Scientific Research on Crop Circles

[Hokulele]

I believe this to be wrong. As far as I know, the sun puts out radiation in all parts of the spectrum from radio to x-ray. What we see is filtered by the atmosphere.

Can anyone correct me?

He is pretty close, other than the last sentence. The sun emits the bulk of its radiation in the visible range. This is one likely reason animals that rely on sight tend to use the visible portion of the spectrum, eyes probably evolved to make the use of as much illumination as possible. Where he goes wrong is to state that there is not much microwave radiation. True, it is not as much as visible radiation, but even a small percentage of a butt-load of radiation is a butt-load in its own right.

This is also why his calculation in his last post is laughable. Sure, the sun is extremely far away (relatively speaking), but is so unbelievably large that the amount of radiation reaching the earth's surface is enormous. We are just so used to dealing with it, we never think about the numbers involved. As an analogy, most people are amazed when they learn just how much air weighs.

Since GS doesn't seem interested in anything other than supporting the fantasies in those papers, I don't feel a need to crunch the numbers just to watch them being waved away. If you are interested, I may see what I can google up.

 

[The Atheist]

Intelligent Design is just a theory, nothing more. You cannot do anything to prove or disprove that theory.

The node length data is a very basic and simple data. They are just measurements in the units of length. Everyone has done it in their science lab at school. He was even blinded to the identity of the samples when he measured it. If he was mistaken, then it is in his conclusions, not in his measurements. The measurements are a fraud? Then you will have to show strong evidence to support that. He has Alzheimer's disease so that he can't measure properly? Then you will have to show a doctor's diagnosis.

What exactly did you experience to conclude that Dr. Levengood's data is flawed or mistaken? What is your basis for believing in that? Where is the evidence?

I think the fact that we know what causes crop circles (humans) against Levendick's hypothesis is the biggest clue. Even the merest whiff of Occam's Razor says that Leven is past his use-by date.

What you (and Dr L) are doing is precisely what CTists do with the Pentagon attack. There is an obvious and inescapable conclusion - the Pentagon was hit by an aeroplane. There is no clear video footage of this happening, so CTists cry "Missile!". Only a congenital idiot or troll would post that kind of rubbish and you're doing it here - presenting a case based on the lunatic ravings of some sad old attention-deficit buffoon to explain something we already know.

I think I know what you mean now. I shall make that comparison with a simple calculation.

The intensity of an electromagnetic point source decreases as 1/r² where r is the distance from the source. Lets assume that the intensity of the ball of light is proportional to its volume.

Why on earth would you assume that?

Do light bulbs all have the same intensity?

What you'd need to do first is prove that these balls of light exist. Nobody's ever seen one, measured one or studied one - why would you make assumptions about them?

 

[mhaze]

I think the fact that we know what causes crop circles (humans)

Except for the simple round ones, as I noted.

 

[arthwollipot]

Except for the simple round ones, as I noted.

Why are the simple round ones less likely to be created by humans than any others? Especially since the "original" hoaxers started their hoaxes with simple round circles, and only started to make them more elaborate later to see how far they could sting along the circle researchers?

 

[Hokulele]

Why are the simple round ones less likely to be created by humans than any others? Especially since the "original" hoaxers started their hoaxes with simple round circles, and only started to make them more elaborate later to see how far they could sting along the circle researchers?

Well, if you go back and read mhaze's post, he did describe a known process for "crop circle" formation that does not require people. Granted, it is not what GS is looking for.

 

[gs21stc]

"I think I know what you mean now. I shall make that comparison with a simple calculation.

The intensity of an electromagnetic point source decreases as 1/r2 where r is the distance from the source. Lets assume that the intensity of the ball of light is proportional to its volume."


Why on earth would you assume that?

I was wrong. The intensity will actually decrease with a higher volume because the intensity of a spherical source is proportional to its radius for constant power. My calculation was wrong because I assumed they were point sources. See below for the calculation when the source is not a point source. However, my conclusion is still valid if both the balls have the same power.

What you'd need to do first is prove that these balls of light exist. Nobody's ever seen one, measured one or studied one

There is actually a very good candidate for the ball of light which have been studied by scientist at least since the beginning of the 19th century, the ball lightning phenomena. There are many scientist working on it, and have proposed numerous theories to explain it. There have also been many attempts to reproduce it in the laboratory. This is still a very active area of research, and no one understands exactly what it is.

