Paranormal Energy sources, remote desktop, too much coke (drink)

Stoner

I know there have been some discussions about "energy " here before. I'd like to hear what people think are realistic sources of "real" energy fluctuations and our capabilities to measure them, and how best energy could be used to alter our standard view of things.

We have heat, cold spots where it is thought that the energy represented by heat is consumed by something paranormal.

Then we have the batteries dying in electrical equipment, meant to be drained by a paranormal source.

Also some people think that an individual's energy can be harnessed by a paranormal source.

So what happens to this energy, what transduces/changes the form of this energy?

Excited energy fields can cause excitation so that photons are emitted and we can see them (sometimes this is as an example of how a "real" orb could be formed), we can see these lights, film them and take snaps, but the contamination levels are huge, but still it has a scientific basis to some degree.

Next we have sound energy, something gets energy from somewhere and the end result is a sound wave that we can hear, we can record it and measure it's frequency response so that we can check for sounds outside our hearing range. Here contamination is also an issue, but a good EVP is top quality stuff if you can get your hands on it (or keep it) IMHO

Next we have objects moving, I've checked the maths on this inspired by someone else on boards and advised by an expert. The fluctuations we measure in electric and magnetic fields come no where near the strength to indicate sufficient force to move the things we hear have been moved. So what moves them (if it happens that is)

I have been trying to think about what is the best, closest to conclusive research to follow.

What also gets me is the "intelligence" behind the whole thing.

Anyway people are an obvious source of energy and are typically near when paranormal things happen (not all the time i know).
Many people think that it is our own energy that is used, or something is triggered in our heads.

It reminds me of remote desktop on PCs, using a very light computer application someone can control a powerful PC that can carryout a lot of work somewhere else. With remote desktop you can control a remote PC and make it do all the work, graphics, play sounds, run movies etc with very simple commands, all using information that is already on the remote PC.

there are theories that we have these images in our heads already and something could with very little effort trigger them, the monk or a leprechaun (only seen in Ireland or by Irish people, or people familiar with the "picture")

These things could be like small movie clips and our brains may be tricked into displaying them, did anyone ever see a headless horseman without having heard of one before? or the devil, we all know what the mainstream devil looks like, lets say I remote desktop to your head and stick that pic on preview.

Anyway the above theory is a mixture of something I read in a book by Colin Wilson called "Poltergeist" and observing remote desktop at work over a 56K modem controlling a server, the server could be made push an application (like a windows update) out to many or a list of PCs, this reminded me of a group of people seeing things and some not seeing them.

Even the most basic of computer communication techniques use similar mechanisms, like having a bank of images or instructions, and instead of doing them and sending the result straight through to another PC , they simply match up a library of images and instructions and send over a very small instruction to run or display them.

As the energy levels that are measured are low (or at least spiky) as most of us know we must consider how much time an energy source is available for before we can measure the energy in the first place. I'm being loose here, but I'm just trying to dismiss spiky energy filed fluctuations as a source for someone saying that a candle floated across a room or something.

So as the energy levels appear low, we must consider that there is an efficient usage of this energy and another possible source, and maybe we only see images of what is already in our heads and it is the instructions only that are transfered to us.
And maybe people like me, who can sit in a room with three other people and be the only one not able to see some kind of energy moving around, maybe people like me don't have the latest build of the instruction set ?
Even rituals etc , lets say some people here said "lets summon a demon someone like pinhead", what would they expect to see, ?? pinhead maybe??

Anyway I know this is rambling a bit, but this is about measurable energy, and possible sources of real energy, and efficient usage of energy, I left out smells, anyone have anything to add to my half robbed thoughts.

ladybirdirl

Ok you had me on the computer application example and I see where you are coming from but I lost it at the end.

To clarify (for me being blonde) - you are trying to discuss measurable energy, correct?

On the individual's energy - I'd like to add another item to the pot. You mention excitable energies that may be measured. I'm also thinking about the energy that exists when someone is sick/dying (people can often experience something then). That would be measurable in that you could measure BP or temp but would that give anything.

Or indeed does anything above add to what you're trying to get to

Apologies if I've gone completely off track but I suppose I'm now pondering the same question really - what transduces the energy into something that a 'spirit' can use? (if there is such a thing)

I think the sentence below is the key for me and I think you're right, I'm just struggling as to what common theme can be the energy source? The only thing that comes to mind is some sort of 'mind' response. I'm thinking sort of like a 'Pavlov's Dog' response - we get afraid in the dark/when we're sick/when we are actively looking for something to find so we see the 'usual' items around that.

Anyway, I hate to say anything like this but it seems to me that it's all very subjective and therefore really not fully measurable

So as the energy levels appear low, we must consider that there is an efficient usage of this energy and another possible source, and maybe we only see images of what is already in our heads and it is the instructions only that are transfered to us.

Stoner

ladybirdirl wrote:

. I'm thinking sort of like a 'Pavlov's Dog' response - we get afraid in the dark/when we're sick/when we are actively looking for something to find so we see the 'usual' items around that.
.[/B]

Yeah Ladybird, that was one of the points i was trying to make. That the idea or picture is already in our heads and our brain has to make something of it and works away until it gets the best likeness.

The other was really about how such small energy levels can do so much "work", here I am suggesting that the person does the all the work and the paranormal experience triggers it with an efficiently delivered command.

One such thing could be the commonly referred to experience of being touched, or brushed past.

It would take a decent amount of energy to actually brush past someone, but how much energy would it take to "command" or "trigger" us to think that we had been brushed up against or touched.

again this brings up the intelligence aspect of things.

For example, as you are aware we have been in rooms where some people can "see" things and others can't

With my specs on I have 20/20 vision, but I can't see the things other see. So in my opinion they are not actually there, not that I think that people are making it up, but if I can't see it , it is not actually there.

So if people do actually "see" these things, it is not because they have better sight.

And the image that they see , is not a representation of a physical thing.
If they do see it, it had to get into their mind by some other mechanism. This happens all the time, we see things that remind us of something, or even going through our memories, we represent things in our minds as we once saw them, and sometimes we go as far as to hear a description of something and we "picture" it in our minds, this creating an image that is not a representation of a physical thing that we say, our mind just put it together.

ladybirdirl

Ok got ya now!!

I never 'see' things either, I usually just feel/sense things. Even then I'm always skeptical and try not to be influenced by others saying what they are seeing/feeling at that time.

As you say it must be a small energy/mechanism that 'allows' us to experience or think that. One thing that I keep thinking of here is psychotherapy - which I did in college for a while. This gives you all the 'theories' behind why a perosn COULD do what they do but doesn't actually explain it at an individual level (no disrespect to any therapists:) ).

But if you think about it, the second point you make really goes back to the first.

you don't see the items so to your mind they are not there.
Someone else does see so they are there.
The only discernable difference at the time is your individual personality which goes back to the Pavlov's dog item.
Perhaps when growing up you/I were not very visual people (i.e. we didn't need to see things to believe them) and therefore that doesn't trigger images for us.

I'm trying to find a common theme/plausible item other than the human mind but everything goes back to that. I completely accept your point about the 'energy' doing something but then you could go to the boundary of saying the energy is created by your mind anyway - do you see what I'm saying?

Great thread by the way - you've got my grey matter going:p & I'm supposed to be resting;)

Ladybird

LostinBlanch

It could coