Proof of ghosts (using science!)

[BigD1998]

Well, let's just first say that ghosts are in fact made out of energy. How do we know this? Well, before I get onto the main points, let me first discuss what forms of energy ghosts come in. Sometimes ghosts come in the form of vortexes, which is when whirling mass of air, water, or fire, in which the surroundings are drawn to the center by a suction-like force. And while ghosts come in TONS of different forms, that is just a little known example right there.

Some anti-ghost people will jokingly say "so, whenever you die, do you basically just become a gust of smoke and that's the afterlife and that's it? Because if that's the afterlife, then the afterlife isn't much of an afterlife then, right?" Whoever says this has obviously got something wrong here. And also, when people talk about the osmosis effect and try to relate it with ghosts supposedly being "smoke," they are wrong, because osmosis only occurs in cells, and is usually talked about in the fields of cell biochemistry. It's basically when water molecules moves through a plasma membrane starting off in low concentrations (which are large in size) and when they get through the membrane they go into high concentrations (which are smaller in size). Osmosis does have industrial application and usage. Whoever equates osmosis with being smoke is obviously wrong.

Another thing I'm gonna talk about is basically defining what energy is. What energy is is basically matter. It cannot be created nor destroyed. It has to at least have mass (unlike what some people are telling you in that in order for something to even exist it has to be made of all kinds of energy). It doesn't have to have kinetic energy or potential energy to exist as an actual being, rather it just needs weight in order to be matter (or in other words - ENERGY).

While we do have the kinetic energy of the blood cells moving through our bodies, and we also have the chemical potential energy of our bodies created by a combination between the food that we eat and the oxygen we breathe, which stores the chemical potential energy in our bodies. However, the most important thing is rest energy, aka MASS (which is basically what we are made of).

An evidence that originated from the 1800s was the 21 gram study in which was done by Duncan MacDougall on six dying patients in an experiment to prove that ghosts (as an energy) do in fact have mass. And it was found to have been 21 grams of the deceased's soul.

So we need to stop thinking in extremes. Because when we do, we make misconceptions. For example, for people who do not believe in ghosts, their argument usually goes as follows, "how can something non-physical interact with something physical?" Some argue it must have a physical component, however this argument gives people who disbelieve in ghosts the upper hand, claiming that if you were to give the non-physical component a physical component, it would create the same problem and you would have to keep expanding that physical until you have no non-physical left. However saying this creates a slippery slope. People like to posit a lot of false information in this subject, such as ghosts being a "non-physical entity."

Since ghosts have mass, therefore they ARE physical and ARE observable. Ghosts are in fact tangible in that they manifest themselves (usually in orbs) for us to see and observe. They can be touched and felt. Usually, rising and decreasing temperatures are a sign that a ghost may be present and ghosts have been known to touch or "feel" the recipient at times, which being touched by a ghost has been reported to have felt like someone is actually touching you.

And plus, according to a Yale University study, the location of the human soul has been found to be near the eyes.

Sources:

http://www.examiner.com/article/what-is-a-paranormal-vortex

http://listverse.com/2013/03/27/10-little-known-mysterious-ghost-types/

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmosis

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130323092516AAIPk0M

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy

http://www.historicmysteries.com/the-21-gram-soul-theory/

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tangible

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

http://www.manchesterparanormal.org/Touched-by-Spirits.php

http://www.angelsghosts.com/can_a_ghost_touch

http://www.islandcrisis.net/location-of-the-human-soul/

[RedSquirrel]

Can you prove that not all orbs are dust or rain/etc?

EDIT: Have a link to that Yale study where they proved that the soul is just behind the eyes as well? It would be some interesting reading from such an illustrious place of study.

Edited April 10, 2015 by RedSquirrel

[Ashotep]

They say the eyes are the window to the soul.

I've seen a ghost so I need no convincing that they are real.

[Lucas Cooper Merrin]

Ghosts are made from within your mind, hallucinations, sleep paralysis, mental illness, drug induced visions, observational misinterpretation, crys for help/attention, even just bare faced lies!

we are not dammed to walk this earth after we die, we do not appear as orbs in photos, we do not manifest into whispy apparitions,

We do not knock in the night, we do not weep at our graves, we do not groan and rattle chains in the attic, we do not scare children on Halloween! Ghosts are a fictional creation just as vampires and leprechauns!

Of course this is just the opinion of a sceptic.

[BigD1998]

Can you prove that not all orbs are dust or rain/etc?

Well, here's something interesting about the camera, while there are plenty of tricks people can do with digital photography, however I'll have you know that a lot of the times, the pictures you see of orbs are actually NOT dust. And here's why I say that: let's say that you're a ghost hunter and are about to go on a tour in a haunted house, after somebody had cleaned the place up (and btw, this usually happens). You are walking through the main corridor until you spot a light object that had passed through above your head. Now, here's a hoax you need to know before I give you an answer. Ghosts CAN NOT pass through solid objects, such as walls, etc. Because they are energy. I'm not so sure if you know much about this, however there is this principle called the "Pauli Exclusion Principle" that states that no energy (including fermions, which are also bound by this rule) may not be at the same place at the same time, or in other words, two of the same fermions may not have the same quantum number.

Now bosons (aka photons) are not bound by this rule. If ghosts were photons (which wouldn't make much sense to begin with), then it would be possible for them to pass through a solid object (see: refraction). However, it has been proven time and time again that ghosts are energy and not photons. The same kind of rule can be found with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But back to the example, most of the time, when people see orbs, they are actually flashing light and are not dark grey dust particles. And usually, rain drops and dust are nowhere to be found when people claim sightings of "orbs." So to sum it all up, orbs are NOT rain drops or dust.

Sources:

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

[karmakazi]

I must be missing something, where is the proof brought through science?

[RedSquirrel]

Ah, but there is the rub, can you point out a real photo of a spirit that cannot be in any way explained as a mote of dust, smudge of lens or another wholly non spiritual particle(and yet still be an orb)?

Edited April 10, 2015 by RedSquirrel

[BigD1998]

Ghosts are made from within your mind, hallucinations, sleep paralysis, mental illness, drug induced visions, observational misinterpretation, crys for help/attention, even just bare faced lies!

we are not dammed to walk this earth after we die, we do not appear as orbs in photos, we do not manifest into whispy apparitions,

We do not knock in the night, we do not weep at our graves, we do not groan and rattle chains in the attic, we do not scare children on Halloween! Ghosts are a fictional creation just as vampires and leprechauns!

Of course this is just the opinion of a sceptic.

And I highly respect your opinion as a skeptic. However, I used to be JUST LIKE you for a little while, until I discovered meditation, marijuana, spirituality, and all kinds of other things. While I do disagree with a lot of these stupid ghost shows and how a lot of these people who cast on these shows are usually just in it for entertainment, such as the incident on ghost hunters that involved some kind of string that was attached to someone to make it look like an apparition. And also, I find it funny how these supposed "paranormal investigators" are using such lovely tools as GEIGER COUNTERS. Yup, I guess it's true that ghosts emit radiation! Lol. But back to my point, yeah, I may not agree with you, but I respect your opinion to disagree.

[Lucas Cooper Merrin]

I must be missing something, where is the proof brought through science?

Your not missing anything.....there is no scientific proof

[Lucas Cooper Merrin]

And I highly respect your opinion as a skeptic. However, I used to be JUST LIKE you for a little while, until I discovered meditation, marijuana, spirituality, and all kinds of other things. While I do disagree with a lot of these stupid ghost shows and how a lot of these people who cast on these shows are usually just in it for entertainment, such as the incident on ghost hunters that involved some kind of string that was attached to someone to make it look like an apparition. And also, I find it funny how these supposed "paranormal investigators" are using such lovely tools as GEIGER COUNTERS. Yup, I guess it's true that ghosts emit radiation! Lol. But back to my point, yeah, I may not agree with you, but I respect your opinion to disagree.

You have answerd all my questions with this statement! and backed up my post at the same time!

Im out.

[BigD1998]

I must be missing something, where is the proof brought through science?

Well, if you didn't read too deeply (I don't blame you, since my post was pretty long and was filled with stuff that a lot of people wouldn't understand anyways), I stated that ghosts are made of energy, I talked about the principles of mass, matter and energy, studies and just plain common logic.

[RedSquirrel]

Since ghosts have mass, therefore they ARE physical and ARE observable. Ghosts are in fact tangible in that they manifest themselves (usually in orbs) for us to see and observe. They can be touched and felt.

Citation on this one? People claim to have been touched or to have touched. Nothing that is proof, scientifically though, unless you have a peer reviewed study I missed? Edited April 10, 2015 by RedSquirrel

[BigD1998]

Ah, but there is the rub, can you point out a real photo of a spirit that cannot be in any way explained as a mote of dust, smudge of lens or another wholly non spiritual particle(and yet still be an orb)?

i really don't understand what you're getting at here. There are a LOT of pictures of ghosts that are actually authentic, you're just gonna have to search for yourself.

[karmakazi]

Well, here's something interesting about the camera, while there are plenty of tricks people can do with digital photography, however I'll have you know that a lot of the times, the pictures you see of orbs are actually NOT dust. And here's why I say that: let's say that you're a ghost hunter and are about to go on a tour in a haunted house, after somebody had cleaned the place up (and btw, this usually happens). You are walking through the main corridor until you spot a light object that had passed through above your head. Now, here's a hoax you need to know before I give you an answer. Ghosts CAN NOT pass through solid objects, such as walls, etc. Because they are energy. I'm not so sure if you know much about this, however there is this principle called the "Pauli Exclusion Principle" that states that no energy (including fermions, which are also bound by this rule) may not be at the same place at the same time, or in other words, two of the same fermions may not have the same quantum number.

Now bosons (aka photons) are not bound by this rule. If ghosts were photons (which wouldn't make much sense to begin with), then it would be possible for them to pass through a solid object (see: refraction). However, it has been proven time and time again that ghosts are energy and not photons. The same kind of rule can be found with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But back to the example, most of the time, when people see orbs, they are actually flashing light and are not dark grey dust particles. And usually, rain drops and dust are nowhere to be found when people claim sightings of "orbs." So to sum it all up, orbs are NOT rain drops or dust.

Sources:

http://simple.wikipe...usion_principle

http://simple.wikipe..._thermodynamics

How can it be proven time and time again that ghosts are not energy or photons, when the existence of ghosts has not been proven?

[BigD1998]

Citation on this one? People claim to have been touched or to have touched. Nothing that is proof, scientifically though, unless you have a peer reviewed study I missed?

Well, while I couldn't find any studies suggesting your match (aka my match), however I have found various other sources of first hand accounts as well as other things in which I have put up in the sources.

[RedSquirrel]

Well, while I couldn't find any studies suggesting your match (aka my match), however I have found various other sources of first hand accounts as well as other things in which I have put up in the sources.

If first hand accounts were all we needed for proof, then Jesus would be black, white, Asian, real, fake, a female, a male... etc. Sadly, we cannot claim to have scientific proof without scientific proof.

[karmakazi]

Well, if you didn't read too deeply (I don't blame you, since my post was pretty long and was filled with stuff that a lot of people wouldn't understand anyways), I stated that ghosts are made of energy, I talked about the principles of mass, matter and energy, studies and just plain common logic.

I did read it, but you've made big leaps between the scientific part and your conclusions.

For example, the study that "found the location of the soul" only found the location where the average person THINKS the soul is located. Using this as proof of a soul is not scientific, it's just your opinion / assumption.

That's why I asked where the science was hiding.

[BigD1998]

How can it be proven time and time again that ghosts are not energy or photons, when the existence of ghosts has not been proven?

Good observation, I like your way of thinking. What I meant to say was, was that since ghosts are shunned so much by the scientific community, it would be hard for us to find any credible evidence of a ghost, since science automatically rejects it. You see, while I DO believe science leads to the truth, however what you need to realize is that science mainly discusses the physical realm around us and for what we can obviously observe. With ghosts, we can observe. Just look at the millions of sightings there has been of these entities. However you are smart as a whip, I'll give you that!

[BigD1998]

I did read it, but you've made big leaps between the scientific part and your conclusions.

For example, the study that "found the location of the soul" only found the location where the average person THINKS the soul is located. Using this as proof of a soul is not scientific, it's just your opinion / assumption.

That's why I asked where the science was hiding.

Well, with that survey aside, everything else I said was pretty much scientifically accurate. I stated what the Pauli Exclusion Principle was, and what it stated, and I related it to the topic as well as doing many other things to prove my points.

[She-ra]

Well I totally agree with the energy thing. That's always kept me on the fence. Also, I posted an article here years ago about the 21 grams study (I haven't read your links or sources) so I know about that and that is confusing and odd.

I don't agree with the orb's. I think many of those are dust and bugs however, maybe not all of them but most of them anyways. I don't know.

I think the key here, for me personally, is I just really and honestly do not know. I really *do* want to believe though.

I'm not sure about any of the links above yet - haven't read them - but I have to say I've always wondered about the energy thing and the 21 grams study. *shrug*

I'll come back and read the links later when I have more time. But yes, I've always wondered about a few points you raised.

[BigD1998]

Well I totally agree with the energy thing. That's always kept me on the fence. Also, I posted an article here years ago about the 21 grams study (I haven't read your links or sources) so I know about that and that is confusing and odd.

I don't agree with the orb's. I think many of those are dust and bugs however, maybe not all of them but most of them anyways. I don't know.

I think the key here, for me personally, is I just really and honestly do not know. I really *do* want to believe though.

I'm not sure about any of the links above yet - haven't read them - but I have to say I've always wondered about the energy thing and the 21 grams study. *shrug*

I'll come back and read the links later when I have more time. But yes, I've always wondered about a few points you raised.

Yeah, but did you know that during the 21 gram study, that as soon as the patients had died, MacDougall had noticed that the beam end of the scale had dropped against the lower bar and remained there? The loss was said to be three fourths of an ounce. And also, a lot of skeptical comments and questions have also already been answered by MacDougall himself, as he had eliminated all the physiological explanations that he could possibly conceive, which led him to say that 21 grams is the weight of a ghost!

Source:

http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp

[RedSquirrel]

Interesting that you quoted snopes when they stated this:

What to make of all this? MacDougall's results were flawed because the methodology used to harvest them was suspect, the sample size far too small, and the ability to measure changes in weight imprecise. For this reason, credence should not be given to the idea his experiments proved something, let alone that they measured the weight of the soul as 21 grams. His postulations on this topic are a curiosity, but nothing more.

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp#diIUBPS54pqOIQjS.99

[BigD1998]

Interesting that you quoted snopes when they stated this:

Ah! You got me! But to answer to that, I wasn't stating THAT part of the article, but instead I was talking about the evidences presented. But thank you for your input.

[karmakazi]

Good observation, I like your way of thinking. What I meant to say was, was that since ghosts are shunned so much by the scientific community, it would be hard for us to find any credible evidence of a ghost, since science automatically rejects it. You see, while I DO believe science leads to the truth, however what you need to realize is that science mainly discusses the physical realm around us and for what we can obviously observe. With ghosts, we can observe. Just look at the millions of sightings there has been of these entities. However you are smart as a whip, I'll give you that!

On one hand, you say science mainly discusses the physical realm, yet on the other you claim ghosts have mass. They would then be in the physical realm and there would be objective evidence of ghosts, not just eyewitness accounts which tend to be unreliable and at minimum are not repeatable. Unfortunately humans are fallible. We remember things incorrectly, we forget, we embellish, and we even suffer from denial, to varying degrees. Most of the time this is happening, we ourselves are not aware of it. A human, subjective account simply is not reliable.

Science does not automatically reject anything. However, if upon exploration it is impossible to glean any evidence of a phenomenon, the interest in it fades. But, that doesn't mean that no one is bothering with it, just that is not a subject out in the forefront. Especially when there isn't much evidence to be found, at least not thus far.

Well, with that survey aside, everything else I said was pretty much scientifically accurate. I stated what the Pauli Exclusion Principle was, and what it stated, and I related it to the topic as well as doing many other things to prove my points.

Most of what you said was not accurate and it was opinion. The Pauli Exclusion Principle makes no sense in the manner in which you cited it.

Also I must agree with RedSquirrel, citing the 21 grams study, which occurred at a time when measuring equipment was less accurate, and frankly there is no way to know the guy was being truthful anyway. It would have to be redone with modern equipment and a much larger sample size.... if it hasn't already.

[RedSquirrel]

I will level with you, I would love if there was proof of life after death. I am sure many sceptics would be greatly excited. I do think you have put a lot of time and effort into this, but I don't believe you have proof. You raise interesting ideas, but many of them are flawed or even impossible to get ahold of (the Yale study for one).