I think the fact that we know what causes crop circles (humans) against Levendick's hypothesis is the biggest clue. Even the merest whiff of Occam's Razor says that Leven is past his use-by date.

Levengood's hypothesis is not important. The real interesting thing is in his data. The fact that his data contradicts the man-made hypothesis can be used to state that his data is wrong. However, this will require that the man-made hypothesis is the only way that crop circles could happen. There is evidence that humans can make crop circles, but where is the evidence that absolutely all crop circles have to be man-made?

Occam's razor state that if in doubt, the simplest explanation holds true. When there is evidence that suggests the contrary, the simplest explanation must either be modified, or ignored to account for the new evidence.

What is the basis for your assumption that the contradicting evidence is false?

This is also why his calculation in his last post is laughable. Sure, the sun is extremely far away (relatively speaking), but is so unbelievably large that the amount of radiation reaching the earth's surface is enormous. We are just so used to dealing with it, we never think about the numbers involved. As an analogy, most people are amazed when they learn just how much air weighs.

Since GS doesn't seem interested in anything other than supporting the fantasies in those papers, I don't feel a need to crunch the numbers just to watch them being waved away. If you are interested, I may see what I can google up.

I hope you agree with the inverse-square law for electromagnetic radiation. The Intensity of the Sun's radiation is about 63 million W/m². After applying the inverse square law, its intensity at the upper atmosphere of the Earth is about 1367 W/m². This intensity will be reduced to about 40% when it reaches the Earth's surface (Source:http://www.eoearth.org/article/Solar_radiation). So, at the Earth's surface, the intensity from the Sun's radiation will be about 546.8 W/m²
This is the proper calculation for the decrease in intensity if the source has a radius and not just a point source. The intensity of the source of radiation is given by:

I_s = Ir²/r_s²
where I is the Intensity at a distance r from the source, and r_s is the radius of the source. This equation is derived from the inverse-square law.

For a 2 m³ ball of light with a distance of 7.8 m from the ground, the intensity of the ball of light must at least be 54680 W/m² to match the intensity of the sun's radiation on the ground. That is about 1152 times less intense than the Sun. If the ball of light is any more intense than that, its intensity on the ground will be higher than the sun's.

 

[Jiri]

Have any crop circles ever been in the middle of undisturbed fields, where the approach by a party of pranksters would have had to have left at least some traces? UFOs choosing to plant crop circles astride tractor tracks, it does not make hay.

 

[gs21stc]

There is actually no need to invoke the comparison between the intensity of the sun and the ball of light on the ground. The pattern of the node length expansion is consistent with an electromagnetic source 7.8m directly above the centre of the formation, not 149.5 million kilometers away.

 

[gs21stc]

If you are referring to 10-50 foot diameter round crop circle, I've seen those occur naturally in Kentucky many times - always in areas with tall weeds, say 6+ plus in height, overnight. Farmers laugh at people thinking they are anything other than the plant stalks falling down in a characteristic pattern.

The fact they appear overnight is attributed to dew increasing the weight of the stalks, then they fall over.

That is interesting. Can you explain more to me, or point me to the right direction with all the information?

 

[Aitch]

Came across this on the 'net: http://www.philipcoppens.com/nexus07_1.html

I don't know if Mr Coppens is known as being credible or not - seems to investigate a lot of woo related stuff - but seems fairly level headed here.

Do like the idea, towards the end, that circles were originally made so that courting couples would have somewhere to be undisturbed

 

[gs21stc]

The big fancy ones are all man made.

I am not going to jump into that conclusion yet. The big fancy ones all have a common property. There are signs that intelligence was involved in creating them. The only entity that possess intelligence that we know of is human beings. In the absence of other known intelligent beings, I would conclude that they are made by humans. However, if we were ever to discover other intelligence, we will have to take them into account when postulating the origin of those big fancy crop circles.

The question now is, are there other intelligence? We are not aware of their existence but do they exist anyway?

 

[EHocking]

Not possible. How is it possible to comment on flawed data?

Try asking me how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Piece of cake.

16

Source:
Ponder Stibbons.
Head of Inadvisably Applied Magic, Praelector and Reader in Invisible Writings
Unseen University

 

[PixyMisa]

I am not going to jump into that conclusion yet. The big fancy ones all have a common property. There are signs that intelligence was involved in creating them. The only entity that possess intelligence that we know of is human beings. In the absence of other known intelligent beings, I would conclude that they are made by humans. However, if we were ever to discover other intelligence, we will have to take them into account when postulating the origin of those big fancy crop circles.

