Compendium of anomalies

A collection of articles from science journals. Many have been used for threads here but a quick search revealed no thread discussion about the website or books themselves.

The sourcebook project publishes science frontiers. The home page of which is here.

I see anomalies as a great way to stretch paradigms and get people to question their preconcieved notions or beliefs. The focus should be more on the things we cannot explain because that can direct us to where our current explanations/theories may be lacking. Many anomalies im sure may have been flaws in experimental procedure, but if they all are then their shear number says there may be something wrong with the standard of carrying out the scientific method. If so much as one anomaly is the real thing then it highlights where we may be wrong, and where we are wrong is the focus for evolution of understanding. When anomalies contradict deeply held, rigorously, repetitiously tested theories once they are ignored but as they begin to mount a plausible case for there being a flaw in our understanding or judgement arises. It may be that previous theories accuratly predict and explain expected phenomena but is not a complete understanding and so inevitably observations arise that shoudln't. In my own field (engineering) I noticed many "patches" being written to cover the holes, equations becoming ever more complex to cover varying observations under different bounds, but never a rethink of the entire approach. The extrapolation or interpolation of understanding/theory approach is used to incrimentally stretch explainable range, never a blind fresh start.

So this thread is about gathering anomalies together in concise format to see just what the case for the "other side" is. I feel some, maybe most, of todays science will be proven wrong hundreds of years in the future and thats the beauty of it, its dynamic and ever so exciting. So please share any compendiums or collection of anomalies you have. The link I have givin is mostly older ones, and the rate of anomaly observation seems to be accelerating rather than declining due to theory expansion, suggesting misdirection of approach.

As well as anomalies themsevles I'd also welcome suggestion or speculation as to the main areas of science that may be flawed, and why. Rememeber in the past many revolutionary theories dont go down too well at first, but if its where the evidence takes us then so be it. Also heaps of defence of current theories is already out there on the web, so try being collaborative with a possibility exploration, try guess what will be tought differently in schools in 50 years time based on anomalies or observations that cant be explained satisfactorily at present. Now while im not a scientist, maybe other members who are can comment on this, the reductionist notion that interdisciplinary communication between highly specialized experts is insufficient to provide the whole, may not work but maybe a more holistic approach is needed.

So bring on the anomalies

Here are 13 from New Scientist

reply to post by polarwarrior

I'm a firm believer in the paramountcy of science, but as you say, it is in the anomalies that we see the shortcomings in our understanding of the world around us. Which is why that is where the fun is!

S&F for you, and I will be following this thread with interest.

you see, he's a lumber jack, and hes ok...i think this thread will be great...

reply to post by polarwarrior

I do note that the link goes to a compendium of anomalies...available for purchase. But from the listing, I see some that have been adequately addressed. Still, what is important is the final conclusions...and all too often a mystery gets tied to a dubious 'answer' that ends up muddying the waters even more. I cite Von Daeniken as a prime example.

We must not ignore the equine adage "Don't step in that, Wilbur..."

Originally posted by GBP/JPY
you see, he's a lumber jack, and hes ok...i think this thread will be great...

Very funny ... but JohnnyCanuck drinks Screech ... so he don't wear girly clothing that's for sure ... thank you Monty Python we miss you so much

Back on topic, the article from New Scientist is very interresting, also from New Scientist ... Controversial pieces of evidence for extraterrestrial life

A list of some anomalies from Wiki

Will stay tuned to this one.

edit spelling and add the wiki link (for what it's worth)

[edit on 19-3-2010 by grandnic]

Originally posted by LightFantastic
Here are 13 from New Scientist

That's a great article and I don't have to pay $18+ to read it like the one referenced in the OP. Someone will win a Nobel prize when they figure out some of those anomalies. Some of them I was quite familiar with but there were a few I'd never heard of before, like the one showing that the apparent quackery of homeopathic treatment may actually have some effect, though I think I will need to read the actual research paper instead of the new scientist summation of it to grasp the actual findings.

It was a fascinating read, thanks for the link.

Hey Cool thread this one. Though I dare say we will soon have a skeptics take on these articles soon enough. Because surely how could a lumberjack be such an erudite individual.

Originally posted by Epsillion70
Hey Cool thread this one. Though I dare say we will soon have a skeptics take on these articles soon enough. Because surely how could a lumberjack be such an erudite individual.

You're certainly not going to have the folks here with science degrees disputing the New Scientist list. They're all pretty solid, and pretty interesting. I can't speak for others with other beliefs. However, the "we would like to see the documentation and factss" crowd should be satisfied with the list.

reply to post by Byrd

Exactly. The cases I'm familiar with are very solid anomalies. Some that I'm not as familiar with I'll have to research a bit more but so far I see no reason to doubt them, except as I said I wonder if the homeopathic testing might be flawed somehow, but I believe they got the results they claimed. From just the information in the new scientist article, I'm not sure how they ruled out some variation of the placebo effect, for example.

What you WON'T find the skeptics doing, is claiming that because the explanation for the anomaly is unknown, that aliens must have done it because we can't think of any other explanation (as sometimes people claim if we can't explain a UFO, it must be alien).

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Well, to be fair you can't prove aliens didn't do it either. And the rule is: If you can't prove it wasn't aliens; it was aliens.

I really like that list, some interesting new ideas in there. The rest I already knew about. The aliens did it. As for the placebo effect, that is easily explained by the magical healing properties of saline.

Hope this thread fiills up with new ideas(to me). I joined this forum specifically for things like this.

I will contribute the Bloop to the discussion, which although probably done by aliens, has always interested me.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 20-3-2010 by garritynet]

I found this most interesting.

"10. 2004, A mysterious radio signal is received by the SETI project on three occasions - from the same region of space

In February 2003, astronomers with the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) project, used a massive telescope in Puerto Rico to re-examine 200 sections of the sky which had all previously yielded unexplained radio signals. These signals had all disappeared, except for one which had become stronger.

The signal - widely thought to be the best candidate yet for an alien contact - comes from a spot between the constellations Pisces and Aries, where there are no obvious stars or planets. Curiously, the signal is at one of the frequencies that hydrogen, the most common element, absorbs and emits energy. Some astronomers believe that this is a very likely frequency at which aliens wishing to be noticed would transmit.

Nevertheless, there is also a good chance the signal is from a never-seen-before natural phenomenon. For example, an unexplained pulsed radio signal, thought to be artificial in 1967, turned out to be the first ever sighting of a pulsar."

I would think though, that if it was an advanced civilization, it would contain some kind of code (binary? I just don't know) that would distinguish it from a natural phenomenon? What kind of codes/signals do we send out? (apart from whatever leaks out from our normal communications)

[edit on 20-3-2010 by amazing]

Originally posted by garritynet
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Well, to be fair you can't prove aliens didn't do it either. And the rule is: If you can't prove it wasn't aliens; it was aliens.

Oh you're right, I forgot, there are two sets of rules, the rules scientists use that say you can't prove a negative, and the ATS rules which say you must prove a negative or it must be true.

I will contribute the Bloop to the discussion, which although probably done by aliens, has always interested me.

en.wikipedia.org...

That's an interesting one. I don't have any proof, but I listened to the sound, and having previously done work in undersea geology, I immediately thought of an undersea release of gas bubbles. Then I found the skeptoid link and was pleasantly surprised to see that asking the exact same question:

skeptoid.com...

But when we listen to the sounds subjectively, it's easy to hear that the Finback has a clear voice-like tone, while the Bloop simply sounds like bubbles. Quite different.

And I can think of half a dozen phenomena off the top of my head for which I couldn't find recordings or spectrograms, that might be good candidates to explain the Bloop. What about undersea releases of natural gas bubbles?

I have to agree with him on that possibility, on the slim chance that it might not be aliens making that sound. If I were going to research the origin of the bloop sound, the first thing I would do is try to find recordings of undersea gas bubbles being released and compare those to the bloop sound to look for similarities. Apparently Dunning looked but was unable to find such recordings.

So I guess we can't rule out aliens, an unknown whale 10 times the size of the blue whale, or the underwater release of gas bubbles as possible sources for the bloop sound, among others. I didn't see a lot of people besides Dunning considering that last possibility however which surprises me since that's sort of what it sounds like, bubbles. Not only that, but the intervals the sound was heard at could also be consistent with certain types of pressure release cycles (think along the lines of Old Faithful in Yellowstone, though many other geysers are much more irregular in their intervals). But something tells me that even if Dunning and I made a lucky guess about the gas bubbles, we won't win the Nobel prize for that one. No, I must explain something a little more mysterious, like dark energy, to get the Nobel prize

There are quite a few other interesting sounds that bloop page links to also.

Top 10: Controversial pieces of evidence for extraterrestrial life:

10. 2004, A mysterious radio signal is received by the SETI project on three occasions - from the same region of space

@amazing, that last item #10 is interesting. There have been some isolated transmissions we've made but I don't think professionals are doing it on an ongoing basis, nor do I think we should until we have some type of planetary defense network established, better than what we have now. ETs might be friendly and hopefully are but to assume that MUST be true for all aliens seems like a flawed assumption. So I think we should keep quiet for now, or at least not leak out any more transmissions than we already are.

The Anomalist is a daily review of world news on maverick science. As well as a descent daily update there are some interesting pieces in their archives.

Also,
Anomaly Archives is the lending library of the scientific anomaly institute.

And,
Top 10 Bizzare medical anomalies

Also although youd have to pay to get the hard copy of link in OP, they list 2100 on the site already and the important thing is that they reference the journal article so one can just do a database search and bring up the original full scientific report rather than the condensed version they would give you in the books. This allows one to see if they have been cherry picking from reports in a biased way.

Originally posted by garritynet
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

The aliens did it. As for the placebo effect, that is easily explained by the magical healing properties of saline.

How about the placebo test where saline replaced morphine and worked like morphine to the recipients. Then the antidote to morphine was added to the saline and then failed to work!

New Scientist

Originally posted by LightFantastic

Originally posted by garritynet
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

The aliens did it. As for the placebo effect, that is easily explained by the magical healing properties of saline.

How about the placebo test where saline replaced morphine and worked like morphine to the recipients. Then the antidote to morphine was added to the saline and then failed to work!

New Scientist

That actually the article I was talking about. I was kidding about the healing power of saline.