Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Ghost Equation


markprice

Recommended Posts

using mathematics to explain the non tangible seems like a bad idea

Tell that to Stephen Hawking.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If ghosts are pure human energy and energy cannot be destroyed (reincarnation)...well you do the math.

But if ghosts don't exist? Then the math is irrelevant.

Even if they did exist - we don't know if the soul, will or energy would have any bearing on their existence.

The equation is irrelevant either way.

NB. The replies to OP are funny!!!!

Edit:

Human electrical energy is why your heart is beating. In a ghost--in the author's experience--electrical energy is drained from batteries because that helps it continue to function at some level.

That's why he brings up reincarnation. The TV is dead but the electricity lives on--you know, the spirit of the TV is also electricity and then it gets smashed with a sledge hammer so the electricity goes elsewhere, like to another TV. That's overly simplistic, because it's a TV, but you get the picture.

The simplistic idea you're missing: The energy to make our heart beat and our brain work comes from normal biological function - the fuel comes from the food we eat and is stored in our bodies.

Any potential energy left in our bodies when we die is used or absorbed by the earth we are buried in.

The energy does not go anywhere else. It does not go missing. It is not lost or destroyed and it does not result in 'ghosts' etc.

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

Edit 2:

Tell that to Stephen Hawking.

Using it to explain something that is likely, probable, observed, reproducible etc. is one thing. Using it to explain ghosts is another.

Edited by Timonthy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell that to Stephen Hawking.

Ditto with what TIMMAHHHHH! said

Edited by SkepticalB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ditto with what TIMMAHHHHH! said

Then you are both wrong; now pay attention.

But if ghosts don't exist? Then the math is irrelevant.

Even if they did exist - we don't know if the soul, will or energy would have any bearing on their existence.

In the hypothetical equation S=W+E because something causes multiple observations, and if not that then what (here is where you supply your alternate equation or fail to do so).

The equation is irrelevant either way.

fail.

NB. The replies to OP are funny!!!!

fantastic.

Edit:

The simplistic idea you're missing: The energy to make our heart beat and our brain work comes from normal biological function - the fuel comes from the food we eat and is stored in our bodies.

Any potential energy left in our bodies when we die is used or absorbed by the earth we are buried in.

The energy does not go anywhere else. It does not go missing. It is not lost or destroyed and it does not result in 'ghosts' etc.

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

How did I miss that obvious idea? And how did you miss the concept of Soul X infinity? If you are a hardcore materialist with zero paranormal experience that might make sense, biologically; but I am specifically talking about what cannot be explained in those terms. Do I have to define paranormal now?

Edit 2:

Using it to explain something that is likely, probable, observed, reproducible etc. is one thing. Using it to explain ghosts is another.

Really, you mean Stephen successfully time traveled? I'm talking about observed events not just theoretical physics which could be used to explain what I'm talking about, hypothetically. [see OP] Nothing is more likely than something that already occurred; the explanation happens after the event for those who stop and think about it. Some people are so shell shocked they quickly descend into denial, which can have a damaging long term consequence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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.
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.
--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.
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

B+L+T = I'll eat it

Not really much of a theory.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

image001.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

My-favourite-GIF-ever.-Imgur.gif

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 = wtf-japan-gif-fish.gif

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ nailed it! :D

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Plausible theories are deemed plausible in retrospect.

Another plausible theory mentioned in the book is that light can be imprinted with information. And that there backs up his intelligent energy theory making it even more plausible.

[your word for the day: plausible]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh gawd, just googled Corey Taylor. He's a singer in a metal band with a history of drug and alcohol abuse. Yep, I guess he is qualified to come up with meaningless equations and spooky stories. :D

Great credibility!

Edited by phantasia
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ nailed it! :D

Oh gawd, just googled Corey Taylor. He's a singer in a metal band with a history of drug and alcohol abuse. Yep, I guess he is qualified to come up with meaningless equations and spooky stories. :D

Great credibility!

and you lost all credibility @ post #44.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plausible theories are deemed plausible in retrospect.

Another plausible theory mentioned in the book is that light can be imprinted with information. And that there backs up his intelligent energy theory making it even more plausible.

[your word for the day: plausible]

But the theory is NOT plausible it has too many FLAWS.

Here let me help you learn plausible:

plau·si·ble

/ˈplôzəbəl/

Adjective

  • (of an argument or statement) Seeming reasonable or probable.
  • (of a person) Skilled at producing persuasive arguments, esp. ones intended to deceive.

Synonyms

probable - likely - credible - believable - possible

Here the word is Flawed

flawed

/flôd/

Adjective

  • (of a substance or object) Blemished, damaged, or imperfect in some way.
  • (of something abstract) Containing a mistake, weakness, or fault.

Synonyms

faulty - flawy

just because YOU believe it, does NOT mean it is PLAUSIBLE! Means you are gullible!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.