=) E/c = mc (=) E = mc2 which is neither impressive, nor trustworthy.
I prefer some alternative scientific theories, including the theory of partially dragged aether and gravity theory based on pressure of aether. In my opinion, understanding and controlling gravity will allow acceleration without the C limit. The reason why I prefer these theories is, that I am physically aware of the aether's existence, I'm one of these people sensitive enough for that. I don't say that these theories are necessarily correct, but they're more correct than these ignoring the aether. Without aether, the science is forced to ignore phenomena, that are otherwise unexplainable and traditionally banned from funding.

iwbiek wrote:
until we can prove that the people who push the hoo-hah behind crop circles are the same people who make them (and i seriously doubt that, since people usually start pushing hoo-hah precisely because they themselves are hopelessly uncreative), we should reserve judgment about the "message" behind them, if indeed there is any.
So what do you think of Crabwood crop circle, crop reply to space message, Milkhill script,, Butterfly man, and so on? In my opinion, these are clear attempts to communicate. However, it is a very playful communication. The creators are not in hurry, not in their own need to communicate, and not willing to use our language, but rather symbols, puzzles and graphical demonstrations of universal mathemathic laws.

Of course, there is also the WOW signal, which was deciphered only thanks to unique combination of mathemathical and graphical thinking.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:I am

Luminon wrote:

I am physically aware of the aether's existence, I'm one of these people sensitive enough for that.

 

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


 

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote: Luminon

Marquis wrote:
Luminon wrote:
I am physically aware of the aether's existence, I'm one of these people sensitive enough for that.

Dude, I think our ways just parted in a really rather irrepairable way. Good luck to you, though.
Thanks. But don't worry about my rationality. I've been through some blind, interpersonal experiments, which proved to me beyond doubt, that what I perceive is there, independently on me. Without that external evidence, I'd keep my keyboard shut. This is why I consider myself rational, I act and think according to what can be seen and touched physically. I also know that there is no way I could convince everyone about my perception, unless I'd undergo functional magnetic resonance imaging, this is why I won't freak out and tell you that unbelievers in what I say will go to Hell. I come in peace, I mean no harm.
By the way, it's relatively common phenomenon. It got very popular among young people on the internet, who call it "psi-sphere" or "psi-ball". I just have that kind of sensitivity since birth, but learning itshouldn't be more diffcult than learning to drive, or learning a foreign language, at most.
I think our way parted only in case you are unable to learn something new, and just as far as this topic goes. Which is a pity, because I've done more (non-narcotic) exploration of consciousness than most of people here and I have access to whole community of people who participate on that exploration for decades. I'm pretty sure that just 1 minute of dwelling in my skin would turn anyone's worldwiew upside down, comparable to the "no stones in the sky" guy being hit by meteorite.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
I'll probably get a lot of

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.


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:I've done more

Luminon wrote:

I've done more (non-narcotic) exploration of consciousness than most of people here

 

It's OK. I get what you're saying. Take care and be well.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2398
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Circles' ???

 

 

 

          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   

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:   Luminon

Marquis wrote:

 

Luminon wrote:
I am physically aware of the aether's existence, I'm one of these people sensitive enough for that.

 

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

 

So you have met Luminon. He is weird but he is our weird guy and good for comic relief if nothing else. But seriously, he regularly provides some great examples of that which simply cannot be falsified.

 

Anyway, let me work on the idea of falsification for a bit. We know that there are self appointed experts out there who simply love to proclaim that certain circles are “clearly proof” of something supernatural and that they are undeterred when they have made such a pronouncement, only to have video of the same circle being made come to light.

 

As it happens, not every single circle has been video taped while under construction. So to the “experts”, there is a ready made retreat for the chance of being so caught in the future. All they have to do is cite examples of crop circles for which there is not actual proof of human agency. Really, that is basically identical to the “god of the gaps” nonsense that theists retreat into when evidence against them comes to the fore.

 

Beyond that, we know for a fact that some circles are made by people. As noted above, they have willingly submitted to being video taped making the things. Now I checked google but I could not find a definitive list of known artificial circles to look at. Too bad because if there were examples that went beyond thew simplest of structures, that might itself have been instructive.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
Oh Dear Gott in Heavan why am I doing this?

The Page of Nonsense wrote:

Q: But don't we know all about the gravity of Black
  Holes and how even light can't escape?
A: No. This often-repeated error is based on a clear oversight.
Black Holes are said to form when a star expends its nuclear
energy and physically collapses. But starlight only shines from
intact, functioning stars, of course. There is no more reason to 
expect light to shine from Black Holes than from a burnt-out,
smashed light bulb. This is a commonly repeated error in
plain view that is intended to showcase and dramatize our
scientists' deep understanding of Black Holes and gravity, but
which actually exposes how little is truly understood about
either.

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.
The Moron wrote:

1) Gravitational Perpetual Motion:
As we all know, perpetual motion machines are impossible,
and claims of such devices are a clear sign of bad science.
No device (or natural phenomenon) can expend energy
without draining a power source, and certainly cannot operate
with no power source at all. Yet our science states that an
object dropped into a tunnel cut through the Earth would be
accelerated to the center by gravity, then decelerated as it
approached the other end, only to be accelerated down again,
over and over – endlessly. Even our most elementary physics
states that it takes energy expenditure from a known power
source to accelerate and decelerate objects, yet there is no
power source in site here, let alone a draining one. Despite
detailed atomic theories and even having split the atom,
science has never identified a gravitational power source.
This describes an actively operating mechanism that never
ends and never drains a power source – an impossible
perpetual motion scenario, according to today’s physics.

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.
LOON wrote:

2) The Work formula:
When all else fails, we are told not to worry about the
gravitational power source because gravity never does any
work throughout the universe. According to today’s science,
all of the gravity-driven dynamics in our universe occur without
any work being done, therefore there is no reason to expect
energy expenditure from any power source – no power is
required for any of it. We are told that objects are pinned
forcefully and continually to the planet by gravity, but since
they just sit there, even though forcefully pinned down, no
energy source is required to explain this. How can such a claim
be justified? Simple – ignore the physical gravitational energy
expenditure and recast it as a formal Work scenario. Why does
this suddenly seem to solve such a deep physical problem?
Because the formal definition of Work in physics is: (force
applied) x (distance moved). Note: this is not the form of
work that we all relate to, where expending energy is doing
work. Instead, Work, by definition, ignores all energy expended
unless it happens to move something. While this formal Work
definition does calculate the energy expended to move objects
it will also obviously give a zero result whenever an applied
force cannot move an object, such as when we push on a wall
or when gravity pulls on an object that is already on the ground.
Of course this does not mean no energy was expended, but
simply that the Work equation was only designed to deal with
a very limited energy scenario where the applied force happens
to move something. It is an extremely grievous elementary
abuse of physics to borrow the formal Work formula and
misapply it to a scenario where no motion exists just to claim
that the "zero work" result means no energy source is required
to forcefully pin objects to the ground. Part of the reason this
explanation has been allowed to slide for so long is because
this very limited Work definition has the same name as the
actual concept of energy-driven work that we are familiar with.
So when an authority figure presents a formal "Work" equation
from a physics textbook and does a calculation that gives a
"zero work" result, apparently resolving enormous questions
about gravity in our science, it is difficult to resist the "no work,
no energy" assurance from a teacher, which everyone else
seems ok with, never to seriously question it again. And so it
goes, generation after generation, leading to the current mess
we have over common gravity in our science today.

Even the forceful constraining of the moon in its orbit is said to
require no energy, since the Work equation is also defined to
give zero when an object moves perpendicular to the applied
force. So the fact that gravity pulls downward on the passing
moon is said to free science from acknowledging the enormous
energy that must be required to constrain the moon in orbit.
Not only is this just as grievous and elementary an error as
shown above for all the same reasons, but it further mistakes
the motion of the passing moon as pertinent to the calculation.
In actuality, the moon already had a pre-existing coasting
motion past the planet that has nothing to do with gravity’s
pull. It is the continual motion of the moon downward due to
the downward pull of gravity that keeps its coasting constrained
to circle the planet rather than proceeding off into deep space.
Once the thinly veiled "zero work" excuses are removed, it is
clear to see that none of today’s gravity theories can answer
even the simplest physical questions about gravity, which is
why the Work equation diversion technique is used over and
over in classrooms around the world when such questions
arise, since the only alternative is to admit "I don’t know".

