Yay! I reckon I decoded a crop circle.
Posted by Perceval at 02:06, 23 May 2010See it here: http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2010/...
Each radial line encodes one ASCII character in binary code. Start with the radial line at 11 o'clock and read each line out from the centre (they all start with a zero).
01100101
01011110
00101000
01101000
01101001
00101001
01110000
01101001
00101001
00110001
00111101
00110000
Converting to ASCII, you get:
e^(hi)pi)1=0
This is a suspiciously close approximation to Euler's identity, especially when you see how Google renders the equation in their entry for that last link:
e^{i \pi} + 1 = 0
What d'yall think?
Euler's identity is supposed to be the most beautiful theorem in mathematics. No surprise that it should turn up in a crop circle then!
Bookmark/Search this post with
- Perceval's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
12 April 2007
7 hours 51 min
Question: by which method did you deduce that particularly angle was 11'o clock? Was it based entirely on the position of the picture, or it's alignment with the the geographic north of the landscape?
My skills with complex mathematics got sent to the attic of my brain after I left high-school; so I'm in no position to judge whether the variations between the code you solved, and the actual Euler theorem, are negligible.
Nevertheless, it seems like a rather elegant solution. And it doesn't surprise me, since crop circles have never showed us anything we'd already known ;)
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
25 November 2004
3 weeks 17 hours
The 11 o'clock part is not significant to the design, just me indicating where to start on the photo. If you look at the zoomed-out photo, you can see that the starting line is the one immediately clockwise of the windmill.
I don't believe in belief!
Perceval
@grailseeker
23 May 2010
1 year 36 weeks
Hi RPJ, Your comment
/ And it doesn't surprise me, since crop circles have never showed us anything we'd already known ;)[/quote]
prompted me to point out this article to you:
http://www.cropcirclesecrets.org/hawkins...
This guys work is what convinced me that not all crop circles were manmade.
I am not a mathematician in any sense of that word, but I would value your opinion on this article.
12 April 2007
7 hours 51 min
Thank you for the link.
For what I understood of the article, this fellow deduced a geometric theorem regarding diatonic (musical) principles, embedded in the designs of (some) crop circles.
I would have liked to see the actual photographs of those crop circles, not just diagrams.
Nevertheless, I agree with you that there might be a small percentage of crop circles that ca not be accounted as the work of 'artists'. And even those self-confessed human circlers have claimed to experience weird events while doing their work.
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
22 November 2004
1 week 2 days
actually the numbers you gave result in
e^((i)pi)1=0
probably because of a transcription error.
They left out the "+" sign because they didn't count the number of characters right when they started.
What about the other 12 numbers/characters on the opposite side of the wedges? They don't seem to make any sense.
All of them start with 1 bit using your scheme. What do they do with the extra 96 bits?
There used to be a 48 bit floating point format, but I don't have it handy. Maybe they packed e and pi into the 96 bits.
So these would be 1st year computer science student aliens then?
----
We are the cat.
25 November 2004
3 weeks 17 hours
Yes, the fourth number was mistranscribed by me (it was past 2am here when I posted)!
It should have been 01101000, not 00101000 - I have now re-edited the original post.
But as you point out, makes more sense when mistranscribed - perhaps the designer made the same mistake in reverse.
If you read each radial line from the centre, zeros are to the anticlockwise side of the line and ones are to the clockwise side - there's no 'junk', just 8-bit binary code.
If you look up e^(hi)pi)1=0 online, Google says "Did you mean: e^(i)pi)1=0". Click on that and the top entry is Euler's Identity on Wikipedia.
Anyway, it all points to the probability of human design. A relatively ugly treatment of such a 'beautiful' equation!
I don't believe in belief!
Perceval
@grailseeker
30 May 2010
1 year 35 weeks
Hi Perceval,
I was going to write and suggest that there might be another meaning to 'i' in your original analysis. I was going to suggest that it is used in mathematics to denote Imaginary or Complex Numbers.
I see that you have now changed the equation in light of your error in the initial analysis to get Eulers Equation?
Great piece of work by the way! :)
9 June 2010
1 year 34 weeks
Of course everyone sees "pi" in the center.
Our beloved pi = 1.618
12 April 2007
7 hours 51 min
I always thought pi=3.14159...
I think you're confusing "pi" with "phi".
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie