Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 4 votes

Ghost Equation


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
210 replies to this topic

#31    Skep B

Skep B

    Savant of Depravity

  • Member
  • 5,563 posts
  • Joined:02 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Duuuuuuuuuuuude

Posted 11 August 2013 - 01:10 AM

The difference between the beginning of the universe and ghosts is that the beginning of the universe had to have happened, or we wouldn't be here, so taking into accounts observable data, and going back from there, it's plausible to correlate teh baginning of the universe using math.

Ghosts are spooky things in old houses.

I can put S- C= NB

wherein

S=shakespeare
C=chaucer
and NB= no books

but that doesnt make it a mathematical formula,

When you know what a man loves, you know what can kill him


#32    JesseCuster

JesseCuster

    Secret Jesus

  • Member
  • 3,801 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Ireland

Posted 11 August 2013 - 01:34 AM

View Postmarkprice, on 10 August 2013 - 03:43 AM, said:

If you understand the equation it is actually Soul X infinity = ghosts--without infinity the soul could just dissipate to nothing.
What's wrong with that?  Maybe souls do dissipate to nothing after a long time which is why we rarely ever hear of truly ancient ghosts from thousands of years ago and hear more about ghosts in the past century or two.  Lots of things dissipated over time, it doesn't mean they don't exist the people who know they exist shouldn't resort to desperate fudging of equations in order to fix such an apparent non-problem.

It sounds like the pseudo-scientific author of the equation is just making things up as he goes along, inserting stuff into his "equation" willy nilly in order to make it have the superficial resemblance of science.

Quote

Which is to say the soul never dies because it is made up of Energy
Everything is made of energy including all life on earth, yet trees, plants, insects, bacteria, viruses, protozans, tapeworms, elephants, humans, donkeys, chickens, pigs, chameleons, etc. all die, so are you suggesting that all those things have "souls" hanging around on earth?

But more importantly, you've yet to determine the existence of or define a soul, nevermind a soul that exists after the death of its body, despite your vague attempts to incorporate something sciency sounding into your posts.  There's a lot of assuming your conclusion in this thread.

Quote

and it reincarnates, or in some odd cases attaches itself to locations or people or whatever because the Will is too strong to let it move on...and ghosts are all kinds of "woo".
Is that fact or opinion?  If you are claiming it as fact can you actually show this to be true, if it's opinion you should state it as such.

Quote

I mean this is as woo as woo gets; so that's why he came up with an equation: to put a handle on it. Am I repeating myself now...I get your scientific perspective but this is more in the realm of metaphysical philosophy--equations can exist there too
Anyone can make up what appears to them to be scientific looking equations.  But when they're as hollow and superficial and pseudo-scientific as the dreck in the OP, they should be prepared to be called upon it.

Quote

--except for the fact that he has actual paranormal encounters to deal with.
Having a personal paranormal account does not excuse pseudo-scientific gobblygook in the form of equations.  Either it makes sense or it doesn't.  The fact that you've had a paranormal experience doesn't excuse nonsense or allow you to get away with nonsense claims.

Quote

So the guy puts his equation in a book and now ghost hunters might have a better idea of what they are looking for. That's pretty much the whole point of the chapter called Paranormal Paralysis and Paranoid Parameters.
How exactly does that equation help ghost hunters find ghosts? Specific examples would be appreciated.

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard P. Feynman

"If people put enough excrement in one pile they think they can safely claim that there must be something other than excrement in a pile that big." - stereologist

#33    Timonthy

Timonthy

    Placid

  • Member
  • 2,208 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Melbourne, Aust.

Posted 11 August 2013 - 01:47 AM

View Postmarkprice, on 11 August 2013 - 12:43 AM, said:

I guess you could call me a materialist - I have had many experiences where lots of folk on here would scream 'ghost, paranormal, insert fantastical explanation here' etc. however all can still be explained otherwise through normal and logical means. A lot of people don't want to see these explanations.

Paranormal things which have a known explanation do get explained. Eg. Bio luminescence, ball lightning, water turning to blood, so on and so forth. They are observed, studied, explained.
Ghosts have been observed, studied, explained - over history by millions of people. There are many normal explanations for almost any kind of ghostly experience. If people need to believe there's more then that's okay.

My main issue with the equation is that all of the factors are unknown - no one has proven they exist after death.
I don't mean their values are unknown, the factors themselves being 'soul', 'will', 'energy', 'ghosts'.

Souls - a nice idea - but not proven while living or dead. Will/energy/ghosts - no proof after death either.

The equation is a nice idea and I see what it's trying to do - but really it has zero substance.

Time travel might not be possible - but time dilation etc. helps to support the theory.

Posted Image


#34    markprice

markprice

    what

  • Member
  • 3,767 posts
  • Joined:10 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 11 August 2013 - 02:07 AM

View Postphantasia, on 11 August 2013 - 01:06 AM, said:

No, trying to use a nonsensical formula to prove ghosts exist = FAIL.  Multiply by "will"? Yep, one more book I will not be reading.

That makes no sense, do you tend to say everything you don't understand is nonsensical? I bet that's a hell of a book list.

This is getting shilly - Math

#35    Fat Cat

Fat Cat

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 599 posts
  • Joined:13 May 2006
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Crankybuttville USA

Posted 11 August 2013 - 02:27 AM

View Postmarkprice, on 11 August 2013 - 02:07 AM, said:



That makes no sense, do you tend to say everything you don't understand is nonsensical? I bet that's a hell of a book list.

Duh, "multiply by will" came from the oh, so scientific formula you posted.  Do try to keep up with your own drivel.


#36    markprice

markprice

    what

  • Member
  • 3,767 posts
  • Joined:10 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 11 August 2013 - 07:42 PM

View Postphantasia, on 11 August 2013 - 02:27 AM, said:

Duh, "multiply by will" came from the oh, so scientific formula you posted.  Do try to keep up with your own drivel.

er, no it did not x lol = U posting. You can apply Will, you cannot not multiply Will. In the equation Will is a component of Soul.

This is getting shilly - Math

#37    markprice

markprice

    what

  • Member
  • 3,767 posts
  • Joined:10 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 11 August 2013 - 08:07 PM

View PostTimonthy, on 10 August 2013 - 04:09 AM, said:

(And our bodies do not lose weight when we die because our souls escape - normal concept of souls that is)


I got to where he addressed this issue you brought up, in the chapter called Beyond the Fringe.

The answer is 21 grams.  "The twenty one gram idea has been tested...This suggests the human soul has mass...mass and energy do not break down...so the human soul cannot go away...So the question becomes: what kind of energy is it?" Then he gets in to Maxwell's Equation, or mentions properties of light, multidimensional realities, the zero point field, quantum inter-connectivity-consciousness-synchronicity, space/time inter-connectivity, time travel, teleportation, non-locality, singularities, black holes and subjectivity." --like a mad scientist with his hair on fire, or lead singer of a few bands who then turns on a dime to attack Ouija boards... Point is he creates reasonable doubt in the process that would give all but the most narcissistic of skeptics cause for pause.

Edited by markprice, 11 August 2013 - 08:10 PM.

This is getting shilly - Math

#38    markprice

markprice

    what

  • Member
  • 3,767 posts
  • Joined:10 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 11 August 2013 - 08:29 PM

View PostJesseCuster, on 11 August 2013 - 01:34 AM, said:

Everything is made of energy including all life on earth, yet trees, plants, insects, bacteria, viruses, protozans, tapeworms, elephants, humans, donkeys, chickens, pigs, chameleons, etc. all die, so are you suggesting that all those things have "souls" hanging around on earth?

They probably reincarnate.

Quote

But more importantly, you've yet to determine the existence of or define a soul, nevermind a soul that exists after the death of its body, despite your vague attempts to incorporate something sciency sounding into your posts.  There's a lot of assuming your conclusion in this thread.

He touches on NDEs and how electromagnetic radiation carries radiant energy away from its source suggesting energy can exist autonomously from the body's source.

Quote

Is that fact or opinion?  If you are claiming it as fact can you actually show this to be true, if it's opinion you should state it as such.

I'm not going to rewrite the book here. This is just a heads up FYI.

Quote

Anyone can make up what appears to them to be scientific looking equations.  But when they're as hollow and superficial and pseudo-scientific as the dreck in the OP, they should be prepared to be called upon it.

Right, the author is fully aware of that.

Quote

Having a personal paranormal account does not excuse pseudo-scientific gobblygook in the form of equations.  Either it makes sense or it doesn't.  The fact that you've had a paranormal experience doesn't excuse nonsense or allow you to get away with nonsense claims.

How exactly does that equation help ghost hunters find ghosts? Specific examples would be appreciated.

If it was actual nonsense I would never have mentioned it. I mentioned the battery drain example which most ghost hunters experience. Now they know why according to CMFT. I think that stands for Cory Mother ******* Taylor.

This is getting shilly - Math

#39    markprice

markprice

    what

  • Member
  • 3,767 posts
  • Joined:10 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 12 August 2013 - 01:00 AM

View PostSkepticalB, on 11 August 2013 - 01:10 AM, said:

The difference between the beginning of the universe and ghosts is that the beginning of the universe had to have happened, or we wouldn't be here, so taking into accounts observable data, and going back from there, it's plausible to correlate teh baginning of the universe using math.

Ghosts are spooky things in old houses.

I can put S- C= NB

wherein

S=shakespeare
C=chaucer
and NB= no books

but that doesnt make it a mathematical formula,

That's not what is going on here; it's like you are pretending the guy is a four year old putting together random alphabet blocks. From page 206 concerning your limited concept of theoretical physics: "...to theoretical physicists explaining at length how their studies have shown promising evidence that astral projection could be plausible."  Would you complain if they converted some thoughts on that subject into equations? You objection is overruled, okay?

On another note, I remember actual ghost hunters on this site a while back whose opinions might have added to the equation. Have they all left the mockery behind to be endured by noobs with ghosts stories and "silly"questions? It's almost like Corey is trying to bring back a faded fad with this book that will probably end up being his next best seller. IDK, it got to the point where the author seemed to just take it for granted that ghosts are going to keep messing with him, his family and friends on a regular basis. Extraordinary to the point where it almost seems ordinary, IMO.

This is getting shilly - Math

#40    Skep B

Skep B

    Savant of Depravity

  • Member
  • 5,563 posts
  • Joined:02 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Duuuuuuuuuuuude

Posted 12 August 2013 - 02:31 AM

Of course I'd have a problem w/ that equation, astral projection is as ridiculous as ghosts.

Just because its plausible doesn't mean its actual.

If it were actual, they'd have already made an equation on it.

So....objection your overruled...mkay?

Edited by SkepticalB, 12 August 2013 - 02:33 AM.

When you know what a man loves, you know what can kill him


#41    Brian Topp

Brian Topp

    Dynamic Interactions Coordinator Of Paradoxes.

  • Member
  • 3,091 posts
  • Joined:10 Sep 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Year next Tuesday!

Posted 12 August 2013 - 04:07 AM

B+L+T = I'll eat it

It is easier to claim it is paranormal than taking the hard route to find out what really happened.


#42    markprice

markprice

    what

  • Member
  • 3,767 posts
  • Joined:10 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 12 August 2013 - 09:00 PM

View PostBrian Topp, on 12 August 2013 - 04:07 AM, said:

B+L+T = I'll eat it

Not really much of a theory.

View PostSkepticalB, on 12 August 2013 - 02:31 AM, said:

Of course I'd have a problem w/ that equation, astral projection is as ridiculous as ghosts.

Just because its plausible doesn't mean its actual.

If it were actual, they'd have already made an equation on it.

So....objection your overruled...mkay?

I see what the problem is here: nobody introduced you to the concept of theory so all you are capable of recognizing is results. There would be no science without theory. Then plausible theory is an upgrade from there and then you have the basis for all science...your welcome.

This is getting shilly - Math

#43    Fat Cat

Fat Cat

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 599 posts
  • Joined:13 May 2006
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Crankybuttville USA

Posted 12 August 2013 - 11:12 PM

Psst....stick to what you know because you clearly have no inkling of scientific inquiry and process.


#44    markprice

markprice

    what

  • Member
  • 3,767 posts
  • Joined:10 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 12 August 2013 - 11:54 PM

View Postphantasia, on 12 August 2013 - 11:12 PM, said:

Psst....stick to what you know because you clearly have no inkling of scientific inquiry and process.

That's why there is google:
Scientific Inquiry Process


When we engage in scientific inquiry we usually think there is a set procedure, a scientific method – hypothesise, design an experiment, get data, analyse it, make conclusions. This process doesn’t take into account a lot of the things that scientists do as they tackle a problem – follow hunches, use their imagination, discuss in corridors with colleagues. Not all scientists approach problems in the same way – many have preferred inquiry procedures which tie into their own preferred ways of learning and understanding. Different types of problems and contexts require different approaches.

So if there is no one set method to strictly apply is there anything in common? Yes! No matter whether you are a physicist or a biologist, as you inquire into something you are likely to cover different aspects. These are indicated in the chart below – it is like a road map – there are many different ways of arriving at the objective.

Posted Image

This is getting shilly - Math

#45    Brian Topp

Brian Topp

    Dynamic Interactions Coordinator Of Paradoxes.

  • Member
  • 3,091 posts
  • Joined:10 Sep 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Year next Tuesday!

Posted 13 August 2013 - 12:15 AM

View Postmarkprice, on 12 August 2013 - 09:00 PM, said:

Not really much of a theory.



I see what the problem is here: nobody introduced you to the concept of theory so all you are capable of recognizing is results. There would be no science without theory. Then plausible theory is an upgrade from there and then you have the basis for all science...your welcome.

Oh, Such sheer scarcasim.. I was being fresh, smart, witty, humerous.

Posted Image

Thing with theories, is that any one can make one up, doesn't mean they are worth wild or sane, just a theory.

Let me make a theory,

Markprice + Attitude + No sense of humor + not grasping the fact his theory falls short = Posted Image

It is easier to claim it is paranormal than taking the hard route to find out what really happened.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users