Camera?

The problem with modern technology is that everything is so easily faked these days. It would take a team of scientists with advanced equipment and several tests to "prove" whether ghosts exist and can be captured on film. Most people probably aren't going to buy a couple random guys snapping shots of ghosts, as that has (supposedly) been happening for ages now.

File: 313219bb90d872b3160b4fd4ce660fcc.jpg (97KB, 736x482px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 736x482px

>>17690592
How would a science team go about proving the existence of ghosts?

There must be a simple fair test. Atom measurement?

File: itisamystery.png (742B, 50x50px) Image search: [Google]

742B, 50x50px

>>17690604
It would be extremely difficult. I'm not sure our technology is advanced enough yet. And we're also operating based on the assumption that they really exist. They might not. It's one of the great mysteries of life. Maybe we'll find out some day, but I doubt it will be any time in the near future.

File: 6srfsuz-1.jpg (108KB, 850x638px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 850x638px

>>17690617
What would a ghost be made of? I guess you'd have to prove the human soul first?

At this point the scientist would roll his eyes.

>>17690638
Good question.

I don't think you're giving scientists enough credit, though. There are many scientists with personal belief systems that may believe in an afterlife, but proving it is another matter entirely.

File: 1400707050398.jpg (371KB, 2560x1536px) Image search: [Google]

371KB, 2560x1536px

>>17690651
Well you could prove the existence of ghosts, perhaps even a soul (pretty far out thinking but necessary for ghost-belief) without proving an existence in Heaven or Hell or whatever.

The rest would prove itself, if ghosts are proven alongside a soul. Then communication with ghosts would happen and belief would naturally follow I think. It's the "unfinished business" and ghosts failure to pass on into the "next life" where it WOULD be impossible to prove - for good reason!

You can't prove Heaven but you might be able to measure ghosts is what I'm trying to say.

File: tl12.jpg (267KB, 1280x958px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 1280x958px

I'm getting too far out... :/

What about cameras, are they built similarly to the human eye? Assuming ghosts are even on a spectrum of light, where could they be?!

>>17690665
>The rest would prove itself, if ghosts are proven alongside a soul.

Well, first you would have to clearly define "ghost" and "soul". The first one seems obvious enough, but the second much harder to define, because it is almost always used in the context of religion, predominantly Christian religions, but in some others too. And even if you could prove such things exist, it would not automatically "prove" the existence of a specific type of afterlife, e.g. "heaven" or "hell", it would only prove that there is in fact some sort of continuation of life after death. Unless you could communicate directly with the ghosts, prove that they are, in fact, the spirits of deceased persons who can answer your questions, and prove that they can be both honest and aware of what the afterlife is like, there would only be further speculation. You see how difficult this is? Answers only lead to further questions, further steps that must be taken to uncover the "truth", if such a thing can even be known.

>>17690675
I have no clue. In some ways, cameras are more advanced than our own eyes, but still flawed and lacking in other ways. You'd have to ask a photography expert or a /sci/entist.

>>17690682
It is very tough, I agree. I think I went too far out - lol.

Okay, so there are two parts to communicating with a ghost from my experience of witnessing it. And surprisingly it's how we communicate to each other - by sight and sound.

Sight seems easier to prove, it's just a case of wavelength (was it Tesla that said everything is a matter of wavelength?)

Sound - I haven't a clue. You're halfway there if you can see a ghost in realtime (via magical sciency ghost goggles) but not hear it, akin to being a deaf person trapped without an aid.

>>17690565
so you took your friend to an optician in order to get their eyes checked for the ability to see ghosts? what the fuck?

what did you expect them to say? "yep. you've got 'em. you've got the ghost eyes."

>>17690848
Nononoono, I had read somewhere that as the eye grows we lose the ability that babies have to see ghosts. There appears in an xray of the eye a milky substance which is lost later in life.

I didn't take them to the optician to check for ghost eyes, I'm not a total nutjob. :D

>>17690857
>believe in ghosts
>not a total nutjob
Pick one

>>17690604
>How would a science team go about proving the existence of ghosts?
>There must be a simple fair test. Atom measurement?
Things are measurable in the ways that they reliably interact with other things. In order to test for the existence of a ghost, first you would need to know what ghosts DO.

