Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 119

Thread: Paranormal Research

  1. #1 Paranormal Research 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    35
    I'd like to get some opinions from scientists regarding paranormal research. Being that many 'ghost hunters' hypothesis that afterlife entities exist as a state of energy, it stands to reason that this energy can therefore be perceived, measured, and recorded. I myself have attempted two investigations, which lead to the gathering of some interesting audio recordings. It seems to me that what prevents paranormal research from being more scientifically developed is the fact that most evidence found seems to be inconclusive (that is, the evidence can often be explained away). I have discussed this area with some scientists, most of whom deny the existence of paranormal activity, however, their reasoning has always been based on conjecture. These scientists frequently cite an inability to obtain conclusive data which can be reproduced in a lab, then tested and retested. I'm interested in knowing your thoughts on these topics, especially from the scientists out there. Cheers~ 1970SSHardtop


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    If the evidence is inconclusive, it isn't evidence.

    I have discussed this area with some scientists, most of whom deny the existence of paranormal activity, however, their reasoning has always been based on conjecture.
    No, their reasoning has always been based on a complete lack of evidence. The conjecture is that the paranormal exists.


    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,429
    Your reasoning is flawed, just because something is hypothesised does not mean it can be perceived, measured or recorded (I hypothesise you have a gremlin on your shoulder -- what do you mean you can't perceive or detect it, it stands to reason it is there by your logic). The inability to provide reproducible, objective evidence means as far as science is concerned it doesn't exist. That's pretty much how science is defined, if you don't like this, that's fine but you can't call what you are doing science. If you abandon the need for objective, reproducible results it is at best pseudoscience at worst exploiting peoples gullibility...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by 1970SSHardtop View Post
    Being that many 'ghost hunters' hypothesis that afterlife entities exist as a state of energy, it stands to reason that this energy can therefore be perceived, measured, and recorded.
    Um, no.
    Simply because someone has a hypothesis does NOT mean that "it stands to reason" x is true.
    In other words that "energy" is postulated, there has been NO method put forward so far that perceive, measure or record it.

    I have discussed this area with some scientists, most of whom deny the existence of paranormal activity, however, their reasoning has always been based on conjecture.
    On the contrary, those who promote/ support the idea are the ones working on conjecture.
    For the simple reason that there is:
    an inability to obtain conclusive data which can be reproduced in a lab, then tested and retested.
    Dammit! Ninja'd.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    35
    Right, I see your point. However, my point was that energy can be measured (in light waves, current, etc.). I agree with you totally that without reproducible and objective evidence, no hypothesis can be advanced into a proven theory of science. This is probably why I brought the topic up ...in order to get some ideas about how conclusive evidence might be obtained through reproducible experimentation. I don't put forth any hypothesis about it really (except that energy is involved), however, concepts such as the 'Conservation of Matter' in Chemistry seems to relate. For example, when water becomes vapor, the same elements remain, but in a different state of matter. Certainly you would admit that the nervous system in homo sapiens involves electrical current (as when being passed between the synapses). Where does this electrical current come from? And where does it go when the body dies? Questions like that are of interest to me from a scientifically-minded viewpoint. Thanks for your response by the way. Cheers~
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by 1970SSHardtop View Post
    Certainly you would admit that the nervous system in homo sapiens involves electrical current (as when being passed between the synapses). Where does this electrical current come from? And where does it go when the body dies? Questions like that are of interest to me from a scientifically-minded viewpoint. Thanks for your response by the way. Cheers~
    The energy in a human body has to be generated - consumption of food. It's not a set amount that's "just there".
    When you die you stop producing energy.
    It's like asking "where does the energy in a dead battery go?", or, perhaps, more appropriately "where does the energy in my car go when the petrol tank's empty?"
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 1970SSHardtop View Post
    Being that many 'ghost hunters' hypothesis that afterlife entities exist as a state of energy, it stands to reason that this energy can therefore be perceived, measured, and recorded.
    Um, no.
    Simply because someone has a hypothesis does NOT mean that "it stands to reason" x is true.
    In other words that "energy" is postulated, there has been NO method put forward so far that perceive, measure or record it.
    Thanks for your input. An EKG or ECG will do exactly that for a living organism. An electrical field detector will do the same.
    Dammit! Ninja'd.[/QUOTE]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by 1970SSHardtop View Post
    An EKG or ECG will do exactly that for a living organism. An electrical field detector will do the same.
    After death?
    Really?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    35
    Another point I'd like to bring up is that one scientist denied the possibility of ghosts because "You can't have dog ghosts. You can't have alien ghosts. You have to have someone who has died under tragic circumstances ..." These kinds of statements do not refute anything scientifically. Besides, I never told him that there was no such thing as a dog ghost, or an alien ghost.
    Another scientist refuted the paranormal by saying that On this earth, people have died almost anywhere you go at some point. There are few spots on the planet where a person has not died. So why then is it only at haunted spots (like a haunted house) where these so-called ghosts exist?" Again, he was assuming that the 'ghosts' are not present everywhere, and that they only use one specific spot to 'haunt.' This is all conjecture, used as evidence to disprove the paranormal ...no evidence that can be measured or reproduced comes into it when they refute the existence of the paranormal in this way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 1970SSHardtop View Post
    An EKG or ECG will do exactly that for a living organism. An electrical field detector will do the same.
    After death?
    Really?
    I think you're referring to ATP generation in the body upon consumption of food. That is one form of energy. When a battery dies, its energy has been depleted through transfer, such as when a radio is being operated. So that energy is used up. But, if there is other forms of energy within the body, as seen with aura imagery, that energy has not been depleted yet. It has to go somewhere. If you stand next to a transformer, you can feel the static electricity in the air. It has not gone away right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by 1970SSHardtop View Post
    Another point I'd like to bring up is that one scientist denied the possibility of ghosts because "You can't have dog ghosts. You can't have alien ghosts. You have to have someone who has died under tragic circumstances ..."
    Link please.

    Another scientist refuted the paranormal by saying that On this earth, people have died almost anywhere you go at some point. There are few spots on the planet where a person has not died. So why then is it only at haunted spots (like a haunted house) where these so-called ghosts exist?" Again, he was assuming that the 'ghosts' are not present everywhere
    Er, was he assuming that?
    Ghosts (and the concomitant "haunted spots") are notable purely due to their rarity.

    This is all conjecture, used as evidence to disprove the paranormal
    One more time: the conjecture is ENTIRELY on the side of those pushing the claim.

    no evidence that can be measured or reproduced comes into it when they refute the existence of the paranormal in this way.
    Er, what?
    A lack of evidence for something that hasn't been shown to be actually happening somehow is an argument that it really is happening?
    How does that work?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    Another point I'd like to bring up is that one scientist denied the possibility of ghosts because "You can't have dog ghosts. You can't have alien ghosts. You have to have someone who has died under tragic circumstances ..."
    Who?

    Another scientist refuted the paranormal by saying that On this earth, people have died almost anywhere you go at some point. There are few spots on the planet where a person has not died. So why then is it only at haunted spots (like a haunted house) where these so-called ghosts exist?"
    Again, who said this. If you're quoting a 'scientist', name him.

    This is all conjecture, used as evidence to disprove the paranormal ...no evidence that can be measured or reproduced comes into it when they refute the existence of the paranormal in this way.
    So it's 'prove me wrong' time.

    Be careful, your agenda is poking through.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,429
    It doesn't have to be refuted, there is no objective, reproducible evidence, there is nothing to refute... As far as science is concerned it doesn't exist (unattributed quotes pro or con don't change this). This is a response to post #9, I got hit by a whole gang of ninjas...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by 1970SSHardtop View Post
    But, if there is other forms of energy within the body, as seen with aura imagery, that energy has not been depleted yet.
    Yeah, please:
    A) show that this "aura energy" is something OTHER than what is currently known.
    B) that it persists after death.

    And you haven't addressed my point.
    We CANNOT detect any energy after death.
    It's that simple.

    It has to go somewhere. If you stand next to a transformer, you can feel the static electricity in the air. It has not gone away right?
    What?
    Turn off the transformer (i.e. stop any input) and where then does it go?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    35
    [QUOTE=Dywyddyr;580153]
    Quote Originally Posted by 1970SSHardtop View Post
    "where does the energy in my car go when the petrol tank's empty?"
    It gets transferred to heat, which drives the pistons. Once its used up it is still there in the form of heat, until it is transferred again. My point was that its merely a transfer in the state of matter which occurs. At least, that is one hypothesis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by 1970SSHardtop View Post
    It gets transferred to heat, which drives the pistons. Once its used up it is still there in the form of heat, until it is transferred again. My point was that its merely a transfer in the state of matter which occurs. At least, that is one hypothesis.
    You appear to have missed the point.
    When the tank's empty there is no more energy.
    The energy that was there (up to the point of emptiness [death]) has already gone.

    In other words if you - or anyone else - is claiming that the "energy from humans" is what makes a ghost why aren't we producing ghosts continuously from everyone?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 1970SSHardtop View Post
    But, if there is other forms of energy within the body, as seen with aura imagery, that energy has not been depleted yet.
    Yeah, please:
    A) show that this "aura energy" is something OTHER than what is currently known.
    B) that it persists after death.

    A) I don't understand the question really, but I think I know what you're driving at. In any case, there is evidence of some sort of charge in 'aura' imagery.
    B) It does not persist after death. It must therefore, have been used up, or it has transferred into another state. But if the body is dead, its not using that energy,
    so its likely that it is transferred somehow ...into what I don't know.


    And you haven't addressed my point.
    We CANNOT detect any energy after death.
    It's that simple.

    Sorry, I'm using bold letters because I don't know how to using the quote function on here yet. Anyway, right there is no detectable energy in the body once it has died. So, my point was that that energy would have to go somewhere, or be transferred somehow into something else.

    It has to go somewhere. If you stand next to a transformer, you can feel the static electricity in the air. It has not gone away right?
    What?
    Turn off the transformer (i.e. stop any input) and where then does it go?
    -I'm not an electrical engineer, but to me that's an interesting question ...I just tried to Google an answer ...I'll look into it, but one engineer on a site was saying simply that the energy would then become "lost" (whatever that means). This is something else I just found ..."So the short answer is that the energy we encounter and use everyday has always been with us since the beginning of the universe and always will be with us. It just changes form all around us. That is called the law of conservation of energy." I'll check it out some more and get back ...good question.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by 1970SSHardtop View Post
    A) I don't understand the question really, but I think I know what you're driving at. In any case, there is evidence of some sort of charge in 'aura' imagery.
    Yep, it's called corona discharge.
    And has not been shown to be anything "unusual".
    It's a result of the energy produced by a human body from the intake of food.
    There's zero evidence that there's an "aura" from a dead body with no energy input.
    Which means that, as an "explanation" for ghosts it's a non-starter.

    So, my point was that that energy would have to go somewhere, or be transferred somehow into something else.
    Exactly the same place it goes while we're alive and producing it continually: into heat (mostly) sound etc.
    We "emit" energy constantly. That emission tails off when we die (stop metabolising) because we're not producing any more.

    -I'm not an electrical engineer, but to me that's an interesting question ...I just tried to Google an answer ...I'll look into it, but one engineer on a site was saying simply that the energy would then become "lost" (whatever that means). This is something else I just found ..."So the short answer is that the energy we encounter and use everyday has always been with us since the beginning of the universe and always will be with us. It just changes form all around us. That is called the law of conservation of energy." I'll check it out some more and get back ...good question.
    No, you missed the point.
    If there's no input then there's no "static electricity in the air to feel".
    It is therefore meaningless to ask "where has it gone?" because it's simply not being produced and thus CANNOT have "gone" anywhere.
    (I never owned a pencil and I can't find it. Where has it gone?)
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    I think you're referring to ATP generation in the body upon consumption of food. That is one form of energy. When a battery dies, its energy has been depleted through transfer, such as when a radio is being operated. So that energy is used up. But, if there is other forms of energy within the body, as seen with aura imagery, that energy has not been depleted yet. It has to go somewhere. If you stand next to a transformer, you can feel the static electricity in the air. It has not gone away right?
    By a wide margin it all ends up as heat.
    --
    And the way the OP is framed assumes there's an "afterlife," when there's absolutely no hint of empirical evidence to suggest there it is anymore than superstitious gobbly gook.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I think you're referring to ATP generation in the body upon consumption of food. That is one form of energy. When a battery dies, its energy has been depleted through transfer, such as when a radio is being operated. So that energy is used up. But, if there is other forms of energy within the body, as seen with aura imagery, that energy has not been depleted yet. It has to go somewhere. If you stand next to a transformer, you can feel the static electricity in the air. It has not gone away right?
    By a wide margin it all ends up as heat.
    --
    And the way the OP is framed assumes there's an "afterlife," when there's absolutely no hint of empirical evidence to suggest there it is anymore than superstitious gobbly gook.
    That is your opinion, is it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by 1970SSHardtop View Post
    no such thing as a dog ghost
    Um, actually I once encountered a ghost cat.
    Walking home one late night (or possibly, and more likely, early morning) from the pub I saw a stunning, almost glowing, white cat running down the road.
    It was completely silent and seemed to flow rather than run.
    It took me quite a while to catch up, but I did manage to get my hand near enough to touch it.
    And then, when it turned round and tried to bite me, I realised that it was actually an ermine.
    Quite disappointing in a way, really.
    (In that it wasn't a ghost, but it was the first time I'd ever seen a stoat in its winter coat).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    opinion, is it?
    Your spell checker needs fixing.
    It got "fact" wrong.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I think you're referring to ATP generation in the body upon consumption of food. That is one form of energy. When a battery dies, its energy has been depleted through transfer, such as when a radio is being operated. So that energy is used up. But, if there is other forms of energy within the body, as seen with aura imagery, that energy has not been depleted yet. It has to go somewhere. If you stand next to a transformer, you can feel the static electricity in the air. It has not gone away right?
    By a wide margin it all ends up as heat.
    --
    And the way the OP is framed assumes there's an "afterlife," when there's absolutely no hint of empirical evidence to suggest there it is anymore than superstitious gobbly gook.
    A lack of evidence does not disprove anything. I don't know where superstition comes into it. Superstition, obviously has no place in science.
    There is evidence of afterlife in the form of energy measurements, as with electronic field detectors. The law of conservation of energy seems to have something to do with any kind of afterlife, if in fact it does exist. I have also made audio recordings which could possibly indicate paranormal activity, and audio waves are one form of energy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    Perhaps this should be moved to Alternative theories.

    Or the trash.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I think you're referring to ATP generation in the body upon consumption of food. That is one form of energy. When a battery dies, its energy has been depleted through transfer, such as when a radio is being operated. So that energy is used up. But, if there is other forms of energy within the body, as seen with aura imagery, that energy has not been depleted yet. It has to go somewhere. If you stand next to a transformer, you can feel the static electricity in the air. It has not gone away right?
    By a wide margin it all ends up as heat.
    Thanks for the comment. Its my understanding that energy can transfer into a number of forms, including but not necessarily limited to thermal/heat ...energy can also transfer into sound waves, chemical, radiant and lightwaves, electrical, atomic/nuclear, mechanical, and potential/kinetic states. Either way, my point was that when a person dies, they have energy (say even metabolic stored energy, just that alone if not other types), which must be released even after death. The brain waves can continue using electrical energy, even after the heart stops. This is why in order to technically pronounce a person dead, they use brain wave patterns (I think). For example, a person is alive one second and breathing ...the next breath requires energy in the form of ATP (or metabolic energy). If the heart stops, breathing stops, and the ATP that would have been used up in the next breath, would not have been used. So it has to go somewhere ...yes likely in the release of body heat. However, if other forms of electrical energy exist in the body as well, then that energy that is there at the time of death would have to be transferred out of the body (see my previous statement about the Law of Conservation of Energy). So, this release of energy is what I'm talking about.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Perhaps this should be moved to Alternative theories.

    Or the trash.
    I'm not presenting any theory. Just discussing energy and its transfer mostly. I know a lot of scientist don't like these kinds of discussions, but I by discussing the scientific evidence (if there is any) then there is nothing alternative about it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Supposed this undefined, unproven "spirit" exists, does it have mass?

    If it doesn't have mass, it wouldn't be affected by gravity.
    If it isn't affected by gravity, then the combined motion of the Earth's rotation (1,000 mph),
    Earth's orbit of the Sun(66,000 mph), the sun's orbit of the galactic center (515,000 mph),
    and movement of the Milky Way galaxy through the universe (1.3 million mph) would prevent anyone from seeing a spirit at a location where some living organism expired.
    That point in space-time where that organism died, is millions of miles behind.
    Therefore if you were to "see" a spirit radiating from a corpse, it would be a blur.

    If it has mass, use a Dyson vacuum to trap it so we can perform some experiments.


    How Fast Are You Moving When You Are Sitting Still?


    Great Attractor
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by 1970SSHardtop View Post
    A lack of evidence does not disprove anything.
    Correct.
    But you appear to be ignoring the fact a lack of evidence means there's nothing to investigate.

    I don't know where superstition comes into it.
    Really?
    You don't think that "ghosts" and "life after death" are superstitions?
    Superstition is the belief in supernatural causality—that one event leads to the cause of another without any natural process linking the two events—such as astrology, religion, omens, witchcraft, prophecies, etc., that contradicts natural science.
    (Wiki).

    Superstition, obviously has no place in science.
    And yet here you are, pushing this agenda...

    There is evidence of afterlife in the form of energy measurements
    Nope.
    None whatsoever.

    The law of conservation of energy seems to have something to do with any kind of afterlife
    Utter bull.

    I have also made audio recordings which could possibly indicate paranormal activity
    Yeah.
    Maybe should check what else they could be indicative of.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by 1970SSHardtop View Post
    I know a lot of scientist don't like these kinds of discussions
    I wonder why...

    but I by discussing the scientific evidence (if there is any) then there is nothing alternative about it.
    Oh wait, you just admit you don't know if there's any scientific evidence.
    How then can it be science?
    It's not science until there's evidence.
    If it's not science it's (at best) "alternative".

    Edit: append to that last sentence the words "when presented as science". Otherwise someone's going to take me task and say "But art isn't science..."
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by 1970SSHardtop View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Perhaps this should be moved to Alternative theories.

    Or the trash.
    I'm not presenting any theory. Just discussing energy and its transfer mostly. I know a lot of scientist don't like these kinds of discussions, but I by discussing the scientific evidence (if there is any) then there is nothing alternative about it.
    It's not a theory. It's not even a working hypothesis or even rise to the level of reasonable conjecture or informed speculation. A discussion of energy dissipation of a dying body is well within the realm of science; specifically forensic science. Furthermore there's no evidence that there's anything other than what happens with other large mammals after they die...a large dog or small pig for example. Connecting it in anyway to "afterlife" or any other supernatural mythological term is completely unfounded and somewhat irrational--that's where you'll loose many scientist.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; July 15th, 2014 at 08:35 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Supposed this undefined, unproven "spirit" exists, does it have mass?

    If it doesn't have mass, it wouldn't be affected by gravity.
    If it isn't affected by gravity, then the combined motion of the Earth's rotation (1,000 mph),
    Earth's orbit of the Sun(66,000 mph), the sun's orbit of the galactic center (515,000 mph),
    and movement of the Milky Way galaxy through the universe (1.3 million mph) would prevent anyone from seeing a spirit at a location where some living organism expired.
    That point in space-time where that organism died, is millions of miles behind.
    Therefore if you were to "see" a spirit radiating from a corpse, it would be a blur.

    If it has mass, use a Dyson vacuum to trap it so we can perform some experiments.


    How Fast Are You Moving When You Are Sitting Still?


    Great Attractor
    This spirit thing you speak of seems quite capable of remaining in a one to one relationship with the body possessed by it, so when the body dies why would it immediately become incapable of remaining in the locality?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 1970SSHardtop View Post
    I know a lot of scientist don't like these kinds of discussions
    I wonder why...

    but I by discussing the scientific evidence (if there is any) then there is nothing alternative about it.
    Oh wait, you just admit you don't know if there's any scientific evidence.
    How then can it be science?
    It's not science until there's evidence.
    If it's not science it's (at best) "alternative".

    Edit: append to that last sentence the words "when presented as science". Otherwise someone's going to take me task and say "But art isn't science..."
    Science can also look for evidence. Science precedes the evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    This spirit thing you speak of seems quite capable of remaining in a one to one relationship with the body possessed by it, so when the body dies why would it immediately become incapable of remaining in the locality?
    Are you saying it is forever bound to the corpse? If so, then there should be billions upon billions of "anchored" spirits. Correct? Yet, there is no evidence of this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    This spirit thing you speak of seems quite capable of remaining in a one to one relationship with the body possessed by it, so when the body dies why would it immediately become incapable of remaining in the locality?
    Are you saying it is forever bound to the corpse? If so, then there should be billions upon billions of "anchored" spirits. Correct? Yet, there is no evidence of this.
    Look at what I wrote. Did I say it was "forever bound"? No, I just pointed out you had no trouble with the idea it remain associated with the body during life, so why not in a locality after the death of that body? I have never experienced or have any real strong personal beliefs about ghosts so I don't profess to be an authority on the phenomenon.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Another point I'd like to bring up is that one scientist denied the possibility of ghosts because "You can't have dog ghosts. You can't have alien ghosts. You have to have someone who has died under tragic circumstances ..."
    Who?
    -Since this is a public forum, I'd rather not mention his name. It was a private conversation. I will say that he is a science Professor from UC Berkeley.


    This is all conjecture, used as evidence to disprove the paranormal ...no evidence that can be measured or reproduced comes into it when they refute the existence of the paranormal in this way.
    So it's 'prove me wrong' time.

    Be careful, your agenda is poking through.
    OK ...point taken. Obviously a scientist will begin with observations, and then form some sort of 'idea' or hypothesis, which then needs to be scientifically tested and re-tested under controlled conditions. As I said, in the past I have personally made some field observations (peculiar audio phenomena recorded). I don't think its solid to come at it with a yes or no preconceived notion at all, because that is clearly not science. If there is observer bias on my part regarding these observations, I have made no claims about them. I simply said they are peculiar, and worthy of conducting further investigation and testing. Cheers~
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by 1970SSHardtop View Post

    OK ...point taken. Obviously a scientist will begin with observations, and then form some sort of 'idea' or hypothesis, which then needs to be scientifically tested and re-tested under controlled conditions. As I said, in the past I have personally made some field observations (peculiar audio phenomena recorded). I don't think its solid to come at it with a yes or no preconceived notion at all, because that is clearly not science. If there is observer bias on my part regarding these observations, I have made no claims about them. I simply said they are peculiar, and worthy of conducting further investigation and testing. Cheers~
    So you have taken some measurements and feel there are sounds recorded, so you'd need to determine the source of the sound. INTERESTING.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    ...The inability to provide reproducible, objective evidence means as far as science is concerned it doesn't exist. That's pretty much how science is defined, if you don't like this, that's fine but you can't call what you are doing science. If you abandon the need for objective, reproducible results it is at best pseudoscience at worst exploiting peoples gullibility...
    -Excellent statement. Nevertheless, we first have to question things. When questions stop getting asked, there is no progress.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Look at what I wrote. Did I say it was "forever bound"? No, I just pointed out you had no trouble with the idea it remain associated with the body during life, so why not in a locality after the death of that body? I have never experienced or have any real strong personal beliefs about ghosts so I don't profess to be an authority on the phenomenon.
    What you said inferred some type of attachment:

    This spirit thing you speak of seems quite capable of remaining in a one to one relationship with the body possessed by it
    Look at what I wrote, you should re-read it. The OP postulates "spirits" as existing, possibly as some form of energy. There is no evidence of this. I never adopted the idea of a spirits being associated with a body. I questioned its possible existence as having no mass. The later posts of the OP suggests electrical and heat radiating from the body after death forming into spirits, yet provides no reason for these energies to develop some type of agency. It makes as much sense as the solar wind becoming sentient.

    Do you think these things exist, and if so why?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 1970SSHardtop View Post

    OK ...point taken. Obviously a scientist will begin with observations, and then form some sort of 'idea' or hypothesis, which then needs to be scientifically tested and re-tested under controlled conditions. As I said, in the past I have personally made some field observations (peculiar audio phenomena recorded). I don't think its solid to come at it with a yes or no preconceived notion at all, because that is clearly not science. If there is observer bias on my part regarding these observations, I have made no claims about them. I simply said they are peculiar, and worthy of conducting further investigation and testing. Cheers~
    So you have taken some measurements and feel there are sounds recorded, so you'd need to determine the source of the sound. INTERESTING.
    Yes, exactly. This is obviously quite difficult in a field test, such as in an outside urban area (a graveyard is where I did my recordings) ...audio contamination is an easy way to dismiss the observation. This is probably the key element which prevents the progression of valid testing of 'paranormal' audio observation ...they are often made in the field. Secondly, they are dependent on the proper functioning of the recording devices used. Now that you mention this, it makes me think that these sorts of audio observations might be recordable in a controlled audio environment (like a recording studio or someplace like that). I suspect that if this sort of audio phenomena does exist, it would not be limited to a haunted house or whatever.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    ~ Paranormal Research.. Nearly a thousand km., South of Australia where the ships bell was covered in a 60mm coat of ice.. and has a cloth stuffed into it.. You could only go outside for a short period as it was minus 35 deg c.
    Wintertime at these latitudes means it does not get lighter than night.. ( Dark as dark can be..) What I call astronomers dark.. Black and cold.. This night the sea was still and smooth.. A alarming calm.. for this location. Quiet and calm is VERY unusual. About nine men and two woman were in the mess, and sort of playing cards and telling tall stories of the sea.. and sharing a few drinks..
    When one of the bio science girls came up to the Captain and his 1 st.. and where I was..
    Where I was watching the sonar screens.. and listening for what was not there, whales .. and whale boats..
    " Hay did you's hear the bell ?" she asked.. "I've been outside and can here a bell.."
    Christopher the capt., moved closer to his surface radar screen and fiddled with it's panel and smiled.. "A Ghost Ship"
    " There's just us till Antarctica.." and the light caught his smile.. " There ain't no bell out there tonight.."
    Looking at me " Anything there ?" .."Nothing, not even a fish.." I offered..
    A hour passed when we went for a tea and coffee ( 10 pm.) and the lads asked if we had herd it.. " Nope"
    'Sing'., has gone to her bed sure we missed something.. they told us.. " She came in all white and worried..we sent her up to yas.."
    Chris nodded and smiled.. yes she did come Up.. but we were no help..
    ~ We are sure that no other vessel was within a zone that might be able to be herd a ships bell.. No whale boats. No fishing fleet vessels.
    Nothing. Yet a few days later 'Sing' asked again.. about the bell..
    The mind can play some very strange games and sometimes it does not seem possible to be so fooled.. but that no bell of the R V Tangaroa sounded or could be sounded.. The bell is located on the fore deck port side of the Captains Walk.. just outside the door of the control bridge.. That night it was frozen solid with a rag stuffed into it.. No other vessel was near to us.. Our radar works out to 8 km..
    Nothing.. Sing is not convinced.. but we are.
    Stories of the paranormal can only have credence when A; You can not see. or B; you are spooked by stories and alcohol.
    For 'Sing' both of these were true.. She is sure she herd a ships bell..
    I think it was a rope in the wind.. and 'she' was bit p-st...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by 1970SSHardtop View Post
    If there is observer bias on my part regarding these observations, I have made no claims about them. I simply said they are peculiar, and worthy of conducting further investigation and testing. Cheers~
    Your OP defines your bias; you discuss the afterlife and paranormal, and compound it with the inference that anything unexplained could be paranormal. It is both illogical and not scientific. A scientific approach would be to hypothesize about what's making the noise; than do testing to confirm or deny those hypothesis. Even if you can't find a natural explanation, it does absolutely NOTHING to support paranormal explanations; nor does it support the notion of an afterlife.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,429
    Excellent statement. Nevertheless, we first have to question things. When questions stop getting asked, there is no progress.
    Scientists (like myself) are constantly asking questions, the trick is to use the scientific method to avoid the stupid ones, you seem not to be able to work out which questions are worth asking or how to objectively answer them. Reading this thread this morning my woo-meter was in the red, if you want to believe in ghosts that's up to you but without evidence it isn't science, you obviously are pro-woo and I'll leave you to it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Look at what I wrote. Did I say it was "forever bound"? No, I just pointed out you had no trouble with the idea it remain associated with the body during life, so why not in a locality after the death of that body? I have never experienced or have any real strong personal beliefs about ghosts so I don't profess to be an authority on the phenomenon.
    What you said inferred some type of attachment:

    This spirit thing you speak of seems quite capable of remaining in a one to one relationship with the body possessed by it
    Look at what I wrote, you should re-read it. The OP postulates "spirits" as existing, possibly as some form of energy. There is no evidence of this. I never adopted the idea of a spirits being associated with a body. I questioned its possible existence as having no mass. The later posts of the OP suggests electrical and heat radiating from the body after death forming into spirits, yet provides no reason for these energies to develop some type of agency. It makes as much sense as the solar wind becoming sentient.

    Do you think these things exist, and if so why?
    It was this sentence that prompted my initial comment "That point in space-time where that organism died, is millions of miles behind.
    Therefore if you were to "see" a spirit radiating from a corpse, it would be a blur."
    Obviously you implied in this case the spirit stayed with the body till the point of death, but there after was unable to stay in that locality. I can't explain it more than that. It maybe just that you used a silly example.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 1970SSHardtop View Post
    If there is observer bias on my part regarding these observations, I have made no claims about them. I simply said they are peculiar, and worthy of conducting further investigation and testing. Cheers~
    Your OP defines your bias; you discuss the afterlife and paranormal, and compound it with the inference that anything unexplained could be paranormal. It is both illogical and not scientific. A scientific approach would be to hypothesize about what's making the noise; than do testing to confirm or deny those hypothesis. Even if you can't find a natural explanation, it does absolutely NOTHING to support paranormal explanations; nor does it support the notion of an afterlife.
    That is the question? Can he find a natural explanation?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    I like the way Roberttybob has this..
    A natural explanation may not be easy to find if you do not have all of the senses at your disposal.
    ~ What you can not see or hear or touch.. and that all to often a conclusion born of fear and the unknown..
    I have seen things in the dark I know were not there. I have imagined and feared that which did not exist..
    My pulse rate raced.. I felt uneasy.. I herd a sound, I could not see.. The Fear and a adrenaline boost..
    ~ but calm and common sense ruled my actions.. breath, relax.. walk back to the light.. and safety.
    Information is the tool of science.. Infrared camera's and motion sensors.. work better than my mind.
    Many years ago I expressed a fear of walking through a unlit cemetery.. It was my mother who told me.
    " Do not fear the dead.. It's the live ones that will hurt you." and because it was Mom.. it was right..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Senior pineapples's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Ireland someplace
    Posts
    359
    1970SSHardtop, what noises have you recorded?

    I recall from the Science Forum last year, a chap claimed he recorded “Reverse Speech”. He shared it on youtube and it was clear that Pareidolia or Apophenia was at play.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,809
    Ever notice that there are very few, if any, really clear photographs of ghosts/apparitions. When is camera technology going to do something about that? I'm tired of grainy snapshots. Let's see some real substance. Ghost pics are like Bigfoot pics....soft, smeared, and blurred.

    If I considered the search for the truth regarding ghosts, would it make more sense to have a person who doesn't believe in them conduct the research?
    Last edited by zinjanthropos; July 16th, 2014 at 04:44 AM.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Science precedes the evidence.
    You're suffering from some confusion.
    Until there is something (let's call it, oh I dunno, how about "evidence") to look at you can't do science.
    From Wiki:
    Science ... is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions.

    Knowledge requires something to be true (i.e. evidence is required).
    If there's no evidence there's nothing to explain.
    If you're "predicting" in the absence of any evidence then the more accurate (than "predicting") term would be "speculating wildly with zero basis or justification".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Science precedes the evidence.
    You're suffering from some confusion.
    Until there is something (let's call it, oh I dunno, how about "evidence") to look at you can't do science.
    From Wiki:
    Science ... is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions.

    Knowledge requires something to be true (i.e. evidence is required).
    If there's no evidence there's nothing to explain.
    If you're "predicting" in the absence of any evidence then the more accurate (than "predicting") term would be "speculating wildly with zero basis or justification".
    The scientists set up an experiment then they get the evidence i.e. the results and from that they gain knowledge. I still maintain the science precedes the evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    The scientists set up an experiment then they get the evidence i.e. the results and from that they gain knowledge. I still maintain the science precedes the evidence.
    And why do they perform experiments?
    Oh, it's to confirm, deny or add to evidence that is already available.
    If there's nothing whatsoever to work on (i.e. no evidence) then you don't do science.
    Due to the simple fact that without evidence (and therefore data) there's no reason to do an experiment.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    I think the duck is missing some logic.. which is OK as he's a duck.. --Squawk !
    ~ That the scientific principal is what we are talking of in the regard of testing, questioning, and challenging.
    It is of NO concern that zero factual and supported data is available.. That shortages of fact will be exposed by the adoption of the scientific principle.. I use science and thus dismiss ghosts and spirituality as unconfirmed and unscientific nonsense.. I file it as what we call woo woo.. The use of science does not imply I have all the information available..
    ~ but it does imply the want for a crisper definition of fact.. The want for test and experiment. Science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    The scientists set up an experiment then they get the evidence i.e. the results and from that they gain knowledge. I still maintain the science precedes the evidence.
    And why do they perform experiments?
    Oh, it's to confirm, deny or add to evidence that is already available.
    If there's nothing whatsoever to work on (i.e. no evidence) then you don't do science.
    Due to the simple fact that without evidence (and therefore data) there's no reason to do an experiment.
    This guy has sounds recorded so that is some artifact now there has to be the science applied to see where that sound came from, that is the science to find evidence.
    So yes the evidence was there originally too but the relationship between cause and event had not been established.
    E.g. you record sounds in a cemetery, you think they might be from a ghost. That is speculation, now you have to set up an experiment to eliminate other sources of the noise. You find the real cause, from your evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    This guy has sounds recorded so that is some artifact now there has to be the science applied to see where that sound came from, that is the science to find evidence.
    So yes the evidence was there originally too but the relationship between cause and event had not been established.
    Er wait.
    THE EVIDENCE WAS THERE ORIGINALLY.
    Your own words.
    You CANNOT do ANYTHING (especially science) until you have something to work on.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    I think the duck is missing some logic..
    Oh good.
    Show me where.
    (Unless you mean I don't understand Robbitybob's logic).

    ~ That the scientific principal is what we are talking of in the regard of testing, questioning, and challenging.
    And unless you have something (evidence would be a good word for that "something" 1) you can't test, question or challenge.

    1 Science comes in to find out what it's actually evidence of.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    This guy has sounds recorded so that is some artifact now there has to be the science applied to see where that sound came from, that is the science to find evidence.
    So yes the evidence was there originally too but the relationship between cause and event had not been established.
    Er wait.
    THE EVIDENCE WAS THERE ORIGINALLY.
    Your own words.
    You CANNOT do ANYTHING (especially science) until you have something to work on.
    Without the science the original evidence is more like an observation, an artifact, a blip on the screen, or whatever. Those observations have to be correlated with an event which causes it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Without the science the original evidence is more like an observation, an artifact, a blip on the screen, or whatever. Those observations have to be correlated with an event which causes it.
    The observations are an indication that something is there.
    Science works on those observations i.e. the evidence.
    If there's no observations (evidence) then you have nothing to which you can apply science.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Without the science the original evidence is more like an observation, an artifact, a blip on the screen, or whatever. Those observations have to be correlated with an event which causes it.
    The observations are an indication that something is there.
    Science works on those observations i.e. the evidence.
    If there's no observations (evidence) then you have nothing to which you can apply science.
    OK so that is about the same as I'm saying too.
    So the guy has got a sound. Apply the science to the sound. Find its source.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Masters Degree DianeG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    504
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Without the science the original evidence is more like an observation, an artifact, a blip on the screen, or whatever. Those observations have to be correlated with an event which causes it.
    The observations are an indication that something is there.
    Science works on those observations i.e. the evidence.
    If there's no observations (evidence) then you have nothing to which you can apply science.

