I would appreciate opinions on this photo!

[Nenaraz]

You have proven already that you think I'm ignorant with your obvious portrayal of explaining what's Hertz. To be honest, it was laughable. It also proved to me that you'd rather call the other person an ignorant, arrogantly so, than to admit your own lack of knowledge and blame it on the fact that I don't deem necessary to use the science where there's no need for science itself. So far i've only seen contempt from your side. If you have anything of value to actually add or, better yet, if you have learned what stands behind the "non-hertzian" wave I'd be personally inclined to thank you even after the insults which you subtly offended me with.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Nenaraz

[nothingman]

On a side note, what the hell is a "non-hertzian" wave? Do you know what the definition of a "wave" and a "Hertz" is? I have read many of Tesla's writings and I have never seen any reference to this.

At the risk of appearing challenging or engaging in some type of spat (oh well, not my intent so I can't be concerned about that) have you ever heard of google? I only had to type "non-hert" to bring it up with many references to Tesla.

[JesseCuster]

If you're referring to me, the exact words have been quite explanatory. Also, how writing and replying means "avoiding" explaining?

If I ask you to write an essay on how the refrigerator operates to prove that you understand how vacuum operates and if you decline to do so I call you avoiding to answer and you have no credibility?

If I offered up a vaguely pseudo-scientific post to do with how fridges worked and said it was a good plausible explanation and then when asked to elaborate further because I was using odd terminology or using terminology correctly, simply wrote a lengthy post invoking a famous scientist and refused to actually explain what I was talking about, instead making excuses for why I won't provide a more technical explanation, then yes, I most certainly would lost credibility.

That's the thing about this place. There are many people here who aren't impressed by simply dropping something nicely sciencey sounding terminology into a post to try and explain the paranormal. That's the very essence of pseudo-science.

Edited November 19, 2013 by JesseCuster

[JesseCuster]

At the risk of appearing challenging or engaging in some type of spat (oh well, not my intent so I can't be concerned about that) have you ever heard of google? I only had to type "non-hert" to bring it up with many references to Tesla.

I think Kahn and ChrLz aren't interested in name-dropping. They want to know what the phrase actually means. Saying that famous scientist X used a particular phrase or coined it does not mean you can drop it into conversation whenever you want and think it makes for good science.

Richard Feynman mentioned quantum fields all the time, but that doesn't mean woo-woo advocates invoking it to explain that crystal healing works can get away with using it simply by invoking the fact that an Internet search reveals a well respected famous scientist used the phrase which might be highly technical and not prone to layman's usage.

Edited November 19, 2013 by JesseCuster

[Nenaraz]

If I offered up a vaguely pseudo-scientific post to do with how fridges worked and said it was a good plausible explanation and then when asked to elaborate further because I was using odd terminology or using terminology correctly, simply wrote a lengthy post invoking a famous scientist and refused to actually explain what I was talking about, instead making excuses for why I won't provide a more technical explanation, then yes, I most certainly would lost credibility.

Ah, no. You see, in the metaphor used you'd be the one stating that "in your personal experience" you felt "that much air" coming from the fridge, and all of a sudden someone asks you to provide a doctorate on both electricity and a compressor inside the motor. So don't sell me your preaches, thank you.

As I explained before I'm not here to condone a scientific research to prove my credibility because I stated that in my experience there was never a solitary dust particle of high luminous value. I also asked for it to be debunked given two pictures. I also asked the people are they aware of other possibilities to which I also provided links. If you're not aware, the person literally snapped (or so it seems) trying to impose that I should offer correct terminology in order to prove it to him because he didn't like the fact that I used "in my photographic experience" because he deemed himself quite potent in debunking it by offering something unrelated. And, you should also notice that I did respond by all means, but I stopped doing so when I saw personal attacks and contempt rather than civility and, should I say, hospitality.

That's the thing about this place. There are many people here who aren't impressed by simply dropping something nicely sciencey sounding terminology into a post to try and explain the paranormal. That's the very essence of pseudo-science.

I wasn't trying to explain it. I gave my explanation. And I succeeded at that. There's a difference between offering something that's not so commonly known about the ball lightning orbs as well as posting something which isn't in the science books or peer-review friendly. And it's quite common to do in general speech, especially more so given the option to use the google for educational purposes of acquiring the information.