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.
LOON wrote:

Q: How can a fridge magnet cling against gravity
  endlessly without draining a power source? 
A: It can't ... fridge magnets are impossible according to
today's science. It certainly takes tremendous energy to
cling to the side of a cliff, supporting our own weight against
gravity, and before long we would tire and fall. Yet a fridge
magnet clings endlessly to the fridge by magnetic energy.
And, as both our science and our experience tell us, such
an expenditure of energy requires that a power source be
drawn upon to support such effort. Yet a permanent magnet
not only maintains its strength indefinitely (no theory or text- 
book shows the power drain characteristics of a permanent
magnet as it clings against the pull of gravity), but there isn’t
even a power source in sight! Endless magnetic energy
apparently emanates from permanent magnets without
any explanation in our science. The only explanation that any
physicist will give for this mystery is that there is no mystery
since the magnet isn't moving, which gives a zero result if
you plug this into the Work equation – a severely flawed
diversionary tactic that was exposed above. No physicist will
acknowledge the error of applying the Work equation to deny
the ongoing magnetic energy expenditure, nor agree that a
power source is required to cling energetically against gravity. 

This excerpt from an article on magnetism in Discover
Magazine, Dec. 2002, further makes this point:

Moreover, asking that question [why some non-metallic
objects are magnetic] inevitably lets you in on a surprising
secret: Physicists are also a little fuzzy about those bits of
iron alloy attached to your refrigerator. "Only a few people
understand -- or think they understand -- how a permanent
magnet works," says Makarova [a Russian physicist
working at Umea University in Sweden]. "The magnet of
everyday life is not a simple thing. It's a quantum-
mechanics thing ... I'm just working as an engineer, trying
to find out where the magnetism comes from."

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.

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:The thing is,

Marquis wrote:
The thing is, I have spent the first half of my professional life on working with creative and performing arts. During the course of this I have been a part of much "land art" and large scale works of art so I know first handedly how difficult it is. Then add the second half of my carreer, which has been spent working with engineering and construction. It is HARD to transport a design from blueprints to actual, physical reality.

 

So with your experience, you must know that there are times when a given task starts out appearing intractable, only to have the solution turn out to be rather simpler than one may have originally estimated it to be. Perhaps it was a novel combination of a few simpler steps that nobody had ever tried before or possibly, there always was a simple solution that just got overlooked.

 

As an example, yesterday at work, I had to assemble a second hand conference table. Mind you, the person who had it before us did a botch job and the legs had not been installed along straight lines. As a result, the old screw holes did not line up to the legs quite as one would expect.

 

When I started, my supervisor was trying to rearrange the legs in every possible combination to try and find out how they were attached before (he has been in construction for 30+ years and commanded a mortar squad in the US Army before that, so he must know geometry and physics well enough for this task).

 

Anyway, I went to our tool room and got a tape measure, felt tip pen and a chalk line. I had the legs lined up correctly (as noted, the previous owner had simply not bothered to do this much before) in about a minute. After that, it was a walk in the park to finish the job.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
So just how hard is it to

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.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

to have the solution turn out to be rather simpler than one may have originally estimated it to be


 

 

Yes this is correct. However, when "the solution" includes complex geometrical patterns I fail to see how there can be any shortcuts to the ardous procedure of meticulously laser measuring distances between focal points, then cross reference them and transfer the "blueprint" to a system of strings on the ground. The thing is, I really REALLY want to know how those guys did it, inside the available time frame, if this was man-made... And if it wasn't? Then it's anybody's guess how a "nonlocal plasma event" (which is the best suggestion I've heard so far) can depict patterns that align with the human sense of aesthetics - without having an, ahem, reasonably intelligent designer. LOL.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2398
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Marquis

 

 

 

           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.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Just another point on the

Just another point on the "Black Hole" thing.

Every object in the Universe not at absolute zero emits electromagnetic radiation, depending on its temperature.

A massive object will take quite a while to cool down, even after it stops generating energy from nuclear reactions.