Just as we would have to take other intelligent beings into account as possibly being responsible for publishing the New York Times... And then immediately discard that hypothesis as being stupid beyond measure.

The question now is, are there other intelligence? We are not aware of their existence but do they exist anyway?

Who knows? Who cares? Crop circles are made by humans.

 

[EHocking]

I am not going to jump into that conclusion yet. The big fancy ones all have a common property. There are signs that intelligence was involved in creating them. The only entity that possess intelligence that we know of is human beings. In the absence of other known intelligent beings, I would conclude that they are made by humans. However, if we were ever to discover other intelligence, we will have to take them into account when postulating the origin of those big fancy crop circles.

The question now is, are there other intelligence? We are not aware of their existence but do they exist anyway?

Why even bother pondering it based on "evidence" of crop circles.

Fact.
When the foot and mouth crisis in the UK in 2001 closed all pathways and other access routes to/from farms and fields no crop circles were created.

Fact.
In each of the first three counties that re-opened pathways, the very next day a crop circle was found in a field in those counties.

Question(s).
Do plasma, ball lighting or vortices obey DEFRA access notices.

Alternatively, how is it that aliens not only read English, but bother to read posted DEFRA access notices and also obey them.

What's the probability that local people living in farming communities are very likely to obey DEFRA access notices and include in their number crop circle "hoaxers"?

 

[mhaze]

I am not going to jump into that conclusion yet. The big fancy ones all have a common property. There are signs that intelligence was involved in creating them. The only entity that possess intelligence that we know of is human beings. In the absence of other known intelligent beings, I would conclude that they are made by humans. However, if we were ever to discover other intelligence, we will have to take them into account when postulating the origin of those big fancy crop circles.

The question now is, are there other intelligence? We are not aware of their existence but do they exist anyway?

I consider your assertion to be an irrefutable hypothesis, but also consider it inferior to the medieval explanation for the small, naturally occurring round crop circles.

That was that they were the work of devils, satirs, nymphs, and other creatures, including incredibly debased and lustful humans, dancing to pagan gods, Satan or other unmentionable entities, in the dark of the night. Upon which, after these beliefs became widespread and were no doubt spoken of only in low voices and with considerable fear at the close nature of evil and utter depravity, no doubt some in the population sojourned out to partake in these frolicking orgies of the night.

Much more fun than speculating about aliens, it would seem.

 

[The Atheist]

I am not going to jump into that conclusion yet. The big fancy ones all have a common property. There are signs that intelligence was involved in creating them. The only entity that possess intelligence that we know of is human beings. In the absence of other known intelligent beings, I would conclude that they are made by humans. However, if we were ever to discover other intelligence, we will have to take them into account when postulating the origin of those big fancy crop circles.

The question now is, are there other intelligence? We are not aware of their existence but do they exist anyway?

Lat try.

I would personally be astonished if there weren't many other planets or moons in the universe with life forms on them.

Are any of them intelligent? Impossible to know, but I look at it like this:

The time since the industrial revolution spans 0.00000005% of the time since life arose, the chances of us meeting another species with even greater intelligence than ours is very, very small. Even if 1,000,000,000 planets with life forms exist, then the odds are still only 50:50 that one of them is at the same technological stage or better than we are.

But even if that happened, there is then the need to overcome the vast distances involved - a technology far in advance of ours.

If that kind of technology exists, it makes no sense at all that they'd come all the way here, expending vast amounts of energy, alien-power (as opposed to man-power) and whatever passes for money, just to carve up some fillet steak and make pretty patterns in cornfields.

Taking the astronomical odds against it being aliens, then multiplying by the illogic of them doing it, aliens seem incredibly unlikely. Then if we subtract the fact that we know for sure that humans make crop circles, harbouring a belief that it's aliens isn't just unlikely, but insane.

 

[I Ratant]

The area out here has many circles that aren't made by irrigation wheels.
When seen without any clues, these begin with bare ground.
Later, these become vegetated beyond the amount of the surrounding areas.
Always circular, and generally 50 feet of so across.
If one hadn't noticed the sheep being fed in the surrounding areas, and penned up at night in makeshift circular pens to keep the coyotes out, I expect a cerealogist would go bonkers, when he picked up the "information pellets" the "beings" that made the circles tend to leave, which help fertilize the soil for the later excess vegetation.