Paranormal events can't be explained, thus the paranormal in them. And paranormal shouldn't be mistaken for pseudo-science, since we're already nitpicking. Explaining paranormal is illogical by itself, so I don't see why I'd do it.

Also, since this is a forum there's no particular real way of experimenting and proving with this other than providing links and I'm not into proving that I'm worthy of discussing something simply because somebody have his/her doubts in my knowledge.

Also, the forum as far as I'm concerned is called "UNEXPLAINED MYSTERIES" and not "SCIENTIFIC SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL WRITERS FOR ELEMENTARY KNOWLEDGE OF SCIENCE", it's quite reasonable to use non-scientific methods in a way to provide greater scope of observation for a potential analysis. On the endnote, science isn't all knowledgeable area of human expertise.

I think Kahn and ChrLz aren't interested in name-dropping

I'm going to make a small joke on your acc Hope it's ok :

I think that you lack a scientific peer-review research on telepathy. Also, please provide what methods have you used to penetrate their thoughts and please offer a proper explanation of what you mean by that. Do you know how neurons work? No more avoiding, please use correct terms like Axon, Neuron, Cell Body and Nucleus to prove to me your credibility.

Boohoohoo

On a serious note how in the world do you expect anyone to really prove ghosts or anything other than what's commonly accepted in terms of scientific research in a forum post? It's like asking for the physical evidence for gravity in a written form or, better yet, proving the psychological illness with math and math alone.

I'm personally intrigued to find the evidence but doing so on a forum is the last thing I'd personally do. For me, forum is a place to gather and share informations, not to go into vague discussions for the purpose of credibility...about paranormal. Astonished, really.

[Kahn]

At the risk of appearing challenging or engaging in some type of spat (oh well, not my intent so I can't be concerned about that) have you ever heard of google? I only had to type "non-hert" to bring it up with many references to Tesla.

Well, I took your challenge ...

And sure enough, one of the first results in that search exactly conveys my utter confusion over the subject:

http://www.capturedl...zian_Waves.html

What is being described is still "Hertzian" (and I have my reservations over how this description is being applied as the context is not the conventional context we know today). It is merely propagation of near and far field RF, and the change in amplitude and orientation of the electric to magnetic fields (I might add this is something that I have not only made part of my living at, but hold 3 of my patents in, so I'm not a complete dolt). This is not mystical to me, it's just part of how propagation works, so I take it for granted.

So I did learn something today, that the term is a misunderstanding of common phenomenon.

... and before someone begins screaming about "electrical pressure", this too is still a wave when observed for a macro point of view.

[Brian Topp]

Also, I've done with answering to all this nonsense.

You explaination is like Karl Pilkington's idea.

Karl had this idea of a watch that tells the time on how long it is until you will die. Ricky Gervais asked how is it works. Karl Responded "You just pop it on your wrist and it tells you the time". Ricky laughed and said you can't go to a patent office and say I have this idea and not know how to build one.

You have this idea, you put fancy words in but you just side step answering the questions. If I had a repairman and said i fixed your problem and i said why and he goes "Well the spacetime flux was out of it's Blakki, i had to woffle it a few times with my hand wrisle" I be what? If he said "Your compressor was faulty" i be ahhh ok.

[Nenaraz]

@Kahn : ^ That was made a decade ago and I actually knew that you'd look for links which 'try" to debunk what Tesla claimed. Without actually doing any research, just meddling with terminology.

So you can't find "scientific truth" about something which doesn't follow the known scientific path and is best described as an oxymoron.

But try a bit different approach on that finding the common ground, in the physical sense, as well as the conscious itself, to see that the possibility for hertz and nonhertz to work together and are interchangeable. Also, you won't find the evidence for non-hertzian since it's quite inversive by its nature. Here's a pattern.

Basically, to look at non-hertzian standpoint is to look at the mirror itself because at certain point it's just paradoxical to itself. And it can't be proven, physically, while hypothetically it's more than sound (no pun intended)

@Brian Topp : Why the impression that I used scalar waves to offer my opinion as a means for explanation? Where did I even incline that? Because it was written in the same post? I already said that I think it was an earring and not a ghost to the OP. I mentioned Tesla because of his works on Aura, precisely, as well as ball lightning itself to simply extend the topic a bit. Mistakenly so certain people took it as my attempt to (dis)approve things. I can't be more obvious than that. I hope this clarifies it. Oh, and I don't give a damn too when someone's unmistakably rude.

Edited November 20, 2013 by Nenaraz

[DeWitz]

Your diagram seems to correspond arrestingly with Master's and Johnson's famous bell curve of human sexual response of excitement-intromission-climax-post-coital relaxation. Perhaps there is a 'ghost in the machine' of the process of human sexual arousal, culmination and then resolution which is analogous to your sclara waves and/or Hertizan analysis.

Alfred Kinsey did exceptional research into the crude, mechanistic ways by which this peak could be experienced, and verified as even more plausible.

Maybe ghosts come from within.

Edited November 20, 2013 by szentgyorgy

[Nenaraz]

^ So much about that...

Anyway, for clarification it's not mine. It's the actual scientific work which is explaned to those who know what it is about and are knacky for Tesla's work.

http://www.n01a.org/experimente/

Edited November 20, 2013 by Nenaraz

[JesseCuster]

Basically, to look at non-hertzian standpoint is to look at the mirror itself because at certain point it's just paradoxical to itself. And it can't be proven, physically, while hypothetically it's more than sound (no pun intended)

Please explain that graph in precise scientific terms and exactly how it relates to ghosts.

What do the following terms mean in precise and relevant scientific terms and how do they related to ghosts:

v = velocity, but what velocity are we talking about or measuring here as in what is the object that we are putting a velocity measurement into this equation and why are we doing so? What do the other velocity terms like ve, vt, etc. means in terms related to this discussion of ghosts?

What is m (as in mass in the equation) and what is the objection that we are measuring and using the mass of? What are the relevances and measurements of the other m measurements like m0, etc.?

What is the "total energy" that is mentioned in the diagram heading and what is the related "stable object" that is mentions and how does it related to the topic at hand? Blah blah blah!

AARRGGGHHH! I could go on but won't. This is bull**** pseudoscience of the highest order. It's a bunch of stuff that looks like math and science to a person who has just failed high school math and impresses nobody but the scientifically illiterate.

[ChrLzs]

That junk is completely off-topic and is Dunning-Kruger personified. Note that Neneraz did not answer a single ontopic question or respond to any criticisms, just posted more word salad.

Yep, when all else fails just mention E=mc² - that'll impress the tinfoilhatters..

Complete waste of time responding further. Just google 'bokeh', folks.

[Kahn]

I really tried to suspend belief in an attempt to entertain Nenaraz's pseudoscientific "view" in the hope that maybe everything he was posting was just being misinterpreted. Nope, we truck out that E=mc²+λ Einstein's equation, but with a nonsensical lambda on the end. Dude, conductance has nothing to do with special relativity! And please don't start with that, "If I were smart enough" crap because I am smart enough to know that if lambda was added to special relativity that it would have a enormous effect upon how the universe works. If you are going to spout physics, at least you could stop long enough to actually learn some physics.

Think what you will of us in the community who actually know what we are talking about. I'm done here.

[Nenaraz]

@JesseCuster :

Please explain that graph in precise scientific terms and exactly how it relates to ghosts.

Where did you get that? There was never any talk about the existence of ghosts. Also, for all the things you need refer to my previous post with video and scientific research.

At this point I may call you on elaborate trolling...

@ChrLzs :

completely off-topic and is Dunning-Kruger

Hoho, irony. Yes, of course it's off-topic. Good morning, Columbus!

@Kahn :

Why do you mistake my opinion on the matter with the links that I post? At this point of discussion my impression is that you people don't really care to use Google nor care to think for yourself about the hypothesis. The impression is that all you want is just to reject anything given to you, as evident, and to impersonate how your opponent doesn't know the basics of physics/scientific research et cetera. The attempt is really obvious, I needn't say more about it. At least this was of value :

that it would have a enormous effect upon how the universe works

Yes. Which is why Tesla was far more advanced for his time. And, yes, the universe isn't really explored. As I wrote, that's the possibility for another reality, which is why Tesla used "non-hertzian" but should've been probably "mirror-hertzian" or alternative reality which is interchangeable with our own commanded by laws of physics. And you can't expect a scientific approach with physical manifesto to a hypothesis of alternative non-physical reality. If you're done, so am I. I don't mind the elaborate trolling of the people who don't care to read, at least you tried and you have my thanks for it, but it's still not enough. For any further reference address to the links I gave.

