jeremyjr

You got it wrong again, mathematical "proofs" are subject to reviews, many "proofs" have been found to contain "hidden" assumptions that of course invalidated the given "proof". "The extraordinary success" of "science" could be a myth, we really can not make any inferences from a sample of one. That also could be used and had been used to dismis methods or ideas that at a superficial look may appear to "contradict" scientific principles, that is usually how dogmatism manifest and some of this forum's post are text book example of that.

Even the concept of "evidence" is subject to interpretations many times. The same "type" of evidence that is regularly used to support many claims and observational facts in established fields could be "denied" validity in other areas where the claims made are a direct challenge to accepted ideas. The "old guard" will use any "technicality" to reject "evidence" of fundamentally new facts. Their views and positions will be "imposed" because usually they have "control" of the "communication channels" used to spread the new ideas. But when these new ideas or facts are on "solid" ground no amount of "opposition" from the "old guard" will stop their acceptance. These new ideas or facts when supported by "real" occurences will manifest in multiple ways and the "evidence" supporting them will be coming from multiple independent sources. It is like when a long lasting open problem in Mathematics gets solved for the first time, many more independent proofs will come later reaffirming the validity of the initial claim. But when that happens the opposing "old guard" already did its mark in the wrong side of history, that had already happened multiple times and that will happen again and again.

I had never claimed that, but many of you are making a good emulation of the Cardinals in Galileo's time. It is really telling that implications like this had been done, some people are unable to see themselves acting like the infamouos cardinals, but that is exactly what they are doing. Intellectual cowardice is very common in scientists and academicians, peer opinions have a strong influence on what could be pursued or not. Many are terrified of making serious research in taboo topics because that will be synonyms with professional suicide. That is one of the reasons that place a big wall in the way of many "crazy" ideas, there is plenty of cases documenting that.

As in many other cases you are wrong, no amount of evidence will "change" the "position" of established authorities in a given field. The fundamental element many times in the changes of positions on the "community" was really time and that the people making the strongest opposition to the new ideas got old or passed away. The idyllic view that many people try to give of scientists is far from reality, scientists are humans after all and act exactly like any other human beings, many times abusing their positions to impose their views and opinions. Suppression of new ideas in the scientific community is a well documented occurrence.

I had not mentioned the "taboo" topic but the censors/moderators of this forum had done that for me, thanks for that.

The notions that we accept today as "verified" by scientific methods are really amazing and we know that these notions had "evolved" with time. The very fact that these notions or worldviews had evolved with time implies that they are really not "definitive", they can change as previous notions had changed. These changes can be just small "adjustments" or could be very deep modifications of some of them, in that case we'll have a "revolution" in our world concepts. The history of science shows that it takes time for some notions to be of general acceptance. All these groundbreaking ideas always found strong resistance from the established social organizations of the time, in modern times Oficial Science is part of that established social organizations and it also had offered resistence to ideas or notions that questions the "accepted" worldviews. Many examples exist of this resistence, usually in the form of superficial dismissal from "recognised" experts, the opinions of these "experts" usually was accepted without any critical analysis for the "scientific community" at large. These are some known examples of that resistance/dismissal to "new" facts or ideas: - "Antoine Lavoisier, the science authority for eighteenth and early nineteenth century Europe and father of modern chemistry, assured his fellow Academicians in 1790, that meteorites could not fall from the sky as there were no stones in the sky (Milton,1996). In spite of first-hand reports of meteors falling from the sky, Lavoisier was believed." (1) - Wilbur and Orville Wright repeatedly demonstrated the flight capability of their invention, the airplane. Despite these demonstrations plus numerous independent affidavits and photographs from local enthusiasts as well, the Wrights' claims were not believed. Scientific American, the New York Herald, the US Army and most American scientists discredited the Wrights and proclaimed that their mechanism was a hoax. Noted experts from the US Navy and from Johns Hopkins University decried "powered human flight . . .absurd "(1) - I laughed till. . . my sides were sore." -Adam Sedgwick, British geologist in a letter to Darwin in regards to his theory of evolution, 1857.(1) - Of Edison invention of the light bulb this is what an "expert" have to say: Edison's claims are 'so manifestly absurd as to indicate a positive want of knowledge of the electric circuit and the principles governing the construction and operation of electrical machines.'"-Edwin Weston, specialist in arc lighting.(1) - Alfred Wegener. This theory which Wegener developed in 1915, contended that the earth's continents had once been a single mass of land which later drifted apart. Although Wegener carefully cataloged geological evidence, his American and British colleagues ridiculed both him and his idea.(1) - "The energy produced by the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine." Ernst Rutherford, 1933 (1) And the list can continue for a long while ... This very forum in a very small scale is also a perfect example of how fast are people to dismiss ideas or facts in a very superficial way, even to laugh to some of these ideas or facts, but already Goethe said: "Men show their character in nothing more clearly than by what they think laughable." (1) Cognitive Processes and the Suppression of Sound Scientific Ideas.

I want to comment in the clear "tendency" of associating some anomalies sightings with spiritual/religious meaning, even some "paranormal" phenomena. Before Alchemia was replaced by Chemistry there was a whole mix of hard facts with many "esoteric" recipes, all of that was "simplified" when the scientific method was applied consistently in that area and Chemistry was born as a real scientific discipline. Exactly the same will happen in the area of anomalies studies, the history of science shows clearly that the world is amenable to understanding, even when anomalies had shown some things very hard to "explain" that only implies that our current knowledge of the world is very limited, but that will change with time and a systematic effort trying to unravel the misteries of anomalies. The scientific method is our more solid tool to understand the world and we should stick to it.

The easily veriable fact that you can get a "response" from these polymorphic objects using mirror signals is really amazing. Even more extraordinary is the fact that some of these polymorphic anomalies will take shapes correlated to the signals sent to them. So these objects are "messages" in themselves and you can get a reply back from them, not by using multi-million dollars Radio-Telescopes dishes, but just simply using mirror signals, a "low-tech" way to send signals in daylight that have been used for thousands of years, how ironic life can be!!

It is in one of my previous posts, that should not be hard to find, it is based in the "reaction" of anomalies to direct light signals in daylight or at night, that reaction that is a "flare", a extraordinary increase in brightness that will make the anomaly not visible to naked eye in daylight becoming visible like a very bright star in daylight, that reaction is unequivocally an "anomalous" reaction that no "normal" object in the sky will make, that kind of reaction can be witnessed by anybody, and with very modest equipment the "structure" of these anomalies can also be observed. And yes be wary of the words mentioned before, I had never mentioned them but it is hard for me to understand people that continue to make the wrong implications.

Once that simple verification is done, observations that can be done by a child with little supervision, then when the reality of anomalies is internalized anybody will realize that almost everything learned at school and currently being teached at any major University in the world regarding reality and the Universe needs to be placed under revision. Maybe childs are more "ready" for this reality, they still have fresh minds and had not been "corrupted" by the pervasive dogmatism at all levels in any educational system. Some people had mentioned "scientists", having a "scientist" job title and being a scientist are two different things in the same way that Science and Oficial Science are two different things. The more these simple verifications are delayed and the acknowledgement of this reality gets delayed the harder will be the "damage control" that will have to be done after the fact. Every day more evidence is accumulating and more people are aware of this reality, unfolding events can get out of hand, but no a single word is coming from Oficial Science or Academia.

There is absolutely nothing stopping people from verifying by themselves the reality of anomalies, very concrete and objetive procedures had been spelled out in this same forum to do that. But something "internal", a "conditioning" is stopping them from actually do that simple verification. Denying observational claims without even doing a try to duplicate these observations is very far from any scientific spirit, but that is exactly the reaction almost always from "highly" educated people. Is not that an indication of something wrong with that "education"?

Is "education" at all levels fundamentally flawed? The reality of anomalies place a big question mark in many things, independently of their ultimate nature: living entities, manifestations of higher life forms or something entirely different. One of the immediate implications of that reality is the complete failure of the educational system worldwide, it is really telling the fact that it is almost a mathematical rule that the "highest" the educational credentials of a person it will be highest the probability of that person rejecting irrationally the reality of anomalies, it is like the "system" had conditioned these people to reject that reality. What good can be such a system that conditions people to be blind to fundamentally new facts? The extreme failure of that system is expressed by the continual dismissal of that reality by its highest exponents: Academia and Oficial Science.

The "active deniers" of this reality here are really in a very bad spot, they are denying something that they had not even tried to observe independently by themselves. How can you that and then claim that you are a follower of the scientific method is beyond comprehension to me. As somebody that had observed hundreds of anomalies, witnessed many times their response to direct light signals I can not understand that irrational reaction. To me they are "hiding" behind their preconceptions, they are unable to even consider the "hypothetical" possibility of this to be real, as educated men we should be able to "play with ideas". As people that pretend to be curious about reality we should be open to anything that reality bring to us. Complacency should not have any space in scientific thinking, but many people act as if everything on earth and sky is fully known, the reality of anomalies clearly show that they are mistaken. With this many people here have the very rare opportunity of knowing something extraordinary before it is "accepted officially", but for many something is not "real" until that happens.

Real debunking is not easy, it has to be specific to the case that is under consideration, if your debunking approach is "generic" then you may risk that the given method could be used to "debunk" an accepted scientific fact,that clearly will show that your debunking approach is flawed. And that is the case with the "clay method" used by tar, I have to use Galileo's case again not only because I admire him but because many people here are acting in the same way that the Cardinals refusing to look through the telescope. These cardinals, the Inquisition would had been very happy using the "clay method" to explain Jupiter's moons. No need to look through any telescope, what you say it can be seen through it can be "explained" easily using the "clay method", moons rotating around planets??!! what nonsense is that! Plenty of similar examples exist. Many people fail to learn the lessons from the history of science. Hopefully some people here will be really curious, with real scientific curiosity, and will go beyond the "talking" phase and will try to witness something for which there is no explanation, something real and marvelous, once somebody do that no "debunking" argument will have any "teeth", when something is real any idea or theory trying to deny that is unscientific even if that idea is expressed by an "expert" with a Novel Prize.

This was an object in fly, and just for your information in our sky there clouds and when an object moves in such sky with the sun shining the lighting conditions will change. A "balloon" in fly will never behave like "clay" modeled by hand, your "scientific method" is a mockery of reality. Many anomalies have dynamic geometry, they show amorphous configurations, in this particular case the changes in geometry are generating also changes in the object topology. Some "explanations" exposed here show the characteristic contorted way of trying to explain fundamentaly new facts and show clearly to people that know beyond any doubts this reality how flawed are these "methods", when these methods fail even to recognize the reality of something easily verifiable then such methods can not be scientific. Still people here wants to identify "oficial science" with science, they are not the same. Science is not "owned" by any group or institution. The failing of many of these organizations to acknowledge something that many people with no academic formation have been observing in a regular basis should be an indication of a systemic failure. I am defending science, the real one, the one that will try unconditionally to study reality even if new facts contradict established worldviews and ideas. Footage for this recording can be easily found online, curious people will have not trouble finding it, it was published in three separate parts. The reality of anomalies can be confirmed easily, and let me repeat that we do not know what they are, some people here are making inferences that I never did. One of my posts in this forum explain a repeatable, objetive way to do it and is based in the many times observed reaction of anomalies to direct light signals, that kind of reaction is an unequivocal indication of their "anomalous" character. If you want to witness something extraordinary nothing is stopping you from that, only preconceptions and mental paralysis are stopping you.

Tar, I am not "attacking" science in any way, I am questioning the approach of many people that had claimed to follow a scientific method and that is something completely different. Many times I had mentioned the ideas and struggles of the great men of science, that had always been an inspiration. But "Science" and "Oficial science" are also two different things. The continual dismissal of "manifestations" observed consistently around the word and easily verifiable is just a manifestation of that attitude taken by many people that claimed to be following a scientific approach, which clearly is far from that. In the eyes of people that had witnessed this many times, in my eyes, these people are just retrograde because they are dismissing out of hand something extraordinary that their formation and way of thinking is unable to accept as real, but it is very real. Continuing with the subject at hand, these are more frames of this "balloon" that during fly appears to change its surface topology, always in a fluid way: Some people will try very hard to provide "contorted" arguments trying for a "way out" or "explaining away" what is seen in the frames. But no balloon in fly will be able to that.

Certainly science never was done by trying to set the boundaries in the "methods" to "correctly" do science. Reality is so rich and unpredictable that restricting or defining the methods to understand it will only hampers the efforts to do that. Ironically people that took upon themselves the role of judging the correctness of methods to do science usually never did any actual science themselves, "talking" about science is a far cry from the very act of actually doing it. The active dismissal of repeatable and verifiable observational claims without even a try to repeat these observations is very far from being scientific, many people here are doing exactly that and later say that they are following a "scientific" approach, it is clear then that there is a "gap" between what they say and what they do. But historically that "reaction" was always the one took by people that were "defending" in retreat the established worldview when confronted by new facts and ideas that put in danger their cherished worldview, that is always an irrational reaction to the incomprehensible and a reflection of fear to the unknown or new. Oficial science and Academia will be FORCED to acknowledge the reality of these manifestations sooner or later even if that is not of the liking of some people. The name used to label these manifestations is really irrelevant. Oficial science and Academia had placed themselves in this area in exactly the same retrograde position that the Church placed itself when the heliocentric ideas were spreading in some scientific groups. But many of these people that today are irrationally and actively denying this reality that they had not even try to witness will inmediately change their "positions" respect to it if some of the "high priests of science" make statements acknowledging this reality, that is because they always "follow" the lead of others, act on "cue" or follow what is "fashionable".

It is really relevant my "endgame"? Why not try to understand what is presented in these pictures? This "balloon" was visible to naked eye moving below cloud level, definitely not trash. But this "balloon" took many shapes always in a cycle, curiously ( and fascinating by the way ) the shapes of digits 3 and 5 were always present, the whole changes in shapes appear to be in function of presenting these two shapes in a fluid way, and the running footage clearly shows that. Science is full of examples where video and images are used in a constant way. Many new elementary particles were discovered just as a shadow of a path in a film emulsion. I think that you should update your ideas about science and history of science before giving such final "judgmental" statements.

Strange this is another sequence of frames with fractions of seconds between each frame where no turning is present: Sequence#5: Of course watching the footage in slow motion all of this will be very clear. Let me repeat that all of these frames are from the same "balloon", in the following sequense of "near" frames(frames with fractions of seconds between them) a "clear" change in topology can be seen when the balloon open in a fluid way a closed "loop". Sequence#6:

You could be right, but in sequences #1 and #2, for example, the "balloon" does not appear to be turning. Thanks for your feedback.

You are absolutely right Bignose, I am trying to understand the topological properties of the surfaces of balloons in fly, this is not even "speculative", but I posted in this section of the forum to be on the "safe side", no need to be "defensive". As an extra illustration of the transformations that a "balloon" can have in fly, these are sequences of frames with fraction of seconds between them, and by the way this was taken with a standard Nikon p600 camera that anybody can have. Sequence #1: Sequence #2: Sequence #3: Sequence#4: Let me add that all of these images are from the same "balloon" in a recording of a few minutes.

Non topologically equivalent orientable surfaces in R3 The classification of all closed orientable smooth surfaces in R3 is a very well known result, the genus (or equivalently its Euler characteristic EC) of the smooth surface determine completely the equivalent class, the very first cases for that classification are: the sphere (EC 2), the torus (EC 0) and the double torus (EC -2), this is an image representing the three: image-01-non-equivalent-surfaces.jpg The fact that these closed surfaces are not topologically equivalent means that there is no homeomorphism ( a one-to-one smooth application(transformation) ) in R3 that can transform or map one into the other, in particular as rotations, dilations/contractions are particular cases of homeomorphims no finite composition of rotations with dilations/contractions will be able to transform one into the other. For illustration purposes if these surfaces are "elastic", like rubber, then no local expansion or contraction of that elastic material without tear will transform one surface into the other. Lets see then some examples of surfaces that are equivalent to each one of these classes: - Surfaces topologically equivalent to the sphere: a cylinder with end caps and a three dimensional model of digit 3, like in this illustration: image-02-sphere-equivalent.jpg - Surfaces topologically equivalent to the torus: a deformed torus with a glued deformed sphere, like this illustration:image-03-torus-equivalent.jpg - Surfaces topologically equivalent to the double torus: two deformed double torus, like this illustration: image-04-double-torus-equivalent.jpg This may look like a "trivial" remedial that can be found anywhere online, and you are right up to this point. The surface of a latex balloon, or a foil balloon can be considered to be subject to homeomorphic transformations while the balloon is in fly and had not burst, then how can we explain that an observed "balloon" took the last shapes in each one of the images 2, 3 and 4 that are not topologically equivalent?, the ones in this illustration: image-05-non-equivalent-surfaces.jpg This object can not be a "balloon" it is something else.

But from time to time "simple" observations of reality shake the worldview foundations of academia, that is happening right at this moment, that shake is even more "unacceptable" when the given simple observations are done mainly for people with no academic ties, but these consistent observations that can be duplicated by anyone place a big question mark on the ideas of the theoreticians of the moment and actually is an indication of a deep system failure. I feel sometimes elated to really be able to witness this reality almost in a daily basis and knowing that even providing the means to duplicate these observations to people with supposedly high education they will be unable to even try, that actually give me an "edge" on them because my "reality" is wider than their "reality", they are unable to perceive mine but I can easily perceive anything that they may claim. That is part of the current detachment from reality everywhere in academia, theoretical thinking not always is ahead of experiment or observations because simple atmospheric observations are currently beyond any understanding or framework provided by current scientific thinking that is one of the reasons for the enormous "resistence" to even acknowledge that.

Mentioning "emergent" properties I am trying to imply that maybe there is no possible connection, at least not in the way that is pursued today, between the "small" and the "big" because the great scale structures of the Universe maybe "emergent" in the sense mentioned above this of course is speculative, but we are precisely in that section, but the speculative character of that idea is not more than the multiverse or compact non observable dimensions that are the common lingo of string theorists, in that respect many aspects of string theory are really wild speculations. Detachment from reality is the word. Addition: It is frequently mentioned that there is a gap between theory and experiment in physics, meaning that theory is always far ahead, but that is trivially true when experiments are designed almost exclusively to "validate" a given theretical framework or idea and that is the rule in experimental physics.

I thought that the edit in previous post was not going to affect the discussion, and I added a paragraph mentioning galaxies and mentioning that the emergent properties that you mentioned are not exactly the same that I am talking about.