Gerald Hawkins Crop Circle Theorums

[Mat]

He's been called out now, so what's the difference?

To me, logically, the difference is very profound.

Can I ask do you believe in the truth of these statements:

1) In the past the establishment has suppressed information.
2) It is rational to expect that the establishment continues to suppress information.

If you don't, then we just have no common ground. For me the "Suppression hypothesis" is a key instrument in understanding any controversial theory.

It seems a completely rational and skeptical hypothesis.

Mat

[Mick]

Mat, either you don't understand maths, or you are trolling. Either way I'm done. I'm sorry if this seems impolite, but I'm afraid I can't see any other explanation for you suggesting that high school, O-Level, geometry exercises are something that was covered up, by asking entirely rhetorical questions. But feel free to supply one.

[Mat]

Mat, either you don't understand maths, or you are trolling.

Please don't keep saying I'm trolling, I have read much of your articles and posts now and you are simply above that

I have repeatedly said I dont understand maths.

Either way I'm done. I'm sorry if this seems impolite, but I'm afraid I can't see any other explanation for you suggesting that high school, O-Level, geometry exercises are something that was covered up, by asking entirely rhetorical questions. But feel free to supply one.

No that's cool. I can see you are a man who likes to debate in the exacts, as do I often. Sometimes the abstracts are good to.

Cheers

Mat

[Mick]

Please don't keep saying I'm trolling, I have read much of your articles and posts now and you are simply above that

I have repeatedly said I dont understand maths.

I said you don't understand maths, or you are trolling. So I was right, so where's the problem?

I'm afraid you are making a mountain out of a molehill, it been repeated pointed out to you, and yet you persist with this being for you: "the most astounding mystery that I am aware of"

Really? The most astounding mystery?

[Mat]

and yet you persist with this being for you: "the most astounding mystery that I am aware of"

Really? The most astounding mystery?

Don't forget I belive Professor Hawkins more than you.

What is your biggest mystery?

[Mick]

Don't forget I belive Professor Hawkins more than you.

What is your biggest mystery?

The origin of the universe.

[Mat]

The origin of the universe.

Snap!

[solrey]

Hi Mat. Not to be condescending but like Mick said, this is basic high school math and geometry. I tutored math in college so I'll try to show you why it's trivial and why the areas of the circles are just a function of basic ratios described by really really old formulas for the polygons and not some kind of new discovery.

I'll review "theorems" 2 and 3 because they're super easy to understand and that's about all I have time for right now.

Theorem 2 says the areas of an equilateral triangle's circumscribed and inscribed circles have a 4:1 ratio. Here are the relevant formulas for an equilateral triangle:

The radius of the circumscribed circle or the length from the triangles center to a corner is R = square root of 3 divided by 3, times the length of a side of the triangle.
The radius of the inscribed circle or the length from the triangles center on a line perpendicular to a side is r = square root of 3 divided by 6, times the length of a side of the triangle.

Notice the difference in the formulas is for R you divide by 3 but for r you divide by 6. That comes to 1/3 versus 1/6. 1/6 is half of 1/3 meaning the distance from the incenter to a corner (R) is twice as long as the distance from the incenter to a side (r) for a ratio of 2:1. The formula for the area of a circle is pi times radius squared. So if one radius R = 2 and the other radius r = 1, then 2 squared = 4 and 1 squared = 1 for a ratio of 4:1. Because of the formula for area of a circle is dependent on the radius squared, it's simply a matter of squaring the ratio of 2:1 for the radii to equate to the ratio 4:1 for the areas.

Theorem 3 states the areas of a square's circumscribed and inscribed circles have a 2:1 ratio. Here are the relevant formulas for a square.

The radius of the circumscribed circle or from the center of the square to a corner is R = half the length of a side times the square root of 2.
The radius of the inscribed circle or from the center of the square on a line perpendicular to a side is r = half the length of a side.
Since half the length of a side is the same in both formulas they cancel out for a value of 1 so the ratio of R:r is the square root of 2:1.
Again, the formula for area of a circle is pi times radius squared. The square root of 2 squared = 2 and the square root of 1 = 1 for a ratio of the areas of the circles at 2:1

The link I provided previously demonstrates Mick and I aren't the only ones that see through Hawkin's ruse:

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=13626

The only reason I can figure why nobody responded to Hawkins is that his claims of new or undiscovered Euclidean geometry are so blatantly false it's self evident to anyone who understands high school geometry such that any response would just be a waste of time. Speaking of which....

[Mat]

Hi Mat.

Hi solrey

Not to be condescending but like Mick said, this is basic high school math and geometry.

Habve no fear aboiut being condiscening, I can take it!

As for it being basic geometry, sure I get what you are saying, but do you get my confusion as to one of americas most respected acadmeics missed it? That is a mystery, to me.

Thanks also for your attempt to explain. but again, as said, what is relevant to me in this case is not the content of the information (the theorems) but its existance. In a sense I think my lack of mathematical ability is what picks out the mystery to me.

The link I provided previously demonstrates Mick and I aren't the only ones that see through Hawkin's ruse:

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=13626

Sure, and I am the person who started that debate back then, though people are much more polite here than there!

The only reason I can figure why nobody responded to Hawkins is that his claims of new or undiscovered Euclidean geometry are so blatantly false it's self evident to anyone who understands high school geometry such that any response would just be a waste of time.

Sure, but again, why did Professor hawkins, the readers of those magazine, the editors, his colleagues, the people in the talks he gave etc etc etc.... how come nobody got it then yet it then.

I don't know the numbers, but even assuming 100 people entered his challenge, are you saying that none of those saw what you saw so easily as basic math?


Thanks for your time!

Mat