>>17691005
Good point. Well they walk about, look at things. Talk to each other. Not much else.
It's not like the water in a river eroding surrounding rocks. They don't do much.

File: 1459378339093.gif (3MB, 500x294px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 500x294px

>>17690604
>mfw ghosts are actually made of dark matter

>>17691019
Explain.

>>17691026
http://paranormal.wikia.com/wiki/Ghost/Ghosts_as_dark_matter

>>17691016
>It's not like the water in a river eroding surrounding rocks. They don't do much.
That's going to make any kind of experiment very difficult.

In theory measuring people's reactions to ghosts could be enough (if, for example, they could reliably use ghosts to learn things they couldn't otherwise know), but in practice it's not really worth the effort. Those kinds of studies give very weak results, because they're open to many kinds of bias and there's a number of ways they can provide false positives. Even if you did do that kind of test properly (which is very hard), it would be nearly impossible to convince anyone else it was reliable.

You're best bet may be to grab you friend and start throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks. Thermal cameras, geiger counters, sensitive microphones, whatever you can get. Anything interesting you record won't be evidence in of itself, but it may be enough of a clue for you to start designing a proper experiment.

>>17691064
I did have one idea. The ghosts are obviously percieved by this person I know. So there must be something measurable going on inside her brain. Therefore a brain scan as she talks to a ghost would be sensible and measurable.

How about scanning her brain as somebody dies infront of her, then naturally she can ask the ghost things about it's previous life she wouldn't have known beforehand. Obviously this is quite a high concept thing to accomplish.

I feel that it's impossible to prove without extensive funding. Otherwise I would become just another one of those crystal toting weirdos on Most Haunted.

>>17691076
>Therefore a brain scan as she talks to a ghost would be sensible and measurable.
Sadly, brain-scanning tech is a long way away from being able to tell us detailed information about what's going on in someone's head.

There's a bigger issue with the brain-scan idea though: it's not actually telling you anything that you wouldn't get by just asking her. Consider: You wouldn't actually measuring the ghost, you'd be measuring their perception of the ghost. If the ghost is just "all in their head", you're still going to see it when you look inside their head.

Also the "ask the ghost things about it's previous life she wouldn't have known beforehand" idea doesn't really work. Proving that you don't know something is practically impossible.

Still, the "something measurable going on inside her brain" idea does sound fruitful. You just need to figure out HOW the ghost is interacting with her brain, and then find some other way of replicating that interaction without using her brain. Then you'll have a ghost detector.

>Otherwise I would become just another one of those crystal toting weirdos on Most Haunted.
Those people are just waving shit around and taking every click and beep as proof. That's not science.
You need to find a mechanism, get instruments that can measure that mechanism, and then run an actual experiment.

>I feel that it's impossible to prove without extensive funding.
Maybe. I'm not actually sure how much stacks of cash would help.
What things would you need to buy?

>>17691107
I haven't a clue how to do a fair experiment. Ghosts are real. She can talk to them and it's definitely not made up, I've seen people who fake it and they're laughable.

So I have to figure out HOW they're communicating? Explain that bit a little more. Which bits of the brain are different that enable communication?

>>17691119
>I haven't a clue how to do a fair experiment.
Basically, an experiment is a comparison between reality and a prediction made by a hypothesis. A good experiment is one where the prediction is very unlikely to be true, unless the hypothesis is also true. Does that make sense?

>Ghosts are real. She can talk to them and it's definitely not made up,
Okay, but in order to demonstrate that you need to be able to rule out other explanations for your results. One of those explanations is always going to be "you're cheating/lying". That's a very hard thing to rule out.

>So I have to figure out HOW they're communicating?
That's not the only possible road, but it's definitely a good sounding option.

>Which bits of the brain are different that enable communication?
Sadly, my actual knowledge of the brain is very weak. However, the brain doesn't generally detect stuff itself - it relies on sensors for that.

