Why Were The Edinburgh New Year...
News0 min ago
Question For Naomi
209 Answers
I read on another thread that you used to live in a haunted house. Can you tell us a little more about what happened there? Im genuinely interested. One of my sisters seems to constantly have unexplained things happening to her and other members of my family have had 'spookey' experiences.
Anyone else lived in a haunted house or had experiences of the 'impossible'?
Anyone else lived in a haunted house or had experiences of the 'impossible'?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by nailit. 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.
Well, perhaps it's one of those vagaries of language again. Certainly in theory there's nothing to stop me, right now, writing down a model for a Universe that doesn't exist and then testing it. But what works and what doesn't, what is accepted as Science and what isn't, is determined by how the world actually is. Thus the definition of Energy, say, is due to how it's observed to behave in the world. Conservation of Energy is a consequence of many observations over many years, backed up by the mathematical language in which it's ultimately expressed.
So perhaps "scientific concepts that work" should replace "scientific concepts" in that post. I don't think it invalidates anything else in that post.
So perhaps "scientific concepts that work" should replace "scientific concepts" in that post. I don't think it invalidates anything else in that post.
//I think it's a shame you see "scientific concepts" as a restriction.//
Yes, I expect you do – but I don't. To pinch someone else’s observation of the restrictions that science clearly imposes upon curiosity and speculation around here, I much prefer to consider my glass half full.
//scientific concepts themselves are restricted by what the real world actually does.//
Scientific concepts themselves are restricted by what some scientists currently perceive the real world actually does.
Yes, I expect you do – but I don't. To pinch someone else’s observation of the restrictions that science clearly imposes upon curiosity and speculation around here, I much prefer to consider my glass half full.
//scientific concepts themselves are restricted by what the real world actually does.//
Scientific concepts themselves are restricted by what some scientists currently perceive the real world actually does.
It's a pity this thread went off course, on a point of pedantry but it was worth it because I share Jim's frustration at seeing scientific terminology, with very specific meaning and usage (scientists' lingua franca, if you will) being used by those who only meant it in its other, more colloquial, sense, or to lend an air of credibility to some flaky idea which doesn't deserve it.
The shorthand, Jim is to enquire whether they mean Joules/Watts or whether they mean 'spirit energy'; 'crystal energy'; 'earth energy' or anything else on the 'cosmic, man' spectrum.
Naomi's story is fascinating (I've read a fuller version of it, on AB) but the 'missing hour' thing is more closely associated with alien abduction type stories.
Why is it never 43minutes, or an hour and 35?
Last question I asked her was whether any of the visiting friends had a reputation for being a practical joker but I cannot recall her reply. Therefore, I would like to repeat this question, for the benefit of this thread.
@naillit
I've never seen or heard any ghosts. Any weird experiences (eg objects moved, gone or returned) I usually put down to either normal forgetfullness, the onset of premature senility (gulp!) or the phenomenon known as 'gaslighting' (see wikipedia), the latter being the most disturbing possibility.
The shorthand, Jim is to enquire whether they mean Joules/Watts or whether they mean 'spirit energy'; 'crystal energy'; 'earth energy' or anything else on the 'cosmic, man' spectrum.
Naomi's story is fascinating (I've read a fuller version of it, on AB) but the 'missing hour' thing is more closely associated with alien abduction type stories.
Why is it never 43minutes, or an hour and 35?
Last question I asked her was whether any of the visiting friends had a reputation for being a practical joker but I cannot recall her reply. Therefore, I would like to repeat this question, for the benefit of this thread.
@naillit
I've never seen or heard any ghosts. Any weird experiences (eg objects moved, gone or returned) I usually put down to either normal forgetfullness, the onset of premature senility (gulp!) or the phenomenon known as 'gaslighting' (see wikipedia), the latter being the most disturbing possibility.
Hypognosis, if you feel frustration at the use of the English language in a context that doesn’t suit you, I do hope there are no serious chefs reading your assessment of other people’s ideas. That’s that sort of big-headed arrogance that deters people from joining in these discussions.
I can’t answer your question about alien abductions and time. In my house the clocks and watches went back an hour – and there were no practical jokers around - and as far as I'm aware, no aliens either.
I can’t answer your question about alien abductions and time. In my house the clocks and watches went back an hour – and there were no practical jokers around - and as far as I'm aware, no aliens either.
@naomi
Thanks for those replies. Duly noted but I see you've immediately closed the door on the 'aliens' angle. Next up would be the equally preposterous Scooby Doo angle - someone wanted to scare you into moving out and they appear to have succeeded. ;-)
It is the bane of scientist-type persons' lives to always be accused of arrogance by the non-scientist types, whenever the latter adopts and then misuses scientific terminology in the very ways that scientists have been taught to avoid.
Rarely do we ever receive a "thanks for the correction". It's like the perpetrator of the spelling error telling the pedant that they are both wrong -and- arrogant!
Meanwhile, if I were to use a footballing term, say, incorrectly, or refer to a pointillist painting as impressionist, I'd be called out on it and probably made fun of, because I'm automatically deemed to be the arrogant kind.
Personally, I'm sick and tired of this assymmetric treatment and only wanted a chance to dish out the kind of thing I'm accustomed to receiving.