 

[luchog]

The Sun is a very tempting explanation for the electromagnetic source. If this is the case, you have to assume the magnitude of the Sun's radiation can and will heat the plants internally and make it burst from the inside (expulsion cavities). These expulsion cavities can only be replicated by subjecting the plant to 600W microwave radiation (See the first link). The radiation from the Sun ranges only from Infrared to Ultraviolet. There is no microwave radiation from the Sun's rays.

Wow, you'll make up any sort of crap to avoid having to admit the truth, won't you?

First, they're not "burst", they're simply degraded and broken outward due to heating. The "cavities" are simply the cellulose cell walls remaining after the rest of the cell has been dessicated. And it certainly doesn't require precisely "600W of microwave radiation". Or any microwave radiation at all. There's more than enough high-energy UV radiation from the sun to cause that. Just go outside on a clear day without any sort of covering on your upper body. The resulting sunburn should prove that effectively enough.

If the Sun is the cause of the electromagnetic radiation, you would expect to see the same node elongation pattern in all the crop circles. However, there is clearly a difference between the 'genuine' and man-made crop circles (See Ball of Light.pdf). The node elongation pattern in the 'genuine' crop formation is consistent with an electromagnetic point source directly above the centre of the circle. If the Sun can do that, then you will also see it in the man-made formation. However, the man-made formation clearly lacks this property.

No there isn't. People are making crap up again. The only difference is whether the degradation is measured early or late in the day, how much cloud cover existed that day, and what the season was. All of those will dramatically affect the amount of solar radiation affecting the plants.

But neither you nor anyone else have proven your claims that this effect even exists as described.

The Sun is a very obvious and tempting explanation for the electromagnetic source.

That's because it is the source.

However, by comparative analysis alone, this hypothesis can be rejected unless there is a good reason as to why the Sun acts differently in the 'genuine' and man-made crop formations. There is also the difficulty in explaining the expulsion cavities as a consequence of the Sun's radiation as discussed above.

There's no difficulty; only woo-woo idiots who lack even the most basic understanding of the physics, and simply ignore it when it contradicts their insane need to believe in nonsense like "energy vortexes" and aliens who fly ginormous interstellar distances merely to annoy farmers.

 

[luchog]

I was mistaken. The Sun should emit all the different types of radiation in the Electromagnetic spectrum. However, the vast majority of the Sun's rays that reach the Earth are in the visible spectrum. I would't expect the Sun's rays to have a very high intensity of microwave radiation.

No, they're not. In fact, the vast majority of EM radiation that reaches Earth is non-visible radiation. EM radiation that penetrates through the atmosphere to sea level consists of about 50% Infrared and Ultraviolet, and about 50% visible light. Infrared is felt as heat, and Ultraviolet is the high-energy portion of the sea-level EM penetration that causes sunburns and degradation of plastics and biological substances.

but how would you explain the node lenghtening pattern which are consistent with a ball of light 7.8m directly above the centre of the formation, in terms of exposure time, incidence angle, and atmospheric conditions in the context of the Sun's radiation? I could not think of one, so will greatly appreciate it if you can describe it to me.

Prove that such phenomenon actually exists, first, and then we'll explain it.

 

[George]

I am not going to jump into that conclusion yet. The big fancy ones all have a common property. There are signs that intelligence was involved in creating them. The only entity that possess intelligence that we know of is human beings. In the absence of other known intelligent beings, I would conclude that they are made by humans. However, if we were ever to discover other intelligence, we will have to take them into account when postulating the origin of those big fancy crop circles.

The question now is, are there other intelligence? We are not aware of their existence but do they exist anyway?

This silliness cropped up some years ago around these parts. I can’t remember who’s last word it was, but from memory it went something like this.

“It’s time to whip out the razor. We know computers and computer graphics programs exist. We know land surveyors and their measuring tapes exist.
Next step, slap the daughter around till she devises something pretty on her new Dell laptop, then present the image to the spyglass mechanic (surveyor). He/she will then figure out the way points ie, where in the farmers field to bang in the lengths of half inch re bar with hooky things on top to fasten the ropes to.
Alien spacecraft, plasma vortices, the ghost of Genghis Khan on a trial's bike, or farm animals playing a trick on the farmer are not know to exist.”

Billy’s blade suggests it’s a bunch of folk with lots of time on their hands.