The only way objects on a vacuum can lose energy, and so cool down, is by radiation.

We detect red, brown, and even 'black dwarfs', extinguished and slowly cooling stars, mainly by their radiation in the infra-red.

Black Holes stand out as such by their total lack of such radiation, only 'shining', if at all, by the effects of the extreme gravity gradient on infalling matter, which radiates with very different spectrum from cooling stars. If they are relatively isolated from other matter, maybe they have swept it all in from their immediate vicinity, we can only detect them by their gravitational effects.

That other stupidity about the 'energy' needed to keep something in place against the force of gravity is so breathtakingly mistaken that it proves that that individual is totally unqualified to say anything about reality.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:the effects

BobSpence1 wrote:

the effects of the extreme gravity gradient

 

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.


 

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:BobSpence1

Marquis wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

the effects of the extreme gravity gradient

 

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.

 

I was referring to what happens well outside the singularity, if indeed there really are 'true' singularities at the heart of a Black Hole.

I agree that it is at the core where the mystery is with Black Holes.

Whereas at just outside the event horizon, which is where the 'escape velocity' from the Black Hole core passes the velocity of light, is where things like Hawking radiation happen, and we have a somewhat better handle on what might be going on. 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:Answers in

Marquis wrote:

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
to have the solution turn out to be rather simpler than one may have originally estimated it to be

 

Yes this is correct. However, when "the solution" includes complex geometrical patterns I fail to see how there can be any shortcuts to the ardous procedure of meticulously laser measuring distances between focal points, then cross reference them and transfer the "blueprint" to a system of strings on the ground.

 

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.

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

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 man. I'm just not buying it. I understand well how in theory six guys can do this and that but in the real world we are ruled by "the law of perversity" which dictates that if anything can get fucked up it will. Royally. At the worst concievable moment. It's just not very plausible to imagine a team of guys who are doing these designs in a fit of giggles over how funny it is that nobody will ever know. I may be wrong, but this is what I know about human behaviour under such circumstances that they have to actually operate as a team and execute very precise manouvers: Something will go wrong. Somewhere. At some point. And there was no way you could have foreseen that.

 

Quite frankly, I find it every bit as unlikely that men did those crop circles as it is that they were made by space aliens. There is something else going on here. Perhaps a natural force that we don't know about yet. A phenomenon that is "hallucinogenic" in the same way that narcotic plants are, in the sense that it is objectively predictable what kind of experience you will have. It is orderly. It follows a pattern. It is of course very uncomfortable to think about what may cause crop circles if you rule out both humans and space aliens.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Sinphanius wrote:Indeed it

Sinphanius wrote:

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.

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?

Sinphanius wrote:
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.
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.

Sinphanius wrote:
Also, Nice 'Evil Scientist Conspiracy' bullshit you whined about earlier.
Study market forces, and you will see that there is no conspiracy, this is just how market works.

Sinphanius wrote:
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.

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?

Sinphanius wrote:

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

Sinphanius wrote:
  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.
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.

Sinphanius wrote:
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.
Maybe he's so popular, because he insults people less Smiling 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.

Sinphanius wrote:
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.
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.

Sinphanius wrote:
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,
Playfulness does not need a reason.

Sinphanius wrote:
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.
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?

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Sinphanius

Luminon wrote:

Sinphanius wrote:

Um.... if I say to you guys "GET A ROOM!"...

Will you turn towards me and exclaim, like annoyed drag queens, "THIS IS THE ROOM!!!"

Let's all remember Baby Jesus and keep the peace, nicht was?

 

 

 

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
I feel like I'm driving in Nazca...

 

Quote:
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?

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'.

Quote:
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.

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

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.
Quote:
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?

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.
Quote:
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.

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.
Quote:
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.

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.

Quote:
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.

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.
Quote:

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.

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.
Quote:
Playfulness does not need a reason.

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?
Quote:

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.

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.
Quote:

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?

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!!!!!!!!

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:I'm sorry man.

Marquis wrote:
I'm sorry man. I'm just not buying it.

 

Well, it is certainly not in my power to make you buy into the idea that this stuff can be done by humans. Honestly, that is not where I am trying to go. Rather, I would try to get to the point where it is understood that it is possible for such things to be made by humans.

 

Past that, the ancient Greeks were able to measure the size of and distance to the Sun to a fairly good level of accuracy. The only tool that they used was a stick in the ground in Alexandria. Past that, the work was all done with logic and math. Any errors which turn up could have come from the stick not being perfectly vertical.

 

Or consider that the British surveyors were able to prove that Mt. Everest is the tallest mountain in the world using only surveying tools that were available at the time. Newer tools are much better. In fact, a more recent measurement with GPS was able to confirm the measurement and show that the accuracy was withing 2 meters.

 

Now if you really want to hold that crop circles were made by some agency that is superior to us, that is fine. However:

 

A) it remains possible that humans are capable of such things.

 

B) if you seek to show that some other agency was responsible, then you should go a few steps farther and show how that agency did the job and also show that it is somehow not possible for humans to have done what clearly has been done.

 

If you really want to try that, then tell me how cats made the crop circles and tell me why only cats are capable of making crop circles. Or pick your choice of non cat entities and show the same with the nouns switched.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

were able to measure

 

 

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.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
We've got a bloomin' Henge ta Put up!

Speaking on Stonehenge;

This Man claims to be able to construct simple three block Beam and Lentel Henges Alone, without Hoisting Equipment.  If he had a properly trained team with enough of his 'improvised' tools, I think he could easily set up a full, 1:1 scale Stonehenge overnight.

I think you are underestimating Human ingenuity.  All crop circles would require is a sound plan, a well thought out method, and the desire to do it. Especially as, has been said, using the board+rope method would naturally pull yourself into a circle shape.  I imagine these guys practiced a lot before going into the big leagues, so by the time they actually made the three pronged spiraly-do thing they would have been a well oiled machine.

Oh, the guy above also claims to have moved an entire Barn, Alone. with his Son helping him he moved it over 200ft.

 

 

Don't sell Humanity short.  We are capable of some pretty Badass stuff when we really put our minds and bodies to it.

 

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
There are not just 6 guys

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.

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
ronin-dog wrote:isolated

ronin-dog wrote:

isolated pockets of crop-circle geeks

 

Yes well.... I am skeptical. All my experience with "geeks" have suggested that they aren't very practical people. And all my experience with with "practical people" have suggested that they need strong leadership in order to perform. So where does that leave us? I can but repeat that I would very very very much like to meet the crop circle creators. I can get them well paid jobs! There is really no reason to remain silent.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13668
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:ronin-dog

Marquis wrote:

ronin-dog wrote:

isolated pockets of crop-circle geeks

 

Yes well.... I am skeptical. All my experience with "geeks" have suggested that they aren't very practical people. And all my experience with with "practical people" have suggested that they need strong leadership in order to perform. So where does that leave us? I can but repeat that I would very very very much like to meet the crop circle creators. I can get them well paid jobs! There is really no reason to remain silent.

"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.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13668
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Perfect example of

Perfect example of humanity's credulity. "Balloon boy" in the news. The public and media, because some idiot claimed to be a scientist and built a si fi prop and passed it off as lagit, because of the public's fear of a kid being harmed, which he deliberately played upon, an entire day was spent chasing a balloon people thought had a kid in it.

AND when I caught this story, along with many, SIMPLE observation should have spotted the hoax, without the kid blowing it later in the media interview. THERE WAS NO basket and no flap or doorway into the lower part of the balloon. I couldn't see how a kid could be inside it. And it looked too light to hold any real weight, much less a kid.

This is how easy humans are fooled. But it can fool the smartest of us as well. Being a geek doesnt make someone any less flawed or immune to human behavor.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:PHD professors

Brian37 wrote:

PHD professors teaching crop circle physics

 

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.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:Brian37

Marquis wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

PHD professors teaching crop circle physics

 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.


You want to see how they are made? Then I have something for you. Take a good look! Smiling I'm so glad I finally found this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M6vP8-SbU0
There is a clue why they are made.

smartypants wrote:
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.


