Haunting, explained scientifically

kylith

http://www.cracked.com/article_18828_the-creepy-scientific-explanation-behind-ghost-sightings.html

maccored

i know its cracked and completely tongue in cheek, but g'wan. I'd love to hear how that explains hauntings. ( unless infrasound and various other natural effects are new to you that is)

kylith

Have you checked the links in the article?
He was a real scientist http://davidszondy.com/future/war/infrasound.htm

Who did real research into infrasound http://journal.borderlands.com/1996/the-sonic-weapon-of-vladimir-gavreau/

Which has real physical effects http://journal.borderlands.com/1997/infrasound/

Including effecting humans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrasound (look under "Human reactions to infrasound)

And Vic Tandy was the man who noticed the 'grey blob' in a 'haunted' lab http://www.psy.herts.ac.uk/ghost/theories-infra.html

Is it not more plausible that a natural phenominon which can cause feelings of fear and dread, and vibrate objects is a more plausible explanation for so-called hauntings than dead people?

strobe

kylith wrote: »

Is it not more plausible that a natural phenomenon which can cause feelings of fear and dread, and vibrate objects is a more plausible explanation for so-called hauntings than dead people?

Maybe the ghosts are producing the infrasound. Didn't think of that, did ye smart guy?

Major Lovechild

strobe wrote: »

Maybe the ghosts are producing the infrasound. Didn't think of that, did ye smart guy?

Like - maybe a ghost breaking wind or playing the tuba??? Deep!

edwinkane

strobe wrote: »

Maybe the ghosts are producing the infrasound. Didn't think of that, did ye smart guy?

Maybe they are. Do you think thats the more reasonable explanation?

maccored

methinks you completely and utterly missed my point by a very wide margin. I take it infrasound IS completely new to you then? just because certain aspects of anything can be repeated naturally, does not mean that is the only reasoning and explaination behind it. plus theres plenty of stuff infrasound doesnt explain.

kylith wrote: »

Have you checked the links in the article?
He was a real scientist http://davidszondy.com/future/war/infrasound.htm

Who did real research into infrasound http://journal.borderlands.com/1996/the-sonic-weapon-of-vladimir-gavreau/

Which has real physical effects http://journal.borderlands.com/1997/infrasound/

Including effecting humans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrasound (look under "Human reactions to infrasound)

And Vic Tandy was the man who noticed the 'grey blob' in a 'haunted' lab http://www.psy.herts.ac.uk/ghost/theories-infra.html

Is it not more plausible that a natural phenominon which can cause feelings of fear and dread, and vibrate objects is a more plausible explanation for so-called hauntings than dead people?

edwinkane

maccored wrote: »

plus theres plenty of stuff infrasound doesnt explain.

Just because it can't be explained doesn't mean there must be a paranormal explanation.

maccored

of course (thats a tad bit obvious to be honest) - though i find unexplained things just as interesting. plus, it doesnt mean it *isn't* paranormal either (considering unexplained means just that). Infrasound is not "Haunting, explained scientifically"

edwinkane

maccored wrote: »

of course (thats a tad bit obvious to be honest) - though i find unexplained things just as interesting. plus, it doesnt mean it *isn't* paranormal either (considering unexplained means just that). Infrasound is not "Haunting, explained scientifically"

Its a matetr of probabilities. I'm not sure what your definition of paranormal is, but considering that paranormal is usually bogus and can't be demonstrated, I wouldn't bet your house that it's paranormal.

maccored

what is meant to be paranormal?

Infrasound, emf and various normal everyday forms of radiation can cause people to believe they are having paranormal experiences. the point is though, that this itself doesnt mean ALL paranormal experiences are caused by infrasound etc - though people do research such things (myself included - you can help out at http://journalparanormalresearch.com if you want ).

I certainly havent said that the things that arent explained have to be paranormal, but being sceptical (rather than cynical) i have to leave that possibility open until research can prove otherwise, else we cant tell either way.

Personally I have no idea what horse you're on or where the hell you're going with it btw, considering you seem to be talking to me as though I think everything is paranormal or something.

edwinkane

maccored wrote: »

what is meant to be paranormal?

Infrasound, emf and various normal everyday forms of radiation can cause people to believe they are having paranormal experiences. the point is though, that this itself doesnt mean ALL paranormal experiences are caused by infrasound etc - though people do research such things (myself included - you can help out at http://journalparanormalresearch.com if you want ).

I certainly havent said that the things that arent explained have to be paranormal, but being sceptical (rather than cynical) i have to leave that possibility open until research can prove otherwise, else we cant tell either way.

Personally I have no idea what horse you're on or where the hell you're going with it btw, considering you seem to be talking to me as though I think everything is paranormal or something.

A cynic is what a sceptic calls a realist!

Sometimes the problem with keeping an open mind is that ones brain can fall out. For me, I do not accept paranormal as real unless there is proof. While there has been many years to produce proof, the fact that none is forthcoming suggests paranormal is likely to be bogus. If someone produced actual proof, then I'll accept that it is reality. But until then, I'll consider it as bogus, rather than keeping an open mind.

edwinkane

edwinkane wrote: »

. For me, I do not accept paranormal as real unless there is proof.

Have you looked for proof ?

edwinkane

Deleted User wrote: »

Have you looked for proof ?