    OK so that is about the same as I'm saying too.
    So the guy has got a sound. Apply the science to the sound. Find its source.
    Yes, "the source", and that's exactly the problem and why Dywyddyr is right. The trouble with paranormal research, such as investigations of ESP, is that conclusions are based on process of elimination - e.g. "There's no way this person could have this information that we can identify, so it must be......esp" And that's where it ends. Paranormal research never gets beyond that point. There never seems to be a way to design additional experiments that provide more detailed or descriptive insight into the mechanism or process - how it works. All new research in any area starts with a simple observation of some event or phenomenon, but then it generally progresses by manipulating certain variables - "Okay, we don't know what causes "X", but "X" happens when "Y" is also present, or never occurs when "Z" occurs,"etc. until they can come up with mechanism or a model that they can use to make testable, falsifiable predictions. That just doesn't seem to happen in paranormal research. But if you can come up with some good experimental designs beyond simple process-of-elimination proofs, I'm sure some scientist out there will listen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by DianeG View Post
    ....Yes, "the source", and that's exactly the problem and why Dywyddyr is right. The trouble with paranormal research, such as investigations of ESP, is that conclusions are based on process of elimination - e.g. "There's no way this person could have this information that we can identify, so it must be......esp" And that's where it ends. Paranormal research never gets beyond that point. There never seems to be a way to design additional experiments that provide more detailed or descriptive insight into the mechanism or process - how it works. All new research in any area starts with a simple observation of some event or phenomenon, but then it generally progresses by manipulating certain variables - "Okay, we don't know what causes "X", but "X" happens when "Y" is also present, or never occurs when "Z" occurs,"etc. until they can come up with mechanism or a model that they can use to make testable, falsifiable predictions. That just doesn't seem to happen in paranormal research. But if you can come up with some good experimental designs beyond simple process-of-elimination proofs, I'm sure some scientist out there will listen.
    I'd be surprised if it was myself who got into Ghost Busting. We'll just have to wait for what HardTop comes up with.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    ~ Paranormal Research.. Nearly a thousand km., South of Australia where the ships bell was covered in a 60mm coat of ice.. and has a cloth stuffed into it.. You could only go outside for a short period as it was minus 35 deg c.
    Wintertime at these latitudes means it does not get lighter than night.. ( Dark as dark can be..) What I call astronomers dark.. Black and cold.. This night the sea was still and smooth.. A alarming calm.. for this location. Quiet and calm is VERY unusual. About nine men and two woman were in the mess, and sort of playing cards and telling tall stories of the sea.. and sharing a few drinks..
    When one of the bio science girls came up to the Captain and his 1 st.. and where I was..
    Where I was watching the sonar screens.. and listening for what was not there, whales .. and whale boats..
    " Hay did you's hear the bell ?" she asked.. "I've been outside and can here a bell.."
    Christopher the capt., moved closer to his surface radar screen and fiddled with it's panel and smiled.. "A Ghost Ship"
    " There's just us till Antarctica.." and the light caught his smile.. " There ain't no bell out there tonight.."
    Looking at me " Anything there ?" .."Nothing, not even a fish.." I offered..
    A hour passed when we went for a tea and coffee ( 10 pm.) and the lads asked if we had herd it.. " Nope"
    'Sing'., has gone to her bed sure we missed something.. they told us.. " She came in all white and worried..we sent her up to yas.."
    Chris nodded and smiled.. yes she did come Up.. but we were no help..
    ~ We are sure that no other vessel was within a zone that might be able to be herd a ships bell.. No whale boats. No fishing fleet vessels.
    Nothing. Yet a few days later 'Sing' asked again.. about the bell..
    The mind can play some very strange games and sometimes it does not seem possible to be so fooled.. but that no bell of the R V Tangaroa sounded or could be sounded.. The bell is located on the fore deck port side of the Captains Walk.. just outside the door of the control bridge.. That night it was frozen solid with a rag stuffed into it.. No other vessel was near to us.. Our radar works out to 8 km..
    Nothing.. Sing is not convinced.. but we are.
    Stories of the paranormal can only have credence when A; You can not see. or B; you are spooked by stories and alcohol.
    For 'Sing' both of these were true.. She is sure she herd a ships bell..
    I think it was a rope in the wind.. and 'she' was bit p-st...
    Lovely prose ...harkens me back to my days working with the NSF in Antarctica (as a go-for with the construction crews) ...we all got pist at 1701 hrs, then up @ 0500.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 1970SSHardtop View Post
    If there is observer bias on my part regarding these observations, I have made no claims about them. I simply said they are peculiar, and worthy of conducting further investigation and testing. Cheers~
    Your OP defines your bias; you discuss the afterlife and paranormal, and compound it with the inference that anything unexplained could be paranormal. It is both illogical and not scientific. A scientific approach would be to hypothesize about what's making the noise; than do testing to confirm or deny those hypothesis. Even if you can't find a natural explanation, it does absolutely NOTHING to support paranormal explanations; nor does it support the notion of an afterlife.
    Are you saying that there is no point in formulating a hypothesis until it has already been proven as a scientific theory? If you want to prove or disprove the 'theory' that the world is flat, you gotta think and discuss the idea, and even mention it. Otherwise, how can any notion be examined. Your reasoning is flawed in my opinion, and seems to be based in something else other than science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Excellent statement. Nevertheless, we first have to question things. When questions stop getting asked, there is no progress.
    Scientists (like myself) are constantly asking questions, the trick is to use the scientific method to avoid the stupid ones, you seem not to be able to work out which questions are worth asking or how to objectively answer them. Reading this thread this morning my woo-meter was in the red, if you want to believe in ghosts that's up to you but without evidence it isn't science, you obviously are pro-woo and I'll leave you to it.
    Asking stupid questions is what science is all about. Because once these stupid questions have been thought through (via controlled testing), they might not seem so 'stupid.'
    How does one develop any hypothesis without first asking a stupid question anyway? I don't follow the reasoning here. In the end, a theory is just a hypothesis which has not yet been successfully challenged by a conflicting hypothesis (aka another stupid question).
    Last edited by 1970SSHardtop; July 17th, 2014 at 02:53 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapples View Post
    1970SSHardtop, what noises have you recorded?

    I recall from the Science Forum last year, a chap claimed he recorded “Reverse Speech”. He shared it on youtube and it was clear that Pareidolia or Apophenia was at play.
    I had to look that word up ...very interesting. I'd like to see the video. Was John Lennon involved?
    The Beatles Backwards - Reversed Messaging (Subliminal Illuminati References?) ORIGINAL - YouTube
    I just put the above link in because it was interesting, but most of these 'reverse speech' things need the added suggestion of written captions ...
    this is a technique used in TV 'Ghost Adventure' shows as well. I have audio recordings that are peculiar, and seem to be spoken words ...
    however, as I said before, testing would likely need to involve reproducible recordings in a sound-proof recording studio using precision recording instruments.
    If these paranormal voice phenomena exist, they likely can be recorded anywhere, not just in a 'haunted' house or a specific locus.
    Last edited by 1970SSHardtop; July 17th, 2014 at 03:09 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    The scientists set up an experiment then they get the evidence i.e. the results and from that they gain knowledge. I still maintain the science precedes the evidence.
    And why do they perform experiments?
    Oh, it's to confirm, deny or add to evidence that is already available.
    If there's nothing whatsoever to work on (i.e. no evidence) then you don't do science.
    Due to the simple fact that without evidence (and therefore data) there's no reason to do an experiment.
    -The evidence must first come from some kind of observation. You observe something ...you ask, wait a second ...etc. You're asking ...Why make any observations?
    I think there is some misunderstanding about the use of the word 'evidence,' as opposed to the word 'observation.'
    Last edited by 1970SSHardtop; July 17th, 2014 at 03:11 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by DianeG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Without the science the original evidence is more like an observation, an artifact, a blip on the screen, or whatever. Those observations have to be correlated with an event which causes it.
    The observations are an indication that something is there.
    Science works on those observations i.e. the evidence.
    If there's no observations (evidence) then you have nothing to which you can apply science.

    OK so that is about the same as I'm saying too.
    So the guy has got a sound. Apply the science to the sound. Find its source.
    Yes, "the source", and that's exactly the problem and why Dywyddyr is right. The trouble with paranormal research, such as investigations of ESP, is that conclusions are based on process of elimination - e.g. "There's no way this person could have this information that we can identify, so it must be......esp" And that's where it ends. Paranormal research never gets beyond that point. There never seems to be a way to design additional experiments that provide more detailed or descriptive insight into the mechanism or process - how it works. All new research in any area starts with a simple observation of some event or phenomenon, but then it generally progresses by manipulating certain variables - "Okay, we don't know what causes "X", but "X" happens when "Y" is also present, or never occurs when "Z" occurs,"etc. until they can come up with mechanism or a model that they can use to make testable, falsifiable predictions. That just doesn't seem to happen in paranormal research. But if you can come up with some good experimental designs beyond simple process-of-elimination proofs, I'm sure some scientist out there will listen.
    -RE ...DianeG: You've stated what I was trying to ask in the first place, but you've framed the question far more eloquently.
    Last edited by 1970SSHardtop; July 17th, 2014 at 03:14 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Senior pineapples's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Ireland someplace
    Posts
    359
    Quote Originally Posted by 1970SSHardtop View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapples View Post
    1970SSHardtop, what noises have you recorded?

