Buildings And Contents Insurance
Insurance2 mins ago
Horizon - What is Reality?
108 Answers
http://www.bbc.co.uk/...2011_What_Is_Reality/
If those who claim the so called 'paranormal' doesn't exist want food for thought, do please watch it - that is if you can bear to think outside your comfort zone.
If those who claim the so called 'paranormal' doesn't exist want food for thought, do please watch it - that is if you can bear to think outside your comfort zone.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Birdie, there was no personal attack there, simply a few home truths. You were wrong and you don't like being told you're wrong. Well you have been.
//What exactly do you think your house was haunted by if not ghosts?//
Coming from someone who categorically denies that 'ghosts' exist, what a ludicrous question.
Flobadob, if I am wrong I will say I'm wrong, but if I'm misrepresented and unjustly attacked, which I have been, expect me to defend myself because I will. Sorry to disappoint.
//What exactly do you think your house was haunted by if not ghosts?//
Coming from someone who categorically denies that 'ghosts' exist, what a ludicrous question.
Flobadob, if I am wrong I will say I'm wrong, but if I'm misrepresented and unjustly attacked, which I have been, expect me to defend myself because I will. Sorry to disappoint.
Birdie, actually, I don't think I answered your post fully. Yes, I did live in a 'haunted house' for years, but I have no idea what the disruption was caused by. Your assertion that I said ghosts are 'unquestionably real' is not true. Additionally, you completely misunderstood my note to LazyGun but nevertheless thought you were justified in criticising me, and you have very clearly misunderstood my reasons for posting this question but nevertheless felt justified in criticising me yet again. I haven't been dishonest in this argument, but It would appear that Mr O'Briain's quote is very appropriate to you.
Hi Naomi,
I do enjoy your repeated assertions that anyone, but me specifically, who disagrees with you has somehow misunderstood your argument. I suppose if you say if often enough, some people will start to believe it. However, I do understand where you're coming from even if I don't agree with you. You're suggesting that what is currently described as paranormal is in fact just a manifestation of reality and that there is a scientific explanation for phenomena such as ghosts and hauntings.
I think your first mistake was to infer from the TV programme that because it's clear that there are some very odd things going on at a sub-atomic level, that somehow leaves the door open to insert what we call the 'paranormal' – hence your initial question.
As you know, all objects that we perceive as solid are in fact mostly empty space. That being said, objects cannot pass through one another unscathed because of their negatively charged fields which repel one another. It is also interesting to note that no two objects ever actually touch – they always remain approximately one angstrom (one hundred millionths of a centimetre) away from one another. It is the reason your fingers don't pass straight through your keyboard every time you type that I've misunderstood the thrust of your argument.
I do enjoy your repeated assertions that anyone, but me specifically, who disagrees with you has somehow misunderstood your argument. I suppose if you say if often enough, some people will start to believe it. However, I do understand where you're coming from even if I don't agree with you. You're suggesting that what is currently described as paranormal is in fact just a manifestation of reality and that there is a scientific explanation for phenomena such as ghosts and hauntings.
I think your first mistake was to infer from the TV programme that because it's clear that there are some very odd things going on at a sub-atomic level, that somehow leaves the door open to insert what we call the 'paranormal' – hence your initial question.
As you know, all objects that we perceive as solid are in fact mostly empty space. That being said, objects cannot pass through one another unscathed because of their negatively charged fields which repel one another. It is also interesting to note that no two objects ever actually touch – they always remain approximately one angstrom (one hundred millionths of a centimetre) away from one another. It is the reason your fingers don't pass straight through your keyboard every time you type that I've misunderstood the thrust of your argument.
Continued...
Once we start to discuss objects that are smaller than atoms – the well named sub-atomic world – we emerge at what has become known as the Standard Model. This consists of six quarks, six leptons, five known bosons and a postulated sixth, the Higgs bonson, plus three of the four physical forces: the strong and weak nuclear forces and electromagnetism. Particles can come in being and be gone again in an astonishingly short space of time – as little as 0.000000000000000000000001 of a second. Even the most sloth-like unstable particles only stick around for no more than 0.0000001 of a second.
None of the above scientific descriptions leaves a gap within which to insert what we call the 'paranormal'. If you chose to believe that it does then obviously that's up to you.
Once we start to discuss objects that are smaller than atoms – the well named sub-atomic world – we emerge at what has become known as the Standard Model. This consists of six quarks, six leptons, five known bosons and a postulated sixth, the Higgs bonson, plus three of the four physical forces: the strong and weak nuclear forces and electromagnetism. Particles can come in being and be gone again in an astonishingly short space of time – as little as 0.000000000000000000000001 of a second. Even the most sloth-like unstable particles only stick around for no more than 0.0000001 of a second.
None of the above scientific descriptions leaves a gap within which to insert what we call the 'paranormal'. If you chose to believe that it does then obviously that's up to you.
Birdie, well, all that information is very impressive I'm sure, but it's futile because you still have it wrong. I'm not inferring anything, and neither am I inserting what we call the 'paranormal' into anything, least of all where it doesn't belong. To the abject horror of some here I don't even agree that Mr Occam has given us anything of any real value because I don't accept 'best guesses' as valid answers, so I'm hardly likely to find a convenient gap in science and decide to fill it with something that doesn't fit perfectly. I want the truth and I'm simply asking whether within the scientific world that up until now continues to elude our comprehension - or even that which is yet to be discovered - phenomena might exist that could be responsible for some of the claims people make. I'm not saying that's the answer - I'm simply asking the people here who actually know no more about the subject of the 'paranormal' than I do, but nevertheless feel quite justified in insulting me by deeming me mistaken, deluded, or insane (how appallingly rude - so much for supposed intellect!) to give it serious consideration because there must be a rational answer somewhere. Sadly it seems, since they think they know all the answers already, they are not prepared to do that - and their lack of curiosity astounds me just as much as their lack of judgement does. Perhaps their attitude is alien to me because unlike them I'm not too proud to say 'I don't know' - but I definitely have the distinct impression that I have more genuine 'faith' in science than any of you people.
I think you need to take a step back from your impression of my thoughts on this subject and think again, because it's very clear that there's an enormous difference between my question and your erroneous interpretation of that question.
Your wife sounds like a very sensible lady to me.
I think you need to take a step back from your impression of my thoughts on this subject and think again, because it's very clear that there's an enormous difference between my question and your erroneous interpretation of that question.
Your wife sounds like a very sensible lady to me.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Film, Media & TV7 mins ago
ChatterBank10 mins ago
ChatterBank20 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles23 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.