Hear this people, and do not close your eyes for openness is a virtue.
While studying modern physics we came across this great invention called the spectrum of the hydrogen atom. Now we all know that the light visible for man is within the wavelength from 380-760Hz/nm. Spectrum means
Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, A. The distribution of energy emitted by a radiant source, as by an incandescent body, arranged in order of wavelengths.
Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, B. The distribution of atomic or subatomic particles in a system, as in a magnetically resolved molecular beam, arranged in order of masses.
(free from a dictionary)Ã,Â
Or to those who aren't so good at English(http://blog.sethgodin.silkware.com/FindAttachment/2864/1114200772140/pink-floyd-dark-side.jpg)
Thus the rainbow is a visual phenomenon called scattering where the white light, containing all the wavelengths of visible light, reflects from the front to the back of a drop of water and then again from the front as such: (http://whyfiles.larc.nasa.gov/text/kids/Problem_Board/problems/light/images/scattering05.gif)
Now what has this to do with hydrogen atoms? As all we know, some materia can emit spacific wavelength of light while others can absorb it. This would mean that if you sent the whole spectrum to say through some materia in the form of gas, the gas would absorb the wavelengths it cannot emit.
(http://www.kiviopas.fi/opetus/jalokivi/kuvat/spektri.jpg) in this one there's no gas, but from top to bottom
1. Diamond(cape)
2. Diamond(with 540nm abrobtionline)
3. Ruby
4. Spinel (red)
5. Emerald
The black lines on each horizontal line stand for the wavelenghts that the certain minerals do not emit.
This phenomenon can also take place in other occasions such as the following. (http://www.frontiernet.net/~jlkeefer/balmer1.gif) once the electron is charged it will move to an outer shell, and then immidiately return to it's position releasing it's energy in waves in spectrums.
In 1885 A Swiss mathematician Johann Palmer noticed, that the equation for hydrogen atom's spectrum, or better, the lines could be written as 1/λ = RH(1/22-1/m2,Ã, m=3,4,5,... Where as we all know, the RH is the Rydberg constantfor hydrogen.
The black lines are MOSTLY located within the wavelengths of visible light. But, as later was noticed, some or them are located within those of both infrared and ultraviolet. Once we add those, we get: 1/λ = RH(1/n2-1/m2), n=1,2,3,...; m=n+1, n+2,...
Where the series within UV is named after Lyman, n=1, m=2,3,...; the visible light after Balmer, n=2, m=3,4,...; and the IR area- after Paschen, n=3, m=4,5,...; all by their founders.
Finally, these Paschen and Lyman series can in some very rare cases be seen to some people who are even more scarce. Meaning, that in some very obscure occasions some people may be anle to see things that are not visible to others. Now this goes for hydrogen. Suppose ghosts are not hydrogen, but some materia unfamiliar to us, yet. This however counts out the accusations we tend to make to those who claim they have seen a ghost, because we cannot prove they are lying, in fact, we can hereby prove they have seen something.
On these bases we could analyze a story written in the NY Times few days ago:
A New Home, Not Quite Vacated
By SUSAN MILLAR PERRY
Published: October 30, 2005
It began much like any classic horror story: an unsuspecting couple fall in love with a classic six with two bedrooms in a 1912 Blum Brothers building. It was a tumbledown wreck, of course, with cracked plaster everywhere, a creaky old kitchen and only one working bathroom, out of three. But my husband, David Perry, and I were won over by the glorious sprawl of rooms, with the bonus of original crown moldings, wainscoted walls and 10-foot ceilings.
In addition, the living room fireplace, adorned with Grueby Arts and Crafts tiles, was a gem. This was a palace compared with our one-bedroom two floors up, which we had so obviously outgrown since our son was born. And as luck would have it, not only the price was right - so was the timing, because we had a buyer for our place.
The fact that the big, vintage apartment had never fallen victim to a cheesy renovation had a simple explanation: In close to a century, only one family of renters had ever lived there. In fact, the last of the clan, the 90-year-old Mr. Schwab, the only name we knew him by, had peacefully died just weeks before in the master bedroom. My husband and I knew Mr. Schwab, a kindly, dapper man, with his signature trench coat and Camel dangling from his mouth.
Ã, Ã, - A cliché, we know that... as you might have noticed, the writer was indeed the owner of the house, hardly in need of the money from publicity she gets according to the pictures of the house.
The building gossip was that he had been a spy for the United States during World War II. We kept thinking of that as we cleaned out piles of Nazi memorabilia from one of the nonfunctioning bathrooms, which he had used as a sort of giant filing cabinet, before we could forge ahead, painting, plastering and renovating the kitchen in order to move in.
I was more perturbed than understanding of our dog Bailey's reluctance to visit the job site. Bailey, normally an inquisitive retriever, refused to set one paw in the place, forcing us to drag him in by the leash.
Then our superintendent, who was clipping along nicely doing all the painting and plastering at night on his off hours, suddenly told us he would work in the apartment only during the daytime. That meant weekends, at a much slower pace. He never quite gave us a full explanation, just muttering something about hearing strange sounds and having a few too many accidental tumbles off his ladder.
It was only after we moved in that I knew that the apartment - or rather someone who used to live there - was trying to communicate with us, and not in the friendliest of ways. My husband, looking white as a proverbial ghost as he climbed into bed one night, told me that he had just been pushed while brushing his teeth.
As you see, this was a long story, which you can only read once you have signed in for an online subscriber, that is why I will not link it here. But I shall, cut the most meaningless parts away.
"Oh, come on," I said in disbelief. "No, really," he continued, "like this," and he gave me quite a shove. A few days later he said he had felt the same invisible nudge as he was drifting off to sleep.
From then on, the barking began, usually around 3 a.m. With the fur on his back bristling to attention, Bailey was obviously guarding us against something, but what?
Ã, Ã, -They had to make the dog listen classical music in order to get him relaxed.
Just as the barking - and shoving - seemed to subside, I was awakened one night by my son's screams: "Mommy, Mommy, there's a man in my room!" I knew it wasn't the power of suggestion that had induced his terror, because my husband and I had never spoken of our visitor in front of Nick, who was then 5.
The next morning he wouldn't let it go. Over Cheerios and cocoa, our son described the man in his "nightmare," who sounded remarkably like Mr. Schwab. The man, he insisted, had stood at the foot of his bed, with outreached hands, ready to grab him. Could the vet be right, did our son and dog actually see dead people?
Ã, Ã, Ã, - Now here's something that my investigations back up well enough... And as it is universally known, aanimals hear, smell, and probably see more than we do... Do not forget that the older you get, the less colours you see. I could keep a lesson of this too, but I better spare you for now ;)
Not long after that, we came home to an even more disturbing scene. Bailey, quivering and soaking wet, was skulking under a table, with his tail straight and stiffened between his legs. And there was a rushing sound - water, from the bathroom shower inexplicably turned at full blast. The water was scalding hot, and so steam had built up everywhere, even causing the plaster on part of the living room ceiling to splatter to the floor.
Ã, Ã, -Ã, The house got Blessed, etc. etc. The woman consulted her friend:
she assured me that I could perform the exorcism quite easily myself. "The ghost likes your feminine energy," she said. "He's never bothered you, just your husband, son and male dog."
-She then tried some exsorcism. etc. etc. etc. blaa blaa talked to the ghost she wouldn't see, and he never harrassed them again.
(The chapters were mostly loaned from NY Times, not copied, thus I am not breaking any copyright laws, I'm merely referring to the subject)
Now I reckon once you have taken the time reading this utmost discovery, you wouldn't leave it uncommented, would you now? Either refer to my theory, what do yo uthink of it, or to the article I referred to.
Sorry but I really don't understand where you stated your theory or what any of those formulas mean. If I understand you are suggesting that a human dies and the energy turns into some kind of hydrogen gas which is the ghost? I really dont know much about the science of spirits and stuff like that.
Basically what I'm saying, is that "ghosts" as we know them, may not be something that we turn into, but merely some material we cannot see in most cases, which often gets the form of something familiar. Now that I think of it, all organic creatures reproduce their cells continuously. And as we do, the outer cells on our skin die, and fall. This means, that where ever we go, there are marks that we have been there. Sized as cells are, they will not be visible but through specific equipment.
Later on I started thinking: In every decomposing process is burning in variable froms, reacting with 02 to be exact. Now burning in most cases, if not all, produces amounts of hydrogen. Might it keep it's shape or then could the magnetic fields that surround us be transferred or perhaps the charge within the atoms stay, that is still unclear to me... must figure it out, thoug I think I don't have the equipment.
Anyway, there are some wavelengths that can be seen by some and not others, nor can they sometimes be seen with qualified equipment!