Edit : For the purpose of posterity and because it's Tesla I'll post some graphs, too, for those who're interested to see where it may lead and to acknowledge the potential of such info. In fact, I have only discovered more info about this hypothetical manifestation myself. Amazing things, really, though not really relevant to the perception of scientific reality.

Hertzian : http://users.beotel.net/~gmarjanovic/ru71bin.jpg

Non-hertzian : http://users.beotel.net/~gmarjanovic/ru81bin.jpg

And that's basically the idea behind possibilities. Free electricity using Earth alone could be done if only there was proper realization. In a true sense, Tesla was a great hacker.

Edited November 20, 2013 by Nenaraz

[beelzebufo]

Good lord, what's happening here? Aren't we supposed to be talking about a dust photo?

[ChrLzs]

Good lord, what's happening here? Aren't we supposed to be talking about a dust photo?

Indeed - Neneraz even says himself it's off topic.

Neneraz, in your next post please explain in simple terms what this garbage has to do with the topic. If you don't, I will report the posts, which are now looking very much like you are spamming at worst, derailing at least.

Also - and I'd strongly suggest you answer honestly - is the site you are linking to and from which you got these images, YOURS? Given they appear hardly anywhere else, that seems extremely likely.

[Brian Topp]

this reminds me of markprices theory

[Nenaraz]

Neneraz, in your next post please explain in simple terms what this garbage has to do with the topic. If you don't, I will report the posts, which are now looking very much like you are spamming at worst, derailing at least.

Yes, they're off-topic and me and Kahn continued the discussion in that manner.

Since it's not obvious to you, I had an offtopic discussion with Kahn about the "Non-hertzian" waves, or, rather, Tesla waves. It was also mentioned long ago. I disagree it's "****" since it's done first by Tesla (back then people also would say "****") and afterwards by a person who's working with it for more than fifteen years and who's having an academic degree for electro-engineering. So they have far more credibility, than you ever will, even if they talk about multidimensional theories.

So to clarify :

- Ghost in the picture : My opinion is that it's an earring. You may see so in my post. Finished

- Reply to your offtopic video : Take into consideration the existence of ball lightning before blaming it all on bokeh effect. Finished

- Off-topic conversation with Kahn : Providing info for informational purposes. Finished

- Mambo-jumbo with your accusations as well as thinking I was proving something about ghosts : You surely jest. Finished.

Also - and I'd strongly suggest you answer honestly - is the site you are linking to and from which you got these images, YOURS? Given they appear hardly anywhere else, that seems extremely likely.

The links I posted are not leading to my site(s)(?). I'm a student of computer science, not someone who's building a hypothesis on theoretical physics. They're used for posterity reason and for people who want to see what "Non-hertzian" means in terms of scientific research. The person who's leading this is PhD electrical engineer, Goran Marjanovic

For some superficial info, visit this site http://www.duhrtnja.com/english/

For further notice, I have you ignored for accusations and spamming that something's "Garbage" while you have all links at your disposal. If you don't have anything constructive to write, don't write. Especially not to me. Regards

Edited November 21, 2013 by Nenaraz

[ChrLzs]

Yes, they're off-topic

Thanks for admitting it. Don't raise irrelevant topics and post reams of parroted claptrap and then whine like a tonfoilhatter when you are called on it.

The rest of your post is full of the same long-winded rubbish, and even another irrelevant and silly link. Future posts of a similar nature will be reported..

[Abominable Snowman]

Freaky, I can see a skull shape face under the orb?! It's looking through the gap between the babies head, the girl and under the orb.

_EDIT_

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/gallery/images/10536/2013-11-07-142837

i did a quick drawing to show where the skull face is.

I have enlarged the image to the max but cannot see anything that even remotely resembles a skull?

[Kahn]

Gravedig!

[toast]

I have enlarged the image to the max but cannot see anything that even remotely resembles a skull?

Good Morning.

Tea or coffee?