jeremyjr

Thanks for the references, but maybe we are not talking exactly of the same concept, in the examples that you mentioned the "emergent" property is "explained/deducted" from the properties of the system elementary constituents, the "emergent" properties that I am talking about are "unexpected" properties of the system, and unexpected means in this case no explainable by the known properties of its constituents. Actually we do not need to take the whole Universe to talk about emergent properties, maybe "big" parts of it may have too emergent properties, like galaxies for example, that will place in a completely different light many things.

It is well known that "complex systems" may have "emergent" properties, properties that are associated to the system and can not be "explained/deducted" from the "simpler" properties of the given system elementary components, that is really like a new property/statement in an axiomatic system that is independent from the axioms in the system, like the "parallel axiom" in Euclidean geometry. One example of these emergent properties in complex system is the self organization tendency of complex carbon based chemical compounds/soups, likely the primordial property that is behind the genesis of life, similar self organization tendency had been found in complex plasma. Then if in these subsystems of the Universe emergent properties are present it is not a great leap to assume that the Universe will have too "emergent" properties that can not be derived from its elementary constituents, even with a complete understanding of these elementary constituents, which is far from being the case.

Even Mathematics itself has its limits, creativity and intuition does not have this limitation, there is essentially no new paradigm in String Theory, it is basically the OLD expectation of unification and the recurrent use of the OLD recipe of quantization. No new physics really. History of science also teach us that when many generations try to solve a problem following more or less tha same path and fail, that could be an indication of something deeper being missed, the genesis of non Euclidean geometries come to mind, also the Goedel's incompleteness theorems come to mind. If even any sufficient complex mathematical model is intrinsically incomplete, because always we can find statements expressed inside that model that are improbable withing the model, then the same will not be true for the more complex of all possible models: reality?

Everything that I will ever post in this forum is driven by what I observe almost in a daily basis, and that is the reality of anomalies. With posts like this I am trying to explain why mainstream science had been unable to deal with that reality and the String theory case is just one example of the prevailing detachment from reality in academia and scientific circles. Some people are just happy to devate platonic models of reality with zero testable predictions but they refuse to even try to verify the reality of something extraordinary that is being observed almost daily worldwide and I personally observe now almost in a daily basis. In my eyes that shows a deep systemic problem.

And actually your perspective is the one that shows a very weak "scientific spirit": you "believe" that a theory like String Theory that do not have any testable predictions is a "valid" physics theory of reality, that is the very definition of taking something on "faith", again being mathematically rich do not make it a successful physics theory, the fact that this theory is/was the one with more theoretical physicists working on it only makes it "fashionable" nothing more, and the argument "no all these physicists could be wrong" is really very weak, history of science shows multiple examples where the majority opinion was wrong and actually that is almost always the case. So you take the validity of String theory as a model of reality on faith, but as in other cases that you are referring indirectly in your post when presented with observational results that you can duplicate you refuse to accept these results, is that really a scientific approach? And the same approach is taken by many, this approach lead to a detachment from reality and that is really part of the systemic problem in "science" today. I am very much for a scientific approach but one that keep us in real contact with reality, not approaches that keep a platonic dream running for more than 40 years with nothing to show and then very basic extraordinary facts are ignored just because they contradict mainstream ideas. And regarding the frequently used argument that String theory is a "tool" for the many mathematical results that had produced, that is really something "expected", any mathematical model when developed intensively will produce many new results that will interconnect with many other branches of mathematics and examples of that interconnections abound, Number theory being maybe one of the simplest examplest with interconnections with many other branches of Mathematics. So that argument used frequently to show the "strength" of String theory is really very weak.

You last paragraph is again one of your cover all generalizations, I did mention that String Theory is very rich as a Mathematics theory and Mathematics for your information is part of Mainstream Science, but I really believe that what you understand by science, that do not coinciide with mine, have systemic problems and String Theory is just one example of that. The fact that String theory is very rich from a mathematical point of view do not make it a successful physics theory and I recommend the two mentioned articles that provide further arguments in that sense. You think that as moderator in this forum you have "authority" in all topics but that is just an illusion as many of your other illusions about what is the scientific method, and please stay on topic and stop the personal attacks.