It is a matter of sore regret that accusing certain claims of being flaky tends to discourage people from coming forward with their, similar, personal experiences. For such stories to become robust, they have to be exposed to a little buffeting, from questions, surely? Some stories stand out as having already received exposure and have patches added to cover where the holes used to be.
Thanks for those replies. Duly noted but I see you've immediately closed the door on the 'aliens' angle. Next up would be the equally preposterous Scooby Doo angle - someone wanted to scare you into moving out and they appear to have succeeded. ;-)
It is the bane of scientist-type persons' lives to always be accused of arrogance by the non-scientist types, whenever the latter adopts and then misuses scientific terminology in the very ways that scientists have been taught to avoid.
Rarely do we ever receive a "thanks for the correction". It's like the perpetrator of the spelling error telling the pedant that they are both wrong -and- arrogant!
Meanwhile, if I were to use a footballing term, say, incorrectly, or refer to a pointillist painting as impressionist, I'd be called out on it and probably made fun of, because I'm automatically deemed to be the arrogant kind.
Personally, I'm sick and tired of this assymmetric treatment and only wanted a chance to dish out the kind of thing I'm accustomed to receiving.
It is a matter of sore regret that accusing certain claims of being flaky tends to discourage people from coming forward with their, similar, personal experiences. For such stories to become robust, they have to be exposed to a little buffeting, from questions, surely? Some stories stand out as having already received exposure and have patches added to cover where the holes used to be.
Hypognosis, I’ve no objection to ‘stories’ receiving a little buffering – or even a lot of buffering - but the buffering doesn’t stop at stories, and frankly, it will be a sorry day when it becomes unacceptable for people posting here to use an everyday word like ‘energy’ for fear of those whose restricted world-view appears to consist solely of the contents of books on science getting their pedantic knickers in a knot. The purpose of communication is to communicate and the best way to achieve that is to keep it simple enough to be understood by all who may be interested. The original question and the ensuing reaction has been lost in the ludicrously haughty dogmatism that ‘science’ has introduced here, but that isn’t smart – it’s stupid because it results not only in losing ideas that would-be contributors might otherwise have been tempted to offer, but in destroying the flow of conversation on a particular subject completely. It’s dull, it’s dreary, and it’s boring. There is no pleasure in it. You ‘scientist-type persons’, as you put it, need to remind yourselves that people aren’t coming here for instruction and you’re not talking to children. This is a public discussion forum – not a lecture hall.
//Some stories stand out as having already received exposure and have patches added to cover where the holes used to be.//
I don’t know what you’re referring to, but if you’ve got something to say, say it.
//Some stories stand out as having already received exposure and have patches added to cover where the holes used to be.//
I don’t know what you’re referring to, but if you’ve got something to say, say it.
I picked up on it when you started to misuse "conservation of energy". And then tried to use a dictionary to justify that misuse. I'm not talking down to you or anyone. Bt if I see that you have made a mistake in understanding I should be entitled to point it out without being accused of arrogance or a patronising attitude. After all, when you think I make a mistake you point it out. You can't have it both ways.
The definition of "vigour" you provided combined at least three distinct concepts in science and treated them as the same. In general discussion I wouldn't care. In a thread that is meant to be about science I do. And everyone should. If we are going to have a discussion at all we should at least agree on what we are trying to discuss.
No more dismissive personal comments. They are unnecessary.
The definition of "vigour" you provided combined at least three distinct concepts in science and treated them as the same. In general discussion I wouldn't care. In a thread that is meant to be about science I do. And everyone should. If we are going to have a discussion at all we should at least agree on what we are trying to discuss.
No more dismissive personal comments. They are unnecessary.
I picked up on it when you started to misuse "conservation of energy". And then tried to use a dictionary to justify that misuse. I'm not talking down to you or anyone. Bt if I see that you have made a mistake in understanding I should be entitled to point it out without being accused of arrogance or a patronising attitude. After all, when you think I make a mistake you point it out. You can't have it both ways.
The definition of "vigour" you provided combined at least three distinct concepts in science and treated them as the same. In general discussion I wouldn't care. In a thread that is meant to be about science I do. And everyone should. If we are going to have a discussion at all we should at least agree on what we are trying to discuss.
No more dismissive personal comments. They are unnecessary.
The definition of "vigour" you provided combined at least three distinct concepts in science and treated them as the same. In general discussion I wouldn't care. In a thread that is meant to be about science I do. And everyone should. If we are going to have a discussion at all we should at least agree on what we are trying to discuss.
No more dismissive personal comments. They are unnecessary.
I haven’t mentioned ‘conservation of energy’ – you brought that into the equation – I used a perfectly valid dictionary definition of a word – and I’ve made no dismissive personal comments. In fact, I haven’t mentioned you. I’m rapidly reaching the conclusion that normal discussion here is becoming impossible. You carry on – I’ll get my popcorn out.
Latest Posts
Crosswords0 min ago
What's Eton Musk Really Up To ?.
News2 mins ago
Where Does My Neighbour Stand?
Property4 mins ago
Crosswords6 mins ago
ChatterBank7 mins ago
