tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12943217.post117196052917948666..comments2008-10-04T13:59:14.364-07:00David Barclayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16882578741355079739wdbarclay@shaw.caBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12943217.post-45541638326457934702008-10-04T13:59:00.000-07:002008-10-04T13:59:00.000-07:00Sorry for digging up a relatively old thread but I was looking for a relatively obscure reference to a circular number theory and found my self here... Suppose I should try and be more specific.<BR/><BR/>Regardless, I had a quick question regarding the topic.<BR/><BR/>If, as is assumed by the author, crop circles are (The possible)result of a Falling meteorite interacting dynamically with what would assuredly be a number of complex forces, would we not see the result of these interactions on a scale larger then simply crop circles?<BR/><BR/>Forgive me, because I am certainly no expert in the field of crop circle phenomena, but it seems that all I ever hear of crop circles are those done in fields of wheat.<BR/><BR/>I suppose it could be considered that the highly complex shapes manifested on a highly structured background such as a quadrilateral field of wheat (who's uniformity would be checked much more often then that of a random patch of ground) as opposed to a much more dynamic background (I.E. portions of the ground that would almost certainly be playing by common rules if you stretch back far enough... Or IN as it would be) <BR/><BR/>The result may suggest that it would be potentially harder to identify (Potentially MUCH harder) but wouldn't it also suggest that we should find the IMPACTED result of these falling meteorites in other structures that at the very least share many of the characteristics of say... Wheat. (Perhaps this is the case, then that would a positive sign for the authors Postulate [For lack of a better term.] If however the contrary is true, that would seem to me at least fairly damaging evidence) <BR/><BR/>Just curious then, because if we do see these results potentially Impacted into the earth... All sorts of interesting things could be derived by a more comprehensive examination. <BR/><BR/>Just my thoughtsJonathannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12943217.post-1174558574283359282007-03-22T04:16:00.000-07:002007-03-22T04:16:00.000-07:00No, not all crop circles would look the same, and of course they do not.<BR/><BR/>As meteorites burn up in the atmosphere not only do the fragments distort the field in which they exist, but the earth's field also distorts the field of the fragments.<BR/><BR/>This results in complex as well as fairly simple patterns forming via vlf resonance.<BR/><BR/>There is nothing random about any of this, although it may appear that way. It's a simple case of energy and energy differentials interacting in a dynamic manner, which is the basis of all physical structure.<BR/><BR/>If you were to read chapters 1 through 7 of the book Unity you might get a clearer picture of the situation.<BR/><BR/>Remember that all the sacred geometry of any civilization was first observed in nature and then adopted for a specific purpose.David Barclayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10817373286078810321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12943217.post-1174411456593161732007-03-20T11:24:00.000-07:002007-03-20T11:24:00.000-07:00If crop circles were formed by meteorites falling from space and being physically altered such as to react to an underlying universal force, wouldn't all crop circles either look the same, or be completely random? They're definitely organized in a design, which tells me that they're not just products of falling material, unless, that is, the material is projected into our atmosphere so as to cause these patterns to appear through the process you described. Your words make sense. Your definition makes sense. The process you describe makes some sort of wacky sense. But logically, it's all too uniform to be random. A meteor shower, such as you describe, would cause an image to form that would be quite random, or, at the very least, circular, as all the particles in the area align to each other.<BR/><BR/>We can find answers to any problem we dream up. If we look hard enough, we can prove or disprove anything. Theories are made to things that don't make any kind of sense at all, even if it's all provable through formulas and experiments. I remember a while back, there was a report in France about how the Chihuahua was actually a relative of insects, rather than mammals. They had tests and everything to prove their point. Of course that's ridiculous. But you can prove anything if you try hard enough. <BR/><BR/>I'm all for forward thinking, abstract thinking, new and different approaches. God knows we need a fresh perspective in science. But lets not loose our objectivity. Lets not get so caught up in our own theories that we become closed minded again. That makes us no different from the "Conventional" scientists that still say certain things are impossible.<BR/><BR/>mvon@tpk.netMarcnoreply@blogger.com