[edit]Due to complaining arguments and shallowminded people I am to appologise that I may have some spelling errors in the post, and thereby it isn't exact. Yet I ask you to even concider the theory before questioning it, because then you do not have anything to argue with, and I am not willing to argue with such people. Furthermore I will be willing to hear good arguments for and against me, such with which I can carry on further. Thank you[/edit]
Hokum.
No.
Dude...
1. Is your post interesting, helpful or funny? If not, don't post it.
One word posts don't cut it, sorry.
As for your theory... I think the main question I have is, if there is this unknown material in the air, why is it conscious and "disturbing" the males in the house?
And why do animals always get attributed with psychic abilities?
I'm sure the Nazis had tons of dogs that roamed around concentration camps or in the showers and they never turned tail and wouldn't go in, if any place should be "haunted" you'd think it would be those places.
I'm willing to believe in any theory that has a Pink Floyd album cover!
...
I didn't read it all by the way.
...
But you could probably guess that.
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php07455
Download the VSTi and read the readme, it's really good!!
Do you even know what you're talking about? The hydrogen spectrum is easily analyzed because it's such a simple atom and only has one electron to jump orbitals. EVERY atom can emit light. What does this have to do with ghosts? You think that some yet undiscovered "ghost" atom emits light as well? Hmm.. well, we know every atom up to (and past) plutonium that won't decay in less than a second, and theoretically every one past the artificially created ones will decay too fast to practically stay around, so does this ghost atom have negative amounts of protons or what? Just so you know, antimatter explodes on contact with regular matter, so don't start that.
Shbaz I don't necessarily mean just hydrogen atoms, it's an example because it's easy to study :P
Iwon't be saying there necessarily was some materia we do not know of, but to think of it, if we don't know about it, there may even be. I know there are lots of things I don't know but they still exist...
And I know for true I believe, that for example hydrogen emits light different to what we normally see and some may be able to see it.
For those who want to hang me for being a pagan or so, I suggest you take this with a little bit of humour, personally, I think this makes sense, still do not believe in ghosts myself. It's hard because I haven't seen one. And hey. there's this one rule up there MrColossal pointed out, I will ignore one wrod posts since they don't make you any more mature than what I am.
Your topic title intrigued me - I'm a Ph.D. Student in physics, so here's my "expert" opinion :)
Quote from: Tuomas on Sun 30/10/2005 19:58:40Later on I started thinking: In every decomposing process is burning in variable froms, reacting with 02 to be exact. Now burning in most cases, if not all, produces amounts of hydrogen.
No burning process I know produces hydrogen - H2 is highly combustible by itself. As was said before, almost anything
can emit light if excited. Most of the time though, the electron returns to its former level and dissipates heat instead of light.
QuoteAnyway, there are some wavelengths that can be seen by some and not others, nor can they sometimes be seen with qualified equipment!
Well most people can see pretty much the same wavelengths (with apologies to the colorblind, who miss some). But light (electromagnetic waves) in general covers a HUGE breadth of possible wavelengths, many many times more than what we can see. We're talking from high-energy gamma rays to km-long radio waves.
So yes, the world can be seen in many different wavelengths, invisible to the human eye. Put a near infrared filter on a video camera (which are sensitive past visible to near infrared) and you will see things no human can see. Some night-vision systems work that way.
This, however, does not do much to prove or disprove ghosts. Basically, if a ghost is emitting light that humans can see, a camera would be able to pick it up. I've yet to see a convincing video of a ghost.
Yes, there is more to the world than meets the eye, but there's nothing supernatural about that :)
This is interesting, but I think that trying to see ghosts with the spectrum of the hydrogen atom is like trying to see God with a telescope.
Yes well, Janik, you see, if someone really is a Ph.D. he'd probably never waste his talent on something as useless as this. Though I remember seeing pictures with ghosts in them... Or not necessarely ghosts, things we reckon as ghost-like or even supernatural. But the might all be photoshopped or not. What I get from your post, is that it is not impossible for cameras to take pictures of such?
I only just realize Igot a little carried away with the O2 thing, I first wrote H2O there but then thought of it, and changed it without thinking it through really... I don't see why this couldn't be, I mean, H2O has hydrogen in it, and occasionally it may be in some commection to what I'm saying... got to study deeper or forget it.
Quote from: Tuomas on Sun 30/10/2005 22:25:32
Yes well, Janik, you see, if someone really is a Ph.D. he'd probably never waste his talent on something as useless as this.
He he, I don't have the Ph.D yet. It kind of sounds like you doubt me, perhaps I'm just misreading you.
QuoteThough I remember seeing pictures with ghosts in them... Or not necessarely ghosts, things we reckon as ghost-like or even supernatural. But the might all be photoshopped or not. What I get from your post, is that it is not impossible for cameras to take pictures of such?
Yeah, I've seen some pictures too, but even without photoshop still pictures are kind of easy to fake. A video (plus some witnesses) would be harder to fake, but sometimes can be misinterpreted. I remember seeing a show called "proof positive" where a video of some strange lights was investigated. It didn't look like any human shape or anything, but it was kind of weird; the video expert showed it was just reflections in the lens of some of the light sources in the room. It wasn't fraud, but just misinterpreted.
For not more than a couple of hundred years ago, electricity was regarded as witchcraft or bogus. Just because we don't have the tools to scientifically measure something does not mean it doesn't exist.
With those words, I'd still like to point out that I believe the usual "tricks" of catching ghosts on film or picture are baloney. What is troublesome is that we need to explain very abstract occurances, and the simplest way to do so is by making analogies to what we do know, which we don't know from the first place. Confusing? Yes..
It is basically religion, myths are tools to adress deep psychological aspects of human behaviour and life in comprehensible ways. Modern psychology succeeds in parts of these but fails in other. To give ghost the possible "unknown" materia thesis which reacts to light in unorthodox ways is to shoot yourself in the foot because first you must define "ghost" itself.
Does the soul constitute of this unknown materia, then what is the soul?
Since even materia is a form of energy (theory, not fact.. but on the other hand, everything we "know" are theories we havn't disproved yet), being that light manage to be particles and radiation at the same time, the so called ghost can be a vast range of possible, and completely scientific, phenomenons. Bodily echoes, subconscious manifestations of the psyche or even a glitch in time itself (making this "ghost" actually being a 90-years old LIVING man messing with "ghosts" in HIS appartment).
Now, your drop of physics is interesting, but still does not prove the existance of ghosts. Sadly, the established researchers are to convinced of the 'truth' that they've forgotten how false the truth is and disregard theories of the paranormal as bullcrap without adressing the matter from a scientific point of view. Hell, the occultists in late 15th century saw themselfs as scientists.
So basically, we can't YET prove the existance of ghosts without proving WHAT they are. And as far as I see, the thesis above gives a theory about HOW they may be, and not much more. But these HOWS may give us the WHAT later on.
Speaking as a ghost, I find this discussion offensive.
Whoooooo!
Janik, I meant that sonce I'm not qualified enough as any Ph.D would be, I can do such statements based on the knowledge that I hold. Real Ph.Ds or students for that matter are there to tell me what I did wrong :D
2ma2, you just said it. People used to think electricity was regarded as witchcraft, electric phenomenons maybe as ghosts or some "unnatural"... today, we do not understand ghosts, earlier they did not understand many things. So briefly thinking I might suggest that what I use the term of Ghost for is what I mean by something that is unknown to us. So I should withdraw the word ghost. No, rather I should keep the specific explanation to the term that will be used from now on, the one mentioned above.
After all this discussion perhaps I can truly finish my theory and present it to my teacher. Anyway, once we prove there is something now unknown to us and we discover it, it'll be unknown anymore... swell
This thread reminded me of a news article I seen a while back about a picture of a "ghost" that a security camera captured at King Henry VIII Palace:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3336299.stm
Another link about some resercher guy who thinks people who see ghosts that it's probably caused by "magnetic fields":
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3046179.stm
Ã, Ã, Well, either way, I think there's something to all this ghost stuff, as there's just so many strange unexplained things out there that we may not fully understand or be able to prove or disprove with science or logic.
Quote from: Barbarian on Mon 31/10/2005 18:37:57
Well, either way, I think there's something to all this ghost stuff, as there's just so many strange unexplained things out there that we may not fully understand or be able to prove or disprove with science or logic.
Maybe true, but what makes me more skeptic (or is it with k?) is that nothing "strange" hads ever happened to me. I consider myself rather open minded but still...
Quote from: Nikolas on Mon 31/10/2005 18:41:28
Quote from: Barbarian on Mon 31/10/2005 18:37:57
Well, either way, I think there's something to all this ghost stuff, as there's just so many strange unexplained things out there that we may not fully understand or be able to prove or disprove with science or logic.
Maybe true, but what makes me more skeptic (or is it with k?) is that nothing "strange" hads ever happened to me. I consider myself rather open minded but still...
I had a lot of dreams that were just weird. Some of them even showed me things that happened the next day or during the next week. I understand that it could be just a series of coincidences. But still...
If you're talking about deja-vu I think that there is a scientific explanation. Actually I have a lot of deja-vus but my father (a doctor), told me that it has to do with some kind of "electricity" in the brain. The same proccess that causes someon to be epiliptic... I think anyway...
Quote from: Guybrush Peepwood on Sun 30/10/2005 22:12:06
This is interesting, but I think that trying to see ghosts with the spectrum of the hydrogen atom is like trying to see God with a telescope.
<drum role please>
Dude... that's awesome!
I don't know dude all sounds a little funky to me, I agree with the PhD Dude that said we can see certain wavelengths and that special equipment can see other wavelengths that are "invisible" to the human eye.
And anybody that played Monkey Island knows that ghost exist. No really they do, we have a long line of "Ghost seers" in our family. And I for one inherited this unique ability, too some degree anyway.
Don't mean to sound off-topic but IMO the spirit is the 6th sense, or it could be the 4th dimension essentially. No way to truly see it (while its in a person), smell, hear, taste, or feel. Im not saying ghosts by "spirits". Everyone has a spirit whether, has nothing to do with religion or atheism. Your brain is the cockpit, what's the pilot?
For those of you that are fanatical about being "scientific" about everything no matter what is presented to you, you would say brain waves. But if you think about it, it really dosen't make too much sense. I mean WHY would the brain waves tell you to be a "nice" person in a certain situation etc. Something has to be driving it and we have no way of seeing it at this point in history. Just something to arouse some thought.
I'm sorry but I don't quite understand what you're saying. :-\
The 4th dimension, I believe, that has to do with time essentially.
And, if you believe in string theory, dimensions 5 through 11 are also already taken. So we're left with the 12th dimension ;D
All kidding aside, a lot of people think that things like ghosts and spirits will never be explained by science. But I don't believe that - sure enough, science can't explain that kind of thing now, but science is just another word for a body of knowledge on a particular subject. We don't know what ghosts are or if they really exist, but if they do then they are a part of nature, and it would be possible to find a way to observe them, reproducibly and objectively.
Quote from: Janik on Tue 01/11/2005 01:02:16
a lot of people think that things like ghosts and spirits will never be explained by science.
They'll be explained by psychology: Everyone who's seen a ghost is a nutjob.
-Vince Twelve, settling issues via generalization and trivialization since 1958-
shitar: The brain being the cockpit is a philosphical question at best. There's no reason not to assume that selfawareness and ethics are the result of highly complex chemical reactions, in which case we're nothing more but high-end biological machines. I think the real question lies in does it matter?
If we ever achieve true AI, we've reached beyond simple selflearning robotics to not a simulation of intelligence, but actual intelligence. This thing must in all aspects be regarded as a living thing, even though it by all means is a 'cockpit' in it's very construction. What the pilot constitutes of is no real issue if we have achieved actual intelligence.
In which case another thesis in ghosts pop up. Could we in the distant future have houses haunted by deceased robots? We've allready been fed with the idea of selfaware viruses spreading throughout the networks, which basically is a teknocratic haunting of multiplying proportions. The core is that an intelligence is unbound to a specific mainframe, but instead limited to the connections and powersupply. Is it then hard to assume that human intelligence could transcend its mortal coil, being fed by unorthodox energy supplies. The very reason specific buildings are haunted may be that the connections are limited to within the construction.
We're all basically robots with AI, so perhaps we can upload ourselfs in some way :)
The idea of some people percieving things that others cant means that there is somethign out there that we dont understand is fallacious and assumes that our senses are infallible. Optical illusions prove this to be wrong, for a start. Also, our behvaiour and perceptiosna re very succeptible to chemicals like alchohol and other drugs and even things like sugar make a huge difference: most people are grumpy when tired or their blood sugar gets low: especially noticable with diabetics having a hypo. And they dont realise that its happenign to themselves.
How could an optical illusion prove that wrong. Your thesis are based that the mind unaffected sees the world as it is, and drugs fudge it up. This must also be taken into consideration.
Why couldn't mind altering substances make you see the world as it REALLY is.
Basically:
Mind 'unaffected' by drug - Sensing A out of WORLD
Mind affected by drug - Sensing B out of WORLD
Neither A nor B are truth. Only WORLD is truth.
The unaffectedness is still an affection, but by bodily produced chemicals, some which have mind altering functionalities.
In the same way:
Person X sees GHOST out of WORLD
Person Y sees NOTHING out of WORLD
Still, neither GHOST nor NOTHING true.. only WORLD
Because Person #1 on drugs will see B and person #2 on drugs will see C and person #3 on more drugs will see TRIANGLE.
It's a silly argument because we know that drugs aren't a key to seeing another side of the world, they are chemically effecting the brain and body, and you'd probably be amazed at how thoroughly we can analyse how the brain works these days.
Also, his point was that optical illusions prove that our senses aren't infallible - which is exactly true. The fact that arranging shapes in a certain way to work with our blind spot or something will make us -see- (referring to our perception, not what is physically in front of our eyes) what isn't there is indeed proof that our senses are not perfect.
Quote from: 2ma2 on Wed 02/11/2005 09:21:14
How could an optical illusion prove that wrong. Your thesis are based that the mind unaffected sees the world as it is, and drugs fudge it up. This must also be taken into consideration.
My thesis was that senses are fallible... drugs was an example of how they can be altered. So I agreed mostly with what you said. Stop arguing with me when I agree with you ;)
For an example of the kind of optical illusions I mean: http://tinyurl.com/3ovoq
Keep in mind that what our eyes physically see (as opposed to what we really perceive, which is created in the brain) is not the true forms of the objects in the real world. It's the light that reaches our eyes after being emitted from a light source and potentially bounced off of objects. Optical illusions like SSH's example are not a bug, but a feature. They're the brain's way of turning the light we see into some kind of perception of physical objects. Some "imagination" is necessary for this.
Take a look at this optical illusion (http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/lum_adelson_check_shadow/index.html). If our brain let us perceive the "dark" unshaded squares as the same colour as the "light" shaded squares (which is actually true) we would have much more difficulty seeing that the cylinder is casting a shadow, and that the pattern of the material it's standing on is uniform. It'd be child's play for us to see the precise shades of the light that reaches our eyes (painters might like this very much) but our ability to perceive and interpret a three-dimensional world would be completely disrupted.
So when we look at one of these optical illusions, we're not seeing our senses failing. We're seeing them doing a great job of telling us what is actually going on.
SSH: Yes, but my thesis was that some person seeing something that others can't is a occurance where the possible solution is that this person actually CAN see a figment of reality he/she shouldn't be able to. What I was trying to say was that people often regard the normal state of the senses as fallible AND at it's peak. Anomalies are regarded as limitations (colorblindness etc) but there is no reason not to assume that an anomaly could ENHANCE the sight.
"The idea of some people percieving things that others cant means that there is somethign out there that we dont understand is fallacious and assumes that our senses are infallible."
Because I don't see how this assumes our senses are infallible..
Kinoko: Apart from what I stated above, I'm aware on how throughly we can analyse in what way the brain works today - but note: not HOW. Tracking signal substances do give us an idea on how extrenal stimula is transformed into chemical reactions, thus spawning activity in specific parts of the brain, but to assume that an alteration in chemical balance does nothing more than falsify the input is still to assume the anomalies are of decreasing (or altering) nature only - raising our current set-up of input decoding as mans prime.
supernatural = above or beyond natural
(If we are natural, we will not be able to completely understand above our natural understanding.)
Ghosts, spirits, demons, devils, poltergeists, angels, etc., are beyond our understanding level... therefore will always remain mysteries to us. In most cases, faith is the only way you can understand these things.
Well, this is a bit cliché, but lightning and wind and the sun were, at one time or another, beyond our understanding level. And they were thought to be manifestations of god(s), or spirits, or whatever depending on the culture and era you're looking at. But the belief that Thor was responsible for shooting lightning bolts around gave way to our knowledge of how it really happens, and that it is not supernatural, but natural.
Quote from: Janik on Tue 01/11/2005 01:02:16
And, if you believe in string theory, dimensions 5 through 11 are also already taken. So we're left with the 12th dimension ;D
"Theories such as string theory predict that the space we live in has in fact many more dimensions (frequently 10, 11 or 26), but that the universe measured along these additional dimensions is subatomic in size."
Now I want to know, how do they get 26??!
Wikipedia knows, sort of, but not really. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#Extra_dimensions) Apparently it's 26 because
1-(D-2)/24 = 0 => D = 26
in Rambu's theory. Nowhere does it say what the equation means or who Rambu is, though.