Maybe you could try to measure interference? Put your friend in front of a ghost and then try and disrupt her perception of it, attempting one thing at a time. Blindfold them, put metal in the way, play white noise out a speaker, talk into a UHF radio, switch on an electric heater, anything you can think of. Record any changes they observe and what you did to cause them. That should contain clues to how your friend is sensing the ghost.

>>17691159
Ahh I see, I do know that when she is highly stressed she can't see them. So cortisol basically wipes out the ability temporarily. My guess is we all have the ability but as we grow the brain forms it out.

>>17691208
>Ahh I see, I do know that when she is highly stressed she can't see them. So cortisol basically wipes out the ability temporarily.
That's interesting, though I confess I can't think of any way of using it. Brains are really complex things, so it's exceptionally hard to link cause and effect.

That's why I suggested looking for direct, physical interference. If you know that a particular set of physical things affects the perception, then it's a (relatively) short road to determining the mechanism involved.

File: protozoa.png (166KB, 450x446px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 450x446px

So how serious is your friend about all this experimenting? Does she think it's a good idea or are you just sort of convincing her to become a guinea pig for science? Because IF you're telling the truth, this is worth studying. I somehow doubt it is, but I'm playing along for now.

>>17691257
Yep, it's true. But the main point is how would there be a way to deduce:
A.) What a ghost is made up of.
B.) Howcome they can exist for hundreds of years?
C.) How can they be percieved by normal people? What is the method of obtaining this ability through technology?

I do know they are cold to the touch, obviously they are made up of atoms because everything is. It's important to remember that once upon a time nobody believed in bacteria because they couldn't see it.
I was boardering on being an athiest once.

I've just read an interesting article about ghosts being plasma. Could it be that my friend can see an invisible form of plasma? I could get a plasma ball and turn the electricity down.

Here is the purely speculative unscientific article.

http://www.angelsghosts.com/what_are_ghosts

>>17691325
>I've just read an interesting article about ghosts being plasma.
>Could it be that my friend can see an invisible form of plasma?
All plasmas are opaque to visible light (due to their unbound electrons). An "invisible plasma" is a contradiction in terms.

>http://www.angelsghosts.com/what_are_ghosts
This person seems horribly confused about basic science.

>>17692708
I'm just trying to use deduction to figure out a way of experimenting.

I don't believe that you can ever get to the bottom of a ghost sighting by waving around crystals in the dark with a nightvision camera.

I reckon scientists are too afraid to even touch upon the subject through fear of having funding removed.

File: 1453863122870.jpg (26KB, 1000x568px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 1000x568px

>>17694750
Why do you have such a negative view on scientists, anon? It's not like you know each and every scientist personally. In fact, it seems like you don't know any. There have been scientific tests on paranormal subjects before, although mostly to discredit them. The thing about science is that, yes, sometimes it may seem like it's out to ruin your fun, but that couldn't be further from the truth. You can embrace science and still love the paranormal.

>>17694970
>anon

Whoops, force of habit, meant to say OP.

Bump for para-science.

>>17694970
Do you know the names of a few scientists who have tried to prove ghosts?

I dunno why I'm a critic, I guess I just feel that scientists like to tip their fedoras a lot.

I do like science, and I wish I could have been taught more in school.

>>17695828
Lay off the fedora meme, it's overused.

No, I can't think of any right off the bat, but I'm sure there are articles lying around on the internet if you take a look. Some may be more reputable than others.

So how goes it with your friend?

>>17695828
>Do you know the names of a few scientists who have tried to prove ghosts?
There were several in the victorian era & early 20th century, and some legit ESP research on into the 70s, but I'm going to make you google for it for perpetuating that stupid hat maymay.

Nothing conclisive was ever proven and in fact spiritualism and physical mediums were show to be a big con game, so they don't waste their time and grant money anymore.

>>17690565
its called the camera obscura

>>17697264
Well they've agreed on the technique of getting a spirit to stay still for a chat whilst I try to disrupt her perception.

Magnets are my first port of call. Then perhaps a laser pen. Again, I'm not a scientist. :/