And this is not even "new", a simple search on Google will give some results from "serious" sources: "Forty Years of String Theory | Not Even Wrong": http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=5358 "String Theory Now on Life Support": http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2012/11/string-theory-in-deep-trouble.html String theory is the perfect example that shows that Mathematics alone is not enough to describe reality, that by the way answer a similar question as one topic in this section of this forum. Detachment from reality is a systemic problem in today "science" or academia, the String theory case is just the tip of the iceberg.

The lack of contact with reality is an almost sure recipe for failure for any theory that pretends to describe reality and today we have a perfect example of that failure in the scientific world in String Theory. A theory that Mathematically is very rich and had produced very deep results in various branch of higher Mathematics, but as a Physics theory of reality had been a failure. And the reason for that failure is clear: When compared with two great Physics theories of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity Theory we can see that the genesis of Quantum Mechanics was the synthesis of multiple and consistent observational/experimental data and in Relativity Theory was an outstanding analysis of our basic understanding of space and time supported too by multiple observational results. But String Theory genesis was a theoretical "accident" that did not have any conection with reality and from there many "maneuvers" have been done to keep the theory alive, but essentially no physics results of any relevance had been produced from String Theory that can not be obtained in simpler ways from more "standards" ideas. And after so many years with almost nothing to show that is the very definition of failure.

This actually plays perfectly in the "humanoid" view of ETs "promoted" by the classical ufology and by a continuous bombardment of the same idea on many entertainment outlets, but it should be clear that the evolutive history that lead to us is almost statistically impossible to repeat, so if in other places were life evolved, intelligent living being emerge these intelligent living beings will have a body structure completely different to us, but our limited experience makes us to see the world from a very "human" perspective. But right now many people around the world are observing autonomous objects in the atmosphere, anomalies, that appear to be able to move freely in empty space, so technically these anomalous objects are "extraterrestrial" organisms/objects, the structure of these objects is very far from anything that exist on earth, but they can be observed by anyone with the right tools. Imagine for a moment that some living beings on earth took a very different evolutive path from the living beings on earth that remained on the surface or very close to the surface, these living beings evolved in the atmosphere at very high altitude, this idea should not be surprising if you had heard about extremophiles, what will be the the body "structure" of these hypothetical living beings?

Objective, repeatable procedure to spot atmospheric anomalies. This will describe a method that can be used to observe objects located within the atmosphere that have an anomalous behaviour. We will be basing the procedure on the known fact that the sky scattering of visible light in daylight have a masking effect, the effect that makes the stars not visible in daylight normally, but it is known that this scattering decrease with the light wavelength, the reason why the sky is blue, so that scattering will be lower in the red portion of the spectrum but even lower if we move to the infrared or even the short radio wavelength, so observing the atmosphere in the red segment will increase the chances of detecting visually small objects in the atmosphere than if using the full visible spectrum, that chance will obviously increase if we do the spotting in the infrared segment, this is then the very concrete procedure: We are going to do the scanning in the infrared segment of the spectrum, specifically in the 850 or 950 nanometer segment, we need to use a standard 1/3 inch sensor size( 6 mm) security camera with the internal cutoff filter removed, this will enable the camera to be sensible to the near infrared spectrum, we need an optical magnification of around 20x, so we need to use lens of around 120mm focal length, from 90mm to 150mm will be ok, zoom lens that cover that range will also be ok. The 850/950nm IR pass filter can be placed in front of the lens or between the camera and the lens. Then in a clear sky in daylight we will scan the sky looking for objects not visible to naked eye with a cyclic glowing pulsation, in a clear sky in daylight we will be able to observe using this equipment the standard and expected objects: birds, bugs, airplanes, drones, balloons, bright astronomical objects like: venus, mars, jupiter, siriuos, etc, these bright astronomical objects can be spotted in IR but not with naked eye in daylight, except maybe if you know exactly where to look at, but many more objects are spotted using this equipment than just with naked eye. So we will be looking for objects not visible to naked eye with a cyclic glowing pulsation, on this equipment these objects usually will appear as just dots of bright light, the mentioned standard objects usually will have an almost constant brightness and will be easily identifiable using the equipment, but to each one of these suspicious objects we will be sending light signals using a mirror, a 12 inches by 12 inches mirror will be enough but the bigger the mirror the more visible will be your signal, try to use smart signals to differentiate your signals from the many random reflections that can be spotted from above, sequences of prime numbers could be such a smart signal. We have to be patient, this may last several sessions, but sooner or later one of these glowing pulsing objects will respond, the response will be a flare/increase in brightness such that the object will become visible with naked eye, that response will show you unequivocally that this object is not one of the standard, expected objects because none of these standard objects will respond that way. So at this point you will know that there are real anomalies in the sky, and you will know that without even seeing the structure of these anomalies, their anomalous character is independent of the possible structure or appearance that they may have, please remember this last statement: The object is an anomaly independently of its possible structure/shape/form. Now to observe the structures of this anomalies you can place an optical telescope aligned with the infrared camera, using a normal camera to be able to record the optical appearance of these anomalies, the telescope/camera combination should have an optical magnification in the range of 150x. You will be amazed with the structures that you will observe in these anomalies, but that is reality and the only thing that remains to be done is to study these objects in detail.

I am using the phrase "on faith" in the correct sense: "to be willing to believe something without proof" and it is very common to be used to means that in scientific/academic discussions, so I really do not see the point of your entry. What is "important" or not really is a matter of "taste" and many times of "fashion" and is really very hard to define.

Actually I just did with the post that you are referring to, my point is that if a very "ideal/simple" model as the Natural Number can not be described with a finite set of axioms because always there are going to be properties of the Natural Numbers that can not be deducted from any finite set of axioms for the Natural Numbers, then a more complex model as Reality is will have even stronger limitations in the possibility of describing it completely by a finite set of principles. Now some aspects of Reality are evidently amenable to that "almost complete" description using a finite set of principles, and I used almost completed in quotation marks because it should be also evident that no finite set of principles will describe "completely" any aspect of Reality as the History of Science clearly shows.

First you can not tell me what to do(I will ignore you when you do that), we can speak about dark matter because you accept that on faith, but I don't, and then we can not speak of anomalies because you do not accept that and I do ( that I do not take on faith because I had seen them with naked eye and instruments)? Symmetry is a beautiful concept and it appears that you do not have a real sense of that. Anything that you have not seen with your own eyes or experienced by yourself and you accept is by definition taken on faith, just for your information, we take on faith many things at many levels, in scientific terms we strive to minimize what we take on faith. If, as you do, the scientific circles have ignored an aspect of reality, that many know is there as a fact because they have experienced that personally, me included, what guaranty do we have that the scientific circles, with you included, had not ignored other aspects of reality using the same deeply wrong mentality? Is not that an indication of a systemic problem? Is not that an indication that the "scientific methods/procedures/mindset" that have been in use and have been unable to deal with one aspect of reality are wrong?

If an ideal system/model as the natural numbers do not have a finite complete recursive/algorithmic axiomatic system it will be very naive and simplistic to expect that the Universe/Reality that as a model is a lot more complex than the Natural Numbers will have a finite set of principles that describes it completely. That is one of the more fundamental/philosophical implications that the Gödel's incompleteness theorems have from my point of view.. Have you gathered the evidence for dark matter? If not you are taking that "evidence" on faith, how many people have really gathered that evidence? Very few really, anybody else is taking that "on faith". Now I agree with you "That cannot be just ignored. It needs to be explained", but relatively many more people had gathered direct evidence for anomalies, order of magnitude more than for dark matter, and the evidence have been direct, and I am talking just about the many recorded clear footage of anomalies that already is in the number of thousands, and as for dark matter: "That cannot be just ignored. It needs to be explained".

The general tendency to "reduction to general principles", that sometimes is identified with "understanding" not always works. For example many "emergent" properties of complex systems can not be explained by "simple" principles, because like a new independent axiom in an axiomatic system these new emergent properties can not be deducted from existent simpler principles/axioms. Like for example the self-organization tendency of complex carbon based compounds or the similar self-organization tendency of complex plasmas. There is something deeply wrong with a mind set that accept "on faith" the existence of something like ether( the 1900's luminiferous ether) and now dark matter, with only indirect evidence like the indirect evidence existent to infer the "reality" of ether, and the same mind set being unable to accept the reality of extraordinary new phenomenon like the reality of anomalies, many people in this forum are clear exponents of that mind set. I would call that mind set the simplistic/dogmatic world view. It is the world view/mind set that pretend to reduce everything that is observed to simpler principles and the mind set that is unable to see "new physics/new facts" on the result of direct observations.

The Gödel's incompleteness theorems apply to any consistent set of axioms for the Natural Numbers. If the Universe is not a finite set( some models of the Universe consider the possibility of everything: space/time to be quantized at the Plank scale: see http://academics.hamilton.edu/physics/smajor/Papers/read_guide.html , if then the number of these "cells" is finite then the Universe will be a finite set) then the Universe will have a subset that can be in a one-to-one correspondence to the set of Natural Numbers, then formally there is not finite, consistent set of axioms that will allow to fully describe the formal properties of that subset of the Universe. There always be some properties that will be indescribable but any formal set of axioms. My claim part also of the philosophical position that Reality can not be reduced/described completely by simplistic/ideal theories, reality is always far richer than any imagined theory. There is a fundamental/intrinsic difference between reality and its models. Even when the axiomatic approach to science have been an outstanding achievement and the level of axiomatization of a given area of science is used as a measure of how advanced is that science or aspect of science, the simplistic/reductionist way of thinking in many people lead to ignore sometimes very subtle and not so subtle aspects of reality, many times these aspects of reality are almost evident but people are unable to see them because the simplistic/dogmatic/reductionist approach is deeply rooted in them.

If you have some background in physics or you read with some frequency popular scientific articles you sure had hear about a so called "Theory of Everything"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything), some physicist think that a set of equations, beautiful equations, can describe "in principle" all fundamental forces in nature, some even try to write equations that describe the "Universe" as a whole, equations that pretend to give an idea of the evolution past, present and future of the real world where we live. Let me point out that I am not against the never ending struggle to fully understand in its fine details each natural phenomenon that is relevant to us in any way, many marvelous results we already have that fully justify that. This is about the impossibility in principle of the so called "theories of everything" or the extremely speculative nature of theories that pretend to describe the Universe as a whole. It is a well known mathematical result that relatively simple axiomatic theories are always "incomplete"( see the Gödel's incompleteness theorems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems), this means in simple terms that any attempt to describe completely a relatively complex model axiomatically is bound to fail because always there are going to be true, or false statements about that model that can not be described by that axiomatic model, and no matter how many times we "extend" the axiomatic model with new axioms but the resulting axiomatic system will be still "incomplete". When you read some physics articles and/or writings many times you get the feeling that the author do not make a distinction between the real world and the model used to describe the real world, many implicit assumptions about the real world are never fully disclosed. For example many models of the Universe assume that the Universe is homogeneous, or that the speed of light is a constant all over the Universe, etc. All of this implicitly is making an identification of the Universe with some ideal, platonic model of the real Universe. Then "theories" are build not of the real Universe but of the ideal, platonic model of the Universe that we have identified with the real Universe. Then we start talking about "Universal Physical Laws" pretending that these laws are true in the real Universe, but really these are laws for an ideal model of the real Universe. Our experience, all our scientific confirmed results are eminently "local" in space and time, the Universe is vast in dimensions and time, expanding this "local" experience beyond its confirmed applicability is in essence speculation, we could be lucky and get some remarkable results, but as any person that had done any numeric extrapolations knows as we go far beyond the points of references we should expect deviations from the forecast and the real values. One "classic" example of that could be "inferring" the existence of "dark matter" from the observational results of very far galaxies.

So we are talking about video data here and we can not use any video sample? or any still/frame image for that matter? Now responding to this "If you look beyond your Galileo complex, you might see that nobody is denying your video exists", is not that disrespectful? Are you not abusing your position as moderator in here to do that and very likely delete any "in kind" answer to that insult? Again you are wrong, deeply wrong and in the more basic scientific way. You have failed to made a simple meaningful analysis of the evidence presented here and effectively you are censoring a topic that you really do not understand, your lack of basic understanding and preconceptions is crystal clear. But that will not stop anything, this is just one more public forum of the many available out there to spread the truth about reality that you are trying very hard to deny, your really are living in delusion and denial.

Your are completely wrong with that, many video feeds are really with very poor quality, at night very grainy too and even with these conditions these security people that I deeply respect make usually right decisions. Today many medical procedures are done using video feeds, many internal organs problems are detected by a correct analysis of minimal details. Making a generalized allusion to "Mylar balloons" is very simplistic and shows clearly the lack of any serious analysis on your part, let me tell you that you are absolutely wrong, time and more evidence will show that and I will not stop here using any angle to show that your position is untenable unless you banned me from this site, that of course will not deter me either.

It appears that some people here in this site do not believe that video data is enough to make any scientific consideration, that video data is not even enough to merit any further study of something for which there is only video data. The security people monitoring many video feeds 24/7 may disagree with that assessment, many life and death decisions are taken using exclusively that kind of data, but for this people video data is insufficient to make any kind of actionable "decision". I would like to hear your opinions regarding that: Is video data enough to make any "scientific" consideration?

We are very happy to accept "optical" data as evidence for many things that we never had physical contact with: very far galaxies, stars, etc. Astronomy is based on that kind of observational data. That is the kind of data that we have for anomalies, and the amount already available is really amazing, you just have to look for them. As I had repeated multiple times these are not really isolated "anomalous" occurrences, anomalies are being observed almost in a daily basis all over our planet, as they usually are "small" and bright they are masked by the sky scattering of visible light like the stars are in daylight. Nobody can deny that the sky scattering of visible light have a "masking" effect and by using tools that minimize this effect new things will be visible that were not visible before, assuming what you will see is really unscientific, it will be similar to assume what you will see through a telescope or through a microscope and that is what many people here are doing. By bypassing the sky scattering of visible light anomalies will be more easily spotted in daylight: by scanning the sky using short radio waves(radar) or in infrared many more objects are spotted in a clear sky in daylight in the atmosphere, many of these objects are anomalies, their number is astronomical just in the atmosphere. This is an observational claim for which there is already plenty of "optical" data, and anybody independently can verify that, asking for "extraordinary" evidence beyond that optical data is really unrealistic and "unfair" considering all other facts that we accept as real for which there are only optical data. The very basic claim here is that anomalies are not "mundane" objects, we are not making any claim on what they are, for that further study is needed and that study is lacking, with these postings we are trying to increase the general awareness about an extraordinary phenomenon that can be observed by anyone and which have been and continue to be ignored and dismissed by "scientific circles" in a very unscientific way. The only scientific approach here is to make independent observations and to give this the attention that it requires. Addition: Let me point here that anomalies could easily be "mundane" objects in the sense that they appear to be part of our ecosystem, maybe they are a new species that have been generally unknown until now, very likely these objects always have been here, like many species of animals on Earth that continue to be unknown to us, in that sense they are very much "mundane". Addition #2: By using the word "unnatural" to label the claim that an object is morphing/shape-shifting/with dynamic geometry, even without realizing it, right there on the use of that word "unnatural", in this context, there are a lot of embedded preconceptions: It is assumed that we know everything that is "natural/real" and then by that "unnatural knowledge" we are able to discern what is not "natural/real", then morphing/shape-shifting anomalies are not natural/real because we know everything that is natural/real.

Since anomalies can only, for now, be observed using optical means, (soon I will have a X-band radar system working in the setup), the only data that I can provide is optical data, visual/video data, asking for something else is really unrealistic and unreasonable. By blocking open discussion of this topic the moderators in this forum are effectively acting as sensors in a topic that continue to be taboo and where the pervasive attitude seen here only perpetuate the current "social deadlock" regarding the reality of anomalies. Extra links to full tracking footage is provided in the footage and also to some segments taken with the second telescope of the dual system of this amazing morphing object, these morphing features are very natural because they are real, reality is independent of anybody expectations or preconceptions, the fact that this is very hard for some people to accept is really irrelevant, unnatural is the resistance to accept something for which there is overwhelming evidence.

I consider this entry as a follow-up to a previous thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85807-the-reality-of-atmosphericnear-space-anomalies/ As was mentioned on that thread what are presented here are observational claims about the existence of non mundane autonomous objects that can be observed consistently in our atmosphere. As I have been unable to have physical contact with any of these objects, they usually move at high altitude, what I can present here are the result of direct observations where the "anomalous" nature of these objects is more "evident". The following footage was recorded 10/17/14 at 5:20 pm EST, as I mentioned in the previous thread I use a dual optical system to do atmospheric observations. This systems have a spotter/finder section that works in the infrared portion of the spectrum, by working in the infrared portion of the spectrum the sky scattering of electromagnetic radiation is lower compared to the visible portion of the spectrum and then its "spotting" capabilities are higher, aligned with the spotter section a medium size telescope is placed that allows the optical observation of the object being tracked by the spotter section. The first section of the footage was taken with the spotter section, this section contains azimuth, elevation data, also real time timestamps are provided. In the footage you will be able to observed clearly that this objects is self-luminous, that it changed shape/morphs in many different configurations, no ordinary object will be able to do that. The second part of the footage was taken with a telephoto(refractor) scope and it is in black and white. There is also footage in full color taken with a reflector telescope that will be published later today. To me this is another compelling footage that shows clearly the existence of non mundane autonomous objects inside our atmosphere: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBl4UXf8WDQ As I mentioned many times before, these are not isolated occurrences, similar objects can be, and should be, observed independently by anyone that use the right tools to observe these objects. In any possible "discussion" about this I ask to stick with this footage, that is what is being presented here, plenty of details to "analyze" in this particular footage and if anybody have a "mundane" explanation for this I am more than willing to hear about that. Already many cases like this exist, delaying the full attention and study in great detail of these manifestations is getting beyond a point that can be easily explained.

What your non-existent experience doing atmospheric observation and analyzing video footage makes you believe as an "obvious" misinterpretation is really not the case to me, again, concentrate on the footage that I had presented here, going out of these cases for the "easy picks" is really not a very compelling or honest inquiring approach. But let me tell you that even on these "easy picks" you really are falling on your own trap, but I do not want to go off-topic, so again: stick to the footage that I had presented here. I had already mentioned that it will be enough to have one case, just one, to have a compelling reason to make further studies, at least I see it that way at a personal level, once I witnessed one case that I can not really explain to myself using mundane explanations, that automatically compel me to make further studies, but I already have many, many cases like that. As I already mentioned here too, the anomalies seen at night are the same ones observed in daylight, but the ones seen at night are the ones that are self-luminous or reflect ambient light. To get the best images of anomalies daylight is obviously the best option , but at night you can get a really quick glimpse of their presence, as I already mentioned, for that you do not need any sophisticated equipment, just a relatively strong and focused flashlight, no public funding is needed for that. And regarding "help", I really believe that I am giving you the biggest help that you ever had received in an academic general sense, even when you do not see it that way now.

I am sorry but without even analyzing your arguments, the basic logic is wrong: You are saying if you clearly made a mistake in this case, then very likely you are wrong in all cases. When you use this kind of inference rule in your arguments, as good trained inquisitive minds that we are, you have to be consistent using it, Logic is Universal, so by applying now this inference rule Universally we are going to get in real trouble, for example this inference rule will disqualify any result from anybody that ever made a mistake, that basically will disqualify the results of everybody. Debunking is not easy when done properly, so far, I am sorry to say it bluntly, I have not found here any serious debunking, nobody so far have been up to the task. Again, please stay on topic and lets concentrate with the cases that I had presented here. If you want to be in the "debunker role" that is really fine, and I am really looking for "good opponents", but you should do better than what you have offered so far. Even when I enjoy good arguments and debates, that is not my goal here, my goal here is to motivate enough at least one person in such a way, than that person will pass from the "talking" phase and move to the "doing" phase. Let me repeat again that this is something that you do not need to take on faith. Endless talking will really not make anomalies go away. I already mentioned that observational data is king, and consistent observational data across multiple independent observers reign supreme. If your ideas, theories or world view are in contradiction with this consistent observational data you need to start thinking in changing your ideas, theories or world view. In here, to independent thinking people, only one scientific option is available: Independent observation of anomalies. Anybody doing that independent observations will verify the reality of anomalies and that will be an eye-opening experience. All other people that continue making "academic excuses" simply are taking the same attitude as the Cardinals in Galileo's time.