I think this observation is not far from the truth. There is a man, who says that crop circles are
a) form of art
b) deliberate stimulation (or replication) of Earth's magnetic field, for future technical needs of humanity.
It would be therefore logical, that the crop circles appear in relation to Earth's magnetic field, it's lines and anomalies.
The whole interview can be read here. (the link) This man is one of best in the UFOlogy area, and his decades of work should be taken into account in that topic. Of course, his work involves many interconnected areas and studying it would take time. There is an evidence that what he says is true, unfortunately it can be just as easily ignored, as any other evidence.

Unless one understands the reality of the etheric levels of energy as finer, subtler, levels of matter, one cannot begin to understand the UFO phenomenon, and one cannot understand the creation of crop circles — because they are all related.
Benjamin Creme

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sorry, I couldn't let this

Sorry, I couldn't let this pass:

Sinphanius wrote:

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.

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.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:ronin-dog

Marquis wrote:

ronin-dog wrote:

isolated pockets of crop-circle geeks

 

Yes well.... I am skeptical. All my experience with "geeks" have suggested that they aren't very practical people. And all my experience with with "practical people" have suggested that they need strong leadership in order to perform.

 

Hate to tell you this but science geeks make the world go round.

I have a friend who used to make explosives and set them off on beaches at night (I am amazed he didn't lose any limbs!) for fun. There are people who make jet motors in their backyards out of lawnmower and washing machine parts. My boss at work is in a medieval society and has his own forge to make chain mail and swords. They also organise huge events just because they think it is cool.

Rave parties of 100s of people are organised on the fly via sms. People turn up seemingly randomly in public places and unite in doing something slightly weird (like striking the same pose, etc), all organised by sms with people they have never met.

Don't underestimate what people will do because they think it is cool and a little fun.

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Whoa.. "Aurora, for

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.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13668
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:Brian37

Marquis wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

PHD professors teaching crop circle physics

 

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.

YES WE DO!

The "HOW" is simple, HUMANS.

Just because you don't know how David Copperfield fooled your eyes into believing a woman was sawed in half, doesn't mean she literally was sawed in half. It just means you don't know how your eyes were fooled.

THE WHY is even more obvious. People do these things because it gets them attention. Getting attention only means you got attention. The only thing that proves you deserve attention for your utterance or display is the ability to present it, step back, and not try to protect it. If it is worthy of attention, it doesn't need your protection. That attitude forces the one making the presentation to be self introspective BEFORE they present it.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Whoa..

Vastet wrote:
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.

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13668
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The difference between a

The difference between a scam and truth is the ability to subject an utterance  to scrutiny independent of personal bias.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
smartypants wrote:Vastet

smartypants wrote:

Vastet wrote:
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):

    

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:Nobody knows

Marquis

wrote:

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

That's where you are wrong.

http://circlemakers.org/dimbleby.html

http://circlemakers.org/natgeo.html

http://circlemakers.org/bbc_drama.html

http://circlemakers.org/greenpeace.html

http://circlemakers.org/big_words.html

http://circlemakers.org/shredded_wheat.html

http://circlemakers.org/microsoft.html

http://circlemakers.org/olympics_france.html

 

People make crop circles. They even draw up designs for them and announce that they are going to make them. Then they make them and take photos. There has numerous publicity stunts in which people make crop circles for companies. So, we know without question how crop circles are made.

Is there something I'm missing here?

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:smartypants

BobSpence1 wrote:

smartypants wrote:

Vastet wrote:
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.


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:Is there

Jormungander wrote:

Is there something I'm missing here?

 

Yes there is. Two things, actually.

Firstly, that "crop circles" have been observed in sand, snow and treetops (foilage) as well.

Secondly, that there are biological anomalies in plant material samples from some (not all) crop circles. These anomalies are uniform and they happen only in crop circles. There are also metallic anomalies in soil samples taken at the same locations. There are some very serious people gathering data for the purpose of scientifically researching these anomalies, but they are so far not postulating any hypothesis.

www.bltresearch.com/plantab.php

www.swirlednews.com/article.asp

Please observe that I have no objections to the very reasonable claim that some - if not most - of the crop circles are made by humans.

However, the fact remains that in others, there are some strange anomalies occurring which suggests some other source.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com