    I recall from the Science Forum last year, a chap claimed he recorded “Reverse Speech”. He shared it on youtube and it was clear that Pareidolia or Apophenia was at play.
    I'd like to see the video. Was John Lennon involved?
    Trust me, you don’t want to see this video. But here you go...
    http://www.thescienceforum.com/trash...tml#post422953
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    I like the way Roberttybob has this..
    A natural explanation may not be easy to find if you do not have all of the senses at your disposal.
    ~ What you can not see or hear or touch.. and that all to often a conclusion born of fear and the unknown..
    I have seen things in the dark I know were not there. I have imagined and feared that which did not exist..
    My pulse rate raced.. I felt uneasy.. I herd a sound, I could not see.. The Fear and a adrenaline boost..
    ~ but calm and common sense ruled my actions.. breath, relax.. walk back to the light.. and safety.
    Information is the tool of science.. Infrared camera's and motion sensors.. work better than my mind.
    Many years ago I expressed a fear of walking through a unlit cemetery.. It was my mother who told me.
    " Do not fear the dead.. It's the live ones that will hurt you." and because it was Mom.. it was right..
    "...What you can not see or hear or touch.." = This statement is an assumption. I'm merely questioning it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    I am asking why you think some spirit entity might communicate backwards.. ? Reverse tracking has been recorded and as the link provided shows... It's utter and complete nonsense to extrapolate meanings from what you think you hear.. I have many such questions for this subject..but honestly.. do any of you really think..
    Try this one. How does a spirit reverberate air.. make a sound.. Of what substance is this thing that made a sound ?
    If it does not have substance it remains silent.. Is it a living thing, does it have thought ? Stop looking at the alleged noise.. find the source.
    I do not need to go into this any more deeply than this..

    'I know of no object of reality that can do what it is thought the paranormal is said, can do.'

    Without all the arm waving rubbish.. Is there anything more to this ?
    That by application of what 'I' understand as the 'scientific principal' I have satisfied my own demands for proofs of a 'No' result.
    I have no or very little care for all of the posturing bullshit.. No. Is all I can see.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by 1970SSHardtop View Post
    -The evidence must first come from some kind of observation. You observe something ...you ask, wait a second ...etc. You're asking ...Why make any observations?
    I think there is some misunderstanding about the use of the word 'evidence,' as opposed to the word 'observation.'
    A single observation is worth nothing. (For the simple reason that it could be, almost literally, anything at all and cannot be tested).
    Repeated observations are the start of an investigation.
    Repeated observations are the evidence that "something is happening".
    From that you proceed to do science to it.

    Are you saying that there is no point in formulating a hypothesis until it has already been proven as a scientific theory?
    Not even close.

    If you want to prove or disprove the 'theory' that the world is flat, you gotta think and discuss the idea, and even mention it.
    For there to be a "theory" that the world is flat there MUST be evidence to indicate this: otherwise you're simply making things up. Does anyone discuss the "theory" that chickens are the size of elephants? No, for the simple reason that there is no reason to do so.

    Otherwise, how can any notion be examined.
    "Examining a notion" isn't science, (it's speculating).
    Examining evidence is.

    Your reasoning is flawed in my opinion, and seems to be based in something else other than science.
    Given the reasoning you've displayed here, and your grasp on science, you're hardly in a position to comment.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    I am asking why you think some spirit entity might communicate backwards.. ? Reverse tracking has been recorded and as the link provided shows... It's utter and complete nonsense to extrapolate meanings from what you think you hear.. ion-I didn't hear much of anything, nor claimed to ...just placed the link as an illustration of the manner in which captions (printed words added to videos) add suggestion ...a tactic used frequently in TV shows and YT videos. I agree with you on this ...reverse speech in music are either coincidental, contrived, or nonsensical. I'm talking about more controlled recordings.

    I have many such questions for this subject..but honestly.. do any of you really think..
    Try this one. How does a spirit reverberate air.. make a sound.. Of what substance is this thing that made a sound ?
    If it does not have substance it remains silent..
    -Its a valid question, and I don't know the answer. I'm merely posing a question. I do know that sound waves are comprised of energy. Logic leaps point to Energy ss the element that would be any key to providing an answer.

    Is it a living thing, does it have thought ?
    -Unknown.

    Stop looking at the alleged noise.. find the source.
    -The 'noises' are inexplicable. I would like to post them. Finding the source? hmmm There is the problem associated with paranormal investigation.

    'I know of no object of reality that can do what it is thought the paranormal is said, can do.'
    ​-Was this quote attributed to Einstein? I fought I saw it somewhere attributed to him.
    He is also attributed with saying "If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called science, would it?
    I suspect that energy plays a role in any 'afterlife' (if that exists). Here is a link to an article discussing this if you are interested in exploring these notions:
    Do Einstein's Laws Prove Ghosts Exist? | Are ghosts real? | Paranormal and weird news

    Without all the arm waving rubbish.. Is there anything more to this ?
    -Unknown.
    That by application of what 'I' understand as the 'scientific principal' I have satisfied my own demands for proofs of a 'No' result.
    I have no or very little care for all of the posturing bullshit.. No. Is all I can see.

    -Fair enough. Thanks for expressing your 'opinion.' Cheers~
    See above for responses. Thanks ...this is my first time using this forum, so please bear with. Cheers~
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 1970SSHardtop View Post
    -The evidence must first come from some kind of observation. You observe something ...you ask, wait a second ...etc. You're asking ...Why make any observations?
    I think there is some misunderstanding about the use of the word 'evidence,' as opposed to the word 'observation.'
    A single observation is worth nothing. (For the simple reason that it could be, almost literally, anything at all and cannot be tested).
    Repeated observations are the start of an investigation.
    Repeated observations are the evidence that "something is happening".
    From that you proceed to do science to it.

    Are you saying that there is no point in formulating a hypothesis until it has already been proven as a scientific theory?
    Not even close.

    If you want to prove or disprove the 'theory' that the world is flat, you gotta think and discuss the idea, and even mention it.
    For there to be a "theory" that the world is flat there MUST be evidence to indicate this: otherwise you're simply making things up. Does anyone discuss the "theory" that chickens are the size of elephants? No, for the simple reason that there is no reason to do so.

    Otherwise, how can any notion be examined.
    "Examining a notion" isn't science, (it's speculating).
    Examining evidence is.

    Your reasoning is flawed in my opinion, and seems to be based in something else other than science.
    Given the reasoning you've displayed here, and your grasp on science, you're hardly in a position to comment.
    Mostly, what you've said this time makes perfect sense ...except about 'notions' and 'speculations.' Notions and speculations are merely hypotheses.
    It sounds like you 'feel' that any discussion of paranormal automatically involves 'superstition' (aka. religion), and therefore there is no need for any science ...
    it goes against your beliefs (scientific or otherwise), and is therefore rejected without any need to test any hypotheses at all. There seems to be something wrong when a scientist says 'Let's not entertain these ideas' ...not quoting you ...Someone said (sorry, can't attribute right now) that (paraphrasing) 'Wisdom involves being able to entertain a concept and discuss it, even when you don't agree with it.' But yes, you make a lot of valid points. Thanks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by 1970SSHardtop View Post
    ....
    Mostly, what you've said this time makes perfect sense ...except about 'notions' and 'speculations.' Notions and speculations are merely hypotheses.
    It sounds like you 'feel' that any discussion of paranormal automatically involves 'superstition' (aka. religion), and therefore there is no need for any science ...
    it goes against your beliefs (scientific or otherwise), and is therefore rejected without any need to test any hypotheses at all. There seems to be something wrong when a scientist says 'Let's not entertain these ideas' ...not quoting you ...Someone said (sorry, can't attribute right now) that (paraphrasing) 'Wisdom involves being able to entertain a concept and discuss it, even when you don't agree with it.' But yes, you make a lot of valid points. Thanks.
    I think you hit the nail on the head there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by 1970SSHardtop View Post
    Mostly, what you've said this time makes perfect sense ...except about 'notions' and 'speculations.' Notions and speculations are merely hypotheses.
    Yeah, you're wrong again.
    Hypothesis - a proposed explanation for a phenomenon.
    Doesn't quite fit with if there's nothing to explain.

    [quote]It sounds like you 'feel' that any discussion of paranormal automatically involves 'superstition' (aka. religion), and therefore there is no need for any science ...[/quoter]
    1) Post #28 explains why it's superstition. (And without any mention of religion). Stop constructing straw men.
    2) I have ALREADY explained why science doesn't come into it: no evidence - no science.

    it goes against your beliefs (scientific or otherwise), and is therefore rejected without any need to test any hypotheses at all. There seems to be something wrong when a scientist says 'Let's not entertain these ideas' ...not quoting you ...Someone said (sorry, can't attribute right now) that (paraphrasing) 'Wisdom involves being able to entertain a concept and discuss it, even when you don't agree with it.' But yes, you make a lot of valid points. Thanks.
    Yes, and wrong again, just to complete things.
    Scientists have nothing against "entertaining ideas".
    They DO however, know the difference between a vague unsupported idea and science.
    If there's no evidence you CAN'T test it. Therefore it's not science.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    [QUOTE=Dywyddyr;580689]
    Quote Originally Posted by 1970SSHardtop View Post
    Mostly, what you've said this time makes perfect sense ...except about 'notions' and 'speculations.' Notions and speculations are merely hypotheses.
    Yeah, you're wrong again.
    Hypothesis - a proposed explanation for a phenomenon.
    Doesn't quite fit with if there's nothing to explain.