I see you are still asking questions believing that to do so is adding to debate. Do you ever have a coherent argument to make, or do you only ever ask others questions?

maccored

he asks a very valid question. Have you ever bothered going out there and looking for this proof, or do you expect people to run after you trying to convince you?

For the record, I dont give a toss what you reckon is 'bogus' and I certainly have no interest in trying to convince you of anything.

maccored

edwinkane wrote: »

A cynic is what a sceptic calls a realist!

a cynic is whats called a doubting thomas - someone who will only believe something when theres irrefutable proof - "I do not accept paranormal as real unless there is proof" - which is a category I think you fall into.

A sceptic at least keeps an open mind until theres proof either way

Standman

maccored wrote: »

he asks a very valid question. Have you ever bothered going out there and looking for this proof, or do you expect people to run after you trying to convince you?

For the record, I dont give a toss what you reckon is 'bogus' and I certainly have no interest in trying to convince you of anything.

There are a lot of statements of "truth" surrounding the paranormal. It is up to person making that statement to supply me with evidence, not me to go arounding looking for it when they can't provide it.

maccored

I think you have it arseways there. If you have no belief nor interest in the paranormal, fine, but if you want proof of it, go out and find that for yourself. Its not 'up to person making that statement' to supply you with anything. thats what ****ing bugs me about the more cynical - they think people with paranormal experiences actually care if they are believed or not by self titled 'critical thinkers'.

Standman

It's perfectly reasonable to ask for evidence for a statement of truth. Common sense really.

edwinkane

maccored wrote: »

I think you have it arseways there. If you have no belief nor interest in the paranormal, fine, but if you want proof of it, go out and find that for yourself. Its not 'up to person making that statement' to supply you with anything. thats what ****ing bugs me about the more cynical - they think people with paranormal experiences actually care if they are believed or not by self titled 'critical thinkers'.

Actually, I think people with paranormal experiences are likely to be either deluded or charlatans, or more easily susceptible to suggestion that others.

As no proper proof has ever been produced to suggest that the paranormal exists in any real sense (and many have tried without success). The only intelligent position is to not accept a phenomenon exists without proper proof. That is the definition of a sceptic.

maccored

i think that clearly says it all.

Im not going to labour the point, but your first line defines you as a cynic, not a sceptic. Dont be trying to fool yourself on that one. Plus, it reads like condescending bull**** into the bargain.

maccored

Standman wrote: »

It's perfectly reasonable to ask for evidence for a statement of truth. Common sense really.

as far as I can see, its a bit like being an armchair politician.

kylith

maccored wrote: »

as far as I can see, its a bit like being an armchair politician.

In what way?

edwinkane

maccored wrote: »

a cynic is whats called a doubting thomas - someone who will only believe something when theres irrefutable proof - "I do not accept paranormal as real unless there is proof" - which is a category I think you fall into.

A sceptic at least keeps an open mind until theres proof either way

But I am a realist! I know that there have been a few thousand years now to produce proof of paranormal activity. For me, thats pretty much long enough draw an inference from the absence of any credible proof. How many thousand years do you think it reasonable to keep an open mind, bearing in mind we live for something like 80 years on average?

A cynic is someone who won't believe it when proof is produced. I am a sceptic and I am wholly open to someone producing proof, but until that time I find it impossible to pretend to "believe" in somethign for which there is no proper proof.

Bruthal

maccored wrote: »

he asks a very valid question. Have you ever bothered going out there and looking for this proof, or do you expect people to run after you trying to convince you?

So, for a person to not believe in the paranormal, they must first go out and prove it does not exist to be able to say they dont believe in it?

robbie7730

robbie7730 wrote: »

So, for a person to not believe in the paranormal, they must first go out and prove it does not exist to be able to say they dont believe in it?

Not believing in something doest mean its not true.

edwinkane

Deleted User wrote: »

Not believing in something doest mean its not true.

True.

Believing in something does not mean something is true.

The only way something is "true" is if it can be demonstrated to be "true".

Fuzzy Clam

Deleted User wrote: »

Not believing in something doest mean its not true.

It's the old "proving a negative" thing.

I can't prove that it didn't rain here today but I can prove if it did as I would have the evidence.

Ok, perhaps not the best analogy but i think it gets the point across.

Standman

For someone who has had a "paranormal experience", it is understandable that they might take it personally when people say they don't believe that ghosts etc exist. It would be more helpful if these people realised that without external evidence then their experience is essentially worthless to an outside viewer.

edwinkane

Standman wrote: »

For someone who has had a "paranormal experience", it is understandable that they might take it personally when people say they don't believe that ghosts etc exist. It would be more helpful if these people realised that without external evidence then their experience is essentially worthless to an outside viewer.

It also doesn't mean that their experience is not the result of another phenomenon, or even a delusion. For example, I've often woken from a dream and been convinced it was real, and at a later time could not remember whether the person I had dreamed about, for example, dying had actually died or not in reality.

The mind, and the brain, are very powerful, and just because we are convinced we "saw" something doesn't mean it necessarily existed in reality.

maccored

its quite simple in my mind. its a bit obtuse to believe that jsut because you havent experienced something then it doesnt exist. i have never been to australia, but I know its there.

If you have no belief in the paranormal, mainly if you have never had a paranormal experience - fine .. no-ones breaking your arm expecting you to believe anything paranormal. still though, dont try to be condesending arseholes to people who may well have had those experiences as most really dont give a flying toss what any of you think.