Do you believe in ghosts?

These threads are hysterical. It's like the sane and the insane having a debate about reality.

~Ulrika~

I already know what I am.

No, I'm not talking about "remnance". I'm actually talking about an intellegence left behind long after the body dies in the form of electromagnetic energy.

Most ghost hunters are critical of their data too, being a skeptic first and foremost and eliminating any sort of mundane cause for the "ghostly" activity before determining whether or not we should start looking for spooks. Only the "fluff bunny" ghost hunters go around going "ZOMG GHOSTSESES!!" at every little anomoly.

As for EM fields, the kind we look for are usually ones that shouldn't be there and give off a D/C current. To measure/locate these fields, most groups use a Trifield meter, which is an EMF meter that is calibrated specifically for fields found in nature. Not to say every D/C field is a ghost though. We also take solar activity, geomagnetic activity, and other things that can cause a natural EMF into consideration. To eliminate any man-made fields from the mix, A/C calibrated EMF detectors are employed.

Not to mention, these D/C fields in question usually have certain characteristics about them. They usually register at 2.5 milligauss or higher. The movement and behavior of the field is usually sporadic, as if it has a mind of it's own. The temperature of air in their presence usually dips significantally as opposed to the temperature of air around them.

There's a lot more involved in the process of investigation, but I'm at work, I'm tired, and I don't really feel like elaborating at the moment.

postsane?

Do you ever just flip on the obscure AM channels and zone out? There's a wealth of fascinating stuff there.

Just saw that. Alot of the photographs used in it are actually proven to be either hoaxes, or what's known as "three dot phenomena" where the human mind looks for familiar shapes (such as human faces) in amorphous masses. There are a couple, like the "man in the backseat" that are truly unexplainable.

The video, on the other hand, can be quite easily faked.

ITC, in my opinion, is really reaching out there. It also goes back to the "three dot" thing.

And finally, EVP... while I believe that EVP exists, the ones used in that flash are way too clear and audible. Most of the EVP I recorded is usually kinda garbled, though it still sounds like a human voice.

It was a spook spoof, a joke to scare you at the end. Look closely at the window.... BOO!

Happy horribleween.. muhahaha

Um... actually the "documentary" was rather serious. And at the end, they even admit the little joke at the end was just thrown in for fun.

Since electromagnetic energy propagates at the speed of light, what keep it localized? Are there charged particles fed by some sort of energy source? Wouldn't it be easier to look for these? In other words, where in Maxwell's Equations do ghosts fit in?



I'm not fully sure what you're saying. Electric dc current would be amperes (or microamperes) and involves the movement of charge, however you talk about milligauss, which is magnetic field. Do you look for both?

The Trifield meter specifically says that it is a 3-axis average, wouldn't it be better to use multiple directional detectors so that you can triangulate on the source? Also, using more than one detector at a time would allow you to eliminate spurious signals caused by internal noise from the detector itself (i.e. any signal that is only seen by 1 detector can be ignored).

Are these signals recorded and analyzed later?



no problem. I'm still curious about the correlation and how it was done.

Heh. When you bring in Maxwell's Equations, you're getting way outta my league. I'm just an ameteur ghost hunter. All I know is that common theory is that ghosts emit EMF's that read 2.5 milligauss, which is the unit of measurement on that reads on an EMF detector. We mostly just use the Trifield to find the presence of an EMF. And we mostly just record the measurements on paper as we investigate.

As for the Trifield meter in particular, it is the most inexpensive model out there, considering that multi directional ones can run anywhere between $500 and $1,000. Most ghost hunters do this alongside their day job and money comes into the equation here. And yes, often multiple detectors (often owned by other members of the group) are used at once. It's mostly the big groups with lots of money that have the really fancy equipment.

Most of the time, EMF detectors are used in conjunction with analog and digital cameras, as well as infrared thermometers. When there's an odd EMF reading or an unusual cold spot, we take pictures of the general vicinity where these anomolies are detected. Usually these photos yield some interesting results when later examined.

Also, we employ the use of video cameras, both infrared and regular, and place them in spots where there has been any suspected activity, then review the footage later on.

And finally, there's EVP. Usually what's done here is we set up a white noise generator in an alleged active area and set up a cassette (it must be a fresh tape and you can only use one side) or DAT recorder. We then proceed to ask questions. Afterwards, we run the sounds through a filter and see if we can find any low-frequency vocals in response to our questions. This, by far, has yielded the most surprising results.

Last night there was a tv show about Ghosts. It was pretty interesting. I would say it bordered on proof of ghosts. I have yet to see a ghost personally, but I have yet to see a black hole yet either. I'm open to any possibility.

I love it. A TV show can convince you of the existence of ghosts, yet hundreds of posts to the contrary are unable to instill a sense of skepticism in you.

Out of curiosity, how old are you, how much education do you have, and what part of the world do you live in?

~Ulrika~

Black holes as popularly understood don't exist.

The infamous matter singularity is no more assured than the charge singularity attributed to garden variety electrons.

In both cases the very physics that implies the singularity is contradicted in some other way - always a sign that there is a better explanation.

Infinite charge -vs- coulomb repulsion in the case of an electron, entropy problems in the case of black holes.



While not as exciting for science fiction plot devices, the following theory of 'black holes' may be a bit closer to the truth.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/gravastars_020423.html

Though such an explanation may leave you to wonder: Hey, where's the cream filling?

Now you know why the US government wants to spend $3 billion to subsidize digital tv converters so that no one has to go without the "truth machine" when broadcasters do the mandatory switch to digital broadcasting

Wow. That was truly an insightful observation, placed at exactly the right place in the thread.

~Ulrika~

I believe in BooBerry.

Count Chocula is a sham though.

Well, now the poll is closed, it seems the results are conclusive.. More people believe in ghosts... at least a large majority of those who read this thread.

Sorry, I didn't get a chance to reply over the weekend.

The problem here is that there is a lot of room for interpretation by the observer. In order to validate the techniques, someone needs to do some validation studies on these methods. The sort of test I would suggest is outlined below. I realize that this sort of thing is beyond the scope of a hobbyist, but to get any kind of credibilty this sort of thing should be done. The idea is to eliminate the problem of: you go to a place where you expect to see ghosts and if see anything with your measurements then you attribute it to ghosts. What if you went to a place with no ghosts and got the same reading? that would be a "false positive". Similarly if you went to a place with ghosts (assuming there is some way to determine this) and you got no readings, then this would be a "false negative". In order to correlate your measurements with ghost activity, you need to have an idea of your rates of false postives and false negatives and minimize them.

Validation test:

The researchers should divide into 3 teams:

Team 1: Selects a set of sites, preferrably as many as possible (the more you have the better statistics you can get). I would guesstimate that 100 would be about right, but this may not be practical. About half the sites should be "definitely haunted" and the other half should be "definitely not haunted". To me this is really the trickiest part. It should be done consistently, because the error in this determination propagates through the test. Perhaps the best way to do it would be to use "residents report ghost activity" and "residents report no ghost activity". The "not haunted" locations should be selected to be as similar as possible to the "haunted" locations (geography, building style and age, etc.). Team 1 should also prepare the sites to eliminate anythign that may give the other teams clues that would allow them to know before hand whether the place is hautned or not (books about ghosts laying around etc.). In addition, they should make arrangements for the residents to be away when the measurements are being conducted.

Team 2: Visits the site and makes the measurements. They should not be told if the place is haunted. They should then make all their usual measurements as well as keep track of any unusual things they experience. Measurements should be as consistent from site to site as possible. (I would also highly recommend turning off all bulding power, this should help cut down on interference and only run one test at a time so that any noise generated by other equipment is not present).

Team 3: They should never visit the site. They should recieve only the data (measured EMF, photos, videos, sound recordings etc). Any observed phenomena should not be relayed to them. Their job is to objectively examine the data to determine if any of the measurements indicate ghost activity.

The results of the thrid team's analysis can then be checked against the status determined by Team 1 as well as any observations of Team 2 during the data collection.

This is the sort of study that is needed to convince people like me that ghosts aren't just "people seeing things that aren't there". Of course this won't answer the question I had before, which was "why are ghosts associated with the souls of dead people", but it would move things closer to being scientific. I would bet that a well written proposal for a study like this could get some grant funding if you know where to apply and word it properly, maybe with the inclusion of a psychologist to look at the influence of the observers on the data collection.

Fortunately, science isn't a democratic process.

~Ulrika~

What she said ^

That's true, but a poll is... kisses and hugs my sweet

Which is even scarier than seeing a ghost.

Vampires are real and are walking amongst you V^vv^V

Uh huh!

DEMONS ARE!!!!!