    It sounds like you 'feel' that any discussion of paranormal automatically involves 'superstition' (aka. religion), and therefore there is no need for any science ...[/quoter]
    1) Post #28 explains why it's superstition. (And without any mention of religion). Stop constructing straw men.
    2) I have ALREADY explained why science doesn't come into it: no evidence - no science.

    it goes against your beliefs (scientific or otherwise), and is therefore rejected without any need to test any hypotheses at all. There seems to be something wrong when a scientist says 'Let's not entertain these ideas' ...not quoting you ...Someone said (sorry, can't attribute right now) that (paraphrasing) 'Wisdom involves being able to entertain a concept and discuss it, even when you don't agree with it.' But yes, you make a lot of valid points. Thanks.
    Yes, and wrong again, just to complete things.
    Scientists have nothing against "entertaining ideas".
    They DO however, know the difference between a vague unsupported idea and science.
    If there's no evidence you CAN'T test it. Therefore it's not science.
    You don't get it do you. He says there is "evidence", a recording of a noise (as I understand it). That is what he wants tested.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    ~ Paranormal Research.. Nearly a thousand km., South of Australia where the ships bell was covered in a 60mm coat of ice.. and has a cloth stuffed into it.. You could only go outside for a short period as it was minus 35 deg c.
    Wintertime at these latitudes means it does not get lighter than night.. ( Dark as dark can be..) What I call astronomers dark.. Black and cold.. This night the sea was still and smooth.. A alarming calm.. for this location. Quiet and calm is VERY unusual. About nine men and two woman were in the mess, and sort of playing cards and telling tall stories of the sea.. and sharing a few drinks..
    When one of the bio science girls came up to the Captain and his 1 st.. and where I was..
    Where I was watching the sonar screens.. and listening for what was not there, whales .. and whale boats..
    " Hay did you's hear the bell ?" she asked.. "I've been outside and can here a bell.."
    Christopher the capt., moved closer to his surface radar screen and fiddled with it's panel and smiled.. "A Ghost Ship"
    " There's just us till Antarctica.." and the light caught his smile.. " There ain't no bell out there tonight.."
    Looking at me " Anything there ?" .."Nothing, not even a fish.." I offered..
    A hour passed when we went for a tea and coffee ( 10 pm.) and the lads asked if we had herd it.. " Nope"
    'Sing'., has gone to her bed sure we missed something.. they told us.. " She came in all white and worried..we sent her up to yas.."
    Chris nodded and smiled.. yes she did come Up.. but we were no help..
    ~ We are sure that no other vessel was within a zone that might be able to be herd a ships bell.. No whale boats. No fishing fleet vessels.
    Nothing. Yet a few days later 'Sing' asked again.. about the bell..
    The mind can play some very strange games and sometimes it does not seem possible to be so fooled.. but that no bell of the R V Tangaroa sounded or could be sounded.. The bell is located on the fore deck port side of the Captains Walk.. just outside the door of the control bridge.. That night it was frozen solid with a rag stuffed into it.. No other vessel was near to us.. Our radar works out to 8 km..
    Nothing.. Sing is not convinced.. but we are.
    Stories of the paranormal can only have credence when A; You can not see. or B; you are spooked by stories and alcohol.
    For 'Sing' both of these were true.. She is sure she herd a ships bell..
    I think it was a rope in the wind.. and 'she' was bit p-st...
    You guys should lay off the rum!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    You don't get it do you. He says there is "evidence", a recording of a noise (as I understand it). That is what he wants tested.
    And you're missing the point.
    UNTIL it's established exactly what that "evidence" actually is there is NONE to support his claim/ hypothesis/ wild idea.
    Is it some form of "tape hiss"?
    Is it EM interference from nearby power sources?
    Is it just pareidolia?
    Is it a figment of his imagination?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    The entire approach to the "subject" is wrong and smacks, heavily, of bias and preformed conclusions.
    It should be "Hey guys, I made some recordings where there was zero ambient noise and I've got funny noises on the tape. Can anyone suggest an explanation?".
    Have any recordings been taken in "non-haunted locations"?
    What was the result there?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    You don't get it do you. He says there is "evidence", a recording of a noise (as I understand it). That is what he wants tested.
    And you're missing the point.
    UNTIL it's established exactly what that "evidence" actually is there is NONE to support his claim/ hypothesis/ wild idea.
    Is it some form of "tape hiss"?
    Is it EM interference from nearby power sources?
    Is it just pareidolia?
    Is it a figment of his imagination?
    Did he make a claim or was it that he just left ghosts in as one of the options?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    The entire approach to the "subject" is wrong and smacks, heavily, of bias and preformed conclusions.
    It should be "Hey guys, I made some recordings where there was zero ambient noise and I've got funny noises on the tape. Can anyone suggest an explanation?".
    Have any recordings been taken in "non-haunted locations"?
    What was the result there?
    You go to a graveyard on a dark night with a bunch of recording gear.... already the tension is building. Have you ever done that sort of thing? You don't go to the South Pole looking for Polar bears do you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    The grumpy duck and Bob are saying the same thing.. but with different words.. So can I help ? Naa, probably not as my mind is as muddled as a cat in a skating rink..
    ~ It is scientific research to question and test. To look for explanations and theory.. Even if you can not find such data as to conclude a result.. The quest is science.. or scientific.. I expect you agree.. ?
    ~ I have a point to ask of you's.. It's been some years since I have messed about with recording tape or cassette.. but can offer that I have noted that a previously recorded tape can ( often ) be over recorded.. but if the recording 'heads' are of poor quality or not aligned perfectly.. some residue of the previous recording can be found.. Listening to the tape 'hiss' can also do your mind a awful dis service..
    The modern hard drive solid state systems do NOT suffer this issue.. Silence should be silence.. not a 'Hisssss....'
    I have while driving a older car ( MX 5 ) found that the excellent sound system could hear what was 'behind' the new recording.
    Not a ghostly relic of the past.. Science.. miss- aligned heads or poor quality equipment can produce a poor result of sound reproduction..
    The same can be said of VHS recorders.. experiment has shown.. Comment ...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    The grumpy duck and Bob are saying the same thing.. but with different words.. So can I help ? Naa, probably not as my mind is as muddled as a cat in a skating rink..
    ~ It is scientific research to question and test. To look for explanations and theory.. Even if you can not find such data as to conclude a result.. The quest is science.. or scientific.. I expect you agree.. ?
    ~ I have a point to ask of you's.. It's been some years since I have messed about with recording tape or cassette.. but can offer that I have noted that a previously recorded tape can ( often ) be over recorded.. but if the recording 'heads' are of poor quality or not aligned perfectly.. some residue of the previous recording can be found.. Listening to the tape 'hiss' can also do your mind a awful dis service..
    The modern hard drive solid state systems do NOT suffer this issue.. Silence should be silence.. not a 'Hisssss....'
    I have while driving a older car ( MX 5 ) found that the excellent sound system could hear what was 'behind' the new recording.
    Not a ghostly relic of the past.. Science.. miss- aligned heads or poor quality equipment can produce a poor result of sound reproduction..
    The same can be said of VHS recorders.. experiment has shown.. Comment ...
    OK we get the best recording device money can buy .... then what?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Did he make a claim or was it that he just left ghosts in as one of the options?
    Read the OP.
    Read post #39 (for example).

    You go to a graveyard on a dark night with a bunch of recording gear.... already the tension is building. Have you ever done that sort of thing?
    Yup.
    (Apart from the recording gear).

    You don't go to the South Pole looking for Polar bears do you?
    Ah right.
    So he went to a graveyard BECAUSE he was expecting to get a particular "result".
    Why not an empty concert hall?
    Why not his own front room?
    Any bias becoming apparent here?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Did he make a claim or was it that he just left ghosts in as one of the options?
    Read the OP.
    Read post #39 (for example).

    You go to a graveyard on a dark night with a bunch of recording gear.... already the tension is building. Have you ever done that sort of thing?
    Yup.
    (Apart from the recording gear).

    You don't go to the South Pole looking for Polar bears do you?
    Ah right.
    So he went to a graveyard BECAUSE he was expecting to get a particular "result".
    Why not an empty concert hall?
    Why not his own front room?
    Any bias becoming apparent here?
    from "experience" ghosts are around certain places aren't they? No ghosts in my living room AFAIK. Concert halls have their legends too, they might be choice #2 after graveyards.
    Post #39 seems more a discussion on experimental set-up. Location and issues to resolve are the themes I read into it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    You go to a graveyard on a dark night
    Could someone please inform me why:
    A) at night?
    B) a graveyard?

    If there really is something to the *cough* hypothesis that it's "energy from dead people" wouldn't that energy have extricated itself from the body long before anyone got around to burying it?
    Ghosts have an attachment to their (rapidly decaying) fleshy remains?
    Every(ex-)body needs some body?
    What happens to/ with cremated bodies?

    Supposedly ghosts are the result of some trauma at death (as if dying wasn't trauma enough, but still...).
    How many people get killed in graveyards?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    You go to a graveyard on a dark night
    Could someone please inform me why:
    A) at night?
    B) a graveyard?

    If there really is something to the *cough* hypothesis that it's "energy from dead people" wouldn't that energy have extricated itself from the body long before anyone got around to burying it?
    Ghosts have an attachment to their (rapidly decaying) fleshy remains?
    Every(ex-)body needs some body?
    What happens to/ with cremated bodies?

    Supposedly ghosts are the result of some trauma at death (as if dying wasn't trauma enough, but still...).
    How many people get killed in graveyards?
    It is something akin to switching the recorder "on". Mode and mood has to be tuned in maybe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    It is something akin to switching the recorder "on". Mode and mood has to be tuned in maybe.
    Or something to do with our basic primate superstitious nature being at its most vulnerable under such conditions...
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    It is something akin to switching the recorder "on". Mode and mood has to be tuned in maybe.
    Or something to do with our basic primate superstitious nature being at its most vulnerable under such conditions...
    It is like opening your eyes and ears. As Jesus may have said "he who has ears let him hear and he who has eyes let him see". (Similar to Matthew 11:15).
    Also in Mark 8:18
    Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don't you remember?
    It has something to do with letting your primitive nature become sensitive to the Nature.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    It is like opening your eyes and ears. As Jesus may have said "he who has ears let him hear and he who has eyes let him see". (Similar to Matthew 11:15).
    Also in Mark 8:18
    Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don't you remember?
    I always love it when someone posts a bullshit quote that doesn't support the point they think they're making.

    It has something to do with letting your primitive nature become sensitive to the Nature.
    And yet another unsubstantiated claim.
    In order for that to be true you'd have to show that such things do in fact exist in nature.
    Otherwise you're simply using an empty claim to "support" a lack of valid argument.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    It is like opening your eyes and ears. As Jesus may have said "he who has ears let him hear and he who has eyes let him see". (Similar to Matthew 11:15).
    Also in Mark 8:18
    Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don't you remember?
    I always love it when someone posts a bullshit quote that doesn't support the point they think they're making.

    It has something to do with letting your primitive nature become sensitive to the Nature.
    And yet another unsubstantiated claim.
    In order for that to be true you'd have to show that such things do in fact exist in nature.
    Otherwise you're simply using an empty claim to "support" a lack of valid argument.
    I know it is a fact for it is something you have to practice; it is a type of mental exercise. I disagree with you on whether it was relevant or not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    I know it is a fact for it is something you have to practice; it is a type of mental exercise. I disagree with you on whether it was relevant or not.
    Er, yeah.
    We've all seen what you consider to be "fact".
    I didn't use the word "relevant" I pointed out that (and get someone to read this to you slowly) It. Does. Not. Support. Your. Point.
    As explained: In order for that to be true you'd have to show that such things do in fact exist in nature.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Masters Degree DianeG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    504
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Did he make a claim or was it that he just left ghosts in as one of the options?
    Read the OP.
    Read post #39 (for example).

    You go to a graveyard on a dark night with a bunch of recording gear.... already the tension is building. Have you ever done that sort of thing?
    Yup.
    (Apart from the recording gear).

    You don't go to the South Pole looking for Polar bears do you?
    Ah right.
    So he went to a graveyard BECAUSE he was expecting to get a particular "result".
    Why not an empty concert hall?
    Why not his own front room?
    Any bias becoming apparent here?
    Why aren't there more ghosts on warm tropical islands and at ski resorts? Seriously, why would dead people, traumatized or not, want to hang out in boring, old houses, and graveyards, especially now that they are invisible and can fly anywhere for free? And you would think ghosts could come up with much better practical jokes than just saying "Get Oooout!" in a low voice and turning lights off and on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by DianeG View Post
    Why aren't there more ghosts on warm tropical islands and at ski resorts? Seriously, why would dead people, traumatized or not, want to hang out in boring, old houses, especially now that they are invisible and can fly anywhere for free? And you would think ghosts could come up with much better practical jokes than just saying "Get Oooout!" in a low voice and turning lights off and on.
    Hmm, ghosts are the "internet trolls" of, er, existence.
    Maybe we should just tell them to get a life.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    I know it is a fact for it is something you have to practice; it is a type of mental exercise. I disagree with you on whether it was relevant or not.
    Er, yeah.
    We've all seen what you consider to be "fact".
    I didn't use the word "relevant" I pointed out that (and get someone to read this to you slowly) It. Does. Not. Support. Your. Point.
    As explained: In order for that to be true you'd have to show that such things do in fact exist in nature.
    Can my thinking be shown to exist in nature? Yet I know it is true but to prove it happens, well that might be a bit more difficult.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Can my thinking be shown to exist in nature?
    Doubtful, given the posts you make.

    Yet I know it is true
    No, you don't.
    You believe it to be true.
    Belief != truth. (Or fact).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Can my thinking be shown to exist in nature?
    Doubtful, given the posts you make.

    Yet I know it is true
    No, you don't.
    You believe it to be true.
    Belief != truth. (Or fact).
    You are just trouble. Mayflow and I won't talk to you anymore. Have fun on your own.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    You are just trouble.
    You misspelt "rational".

    Mayflow and I won't talk to you anymore
    I'd far rather you both left permanently.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Have any recordings been taken in "non-haunted locations"?
    What was the result there?
    This guy puts out some interesting videos on YT, and he proposes that a haunted location is not necessary. You might find this one of interest. I'd be interested to know your thoughts:
    Ghost Box and EVP In Dublin Ireland Hotel Room, Part 1 - YouTube
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    The grumpy duck and Bob are saying the same thing.. but with different words.. So can I help ? Naa, probably not as my mind is as muddled as a cat in a skating rink..
    ~ It is scientific research to question and test. To look for explanations and theory.. Even if you can not find such data as to conclude a result.. The quest is science.. or scientific.. I expect you agree.. ?
    ~ I have a point to ask of you's.. It's been some years since I have messed about with recording tape or cassette.. but can offer that I have noted that a previously recorded tape can ( often ) be over recorded.. but if the recording 'heads' are of poor quality or not aligned perfectly.. some residue of the previous recording can be found.. Listening to the tape 'hiss' can also do your mind a awful dis service..
    The modern hard drive solid state systems do NOT suffer this issue.. Silence should be silence.. not a 'Hisssss....'
    I have while driving a older car ( MX 5 ) found that the excellent sound system could hear what was 'behind' the new recording.
    Not a ghostly relic of the past.. Science.. miss- aligned heads or poor quality equipment can produce a poor result of sound reproduction..
    The same can be said of VHS recorders.. experiment has shown.. Comment ...
    -These are all good points. My recordings were made on a digital video camera.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by DianeG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Did he make a claim or was it that he just left ghosts in as one of the options?
    Read the OP.
    Read post #39 (for example).

    You go to a graveyard on a dark night with a bunch of recording gear.... already the tension is building. Have you ever done that sort of thing?
    Yup.
    (Apart from the recording gear).

    You don't go to the South Pole looking for Polar bears do you?
    Ah right.
    So he went to a graveyard BECAUSE he was expecting to get a particular "result".
    Why not an empty concert hall?
    Why not his own front room?
    Any bias becoming apparent here?
    Why aren't there more ghosts on warm tropical islands and at ski resorts? Seriously, why would dead people, traumatized or not, want to hang out in boring, old houses, and graveyards, especially now that they are invisible and can fly anywhere for free? And you would think ghosts could come up with much better practical jokes than just saying "Get Oooout!" in a low voice and turning lights off and on.
    -When I thought about where I should try to capture electronic voice phenomena, the first place that came to mind was a cemetery ...I guess I associated death with a graveyard. However, I personally suspect that (if spirits exist) they would be present everywhere, as is energy in the air. We walk around oblivious to radio waves which transmit messages through the air over great distances. But anyway, that's why I choose a graveyard ...a 1400 year-old graveyard. I had not heard of any 'ghost stories' surrounding the graveyard, but I just tried it there for no other reasons. I immediately became aware that any recording made there would be questioned because of potential audio contamination in such an urban area. I another guy's video in which he records some apparent phenomena in a hotel room ...he claims that spirits are everywhere. Which kind of creeps me out. For convenience sake, I'll post the link to the video again here (apologies for the repetition of the link posting): Ghost Box and EVP In Dublin Ireland Hotel Room, Part 1 - YouTube
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    I know it is a fact for it is something you have to practice; it is a type of mental exercise. I disagree with you on whether it was relevant or not.
    Er, yeah.
    Can my thinking be shown to exist in nature? Yet I know it is true but to prove it happens, well that might be a bit more difficult.
    -Brain activity is shown to exist via electroencephalography. Electrodes attached to the head can measure thoughts using high-frquency broadband. Thoughts are proven to exist using a variety of electronic devices. But I see what you were pointing out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. PArAnormal
    By Gwiyomi17 in forum Science-Fiction and Non-Fiction
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: May 27th, 2013, 07:40 PM
  2. Paranormal stuff
    By Zelos in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: March 1st, 2007, 01:52 PM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •