Quote:
Originally Posted by TechnoGuyRob  Continuation of the above post.
Here's a little informal sample to what arguments I claim (I will, of course, think them through carefully and formalize them):
If a ghost is composed in any way of physical particles, then it must obey physical laws, which leads to some contradictions. For example, if a camera can capture it or a human can "understand" it (or somehow communicate with it or vice versa), then that means it needs some significant amount of hadrons to emit the necessary bosons to transmit all that information (you couldn't otherwise have an "intelligent" entity)! But, if that is true, then that would mean it would be physically measurable using tools. Bosons have supposedly been detected (e.g., electromagnetic readings), but even if they have, there must have been hadrons that triggered those readings, but nobody has yet claimed to detect the presence of a "ghost"'s mass. If, on the other hand, if it does not follow our physical principles, then a ghost must still be able to communicate information (by axiom 2.2). If it doesn't follow physical principles, then those supposed "electromagnetic" (and other) "readings" must be false, and any claimed "photographs". Also, note that Earth is traveling at 300,000 miles an hour around the sun, and faster around the Galaxy, so even in some kind of identically "parallel" universe, a ghost would have to keep up with that, because if it didn't follow our laws, it wouldn't obey gravity (it wouldn't emit gravitons), which means it couldn't take advantage of the inertia! There's lots of holes in here, but I will attempt to fill them up to my best capability once I formalize it. |
Okay first of all you need to realize that the scope of physics in actually understanding how things work is a lot smaller than you realize. In other words you don't know as much as you think you do.
First you say in order to detect a ghost it must have mass, I mean it has to be something right? Well like you said there have been electromagnetic readings so doesn't that prove there is some form of energy? I think you need to explain yourself a little better. Explain those oh so technical terms a little bit better so we know that you are not just bullshitting us with a load of pseudo-science.
About the whole gravity issue. First of all if you knew anything about QM you would know that gravitons have not been detected so the whole graviton theory could very well be a load of crap. I'm partial to the explaintion of gravity in terms of in and out waves constantly being exchanged between the wave centers of atoms causing a thick cosmic atmospere so to speak. This idea is in accordance to the wave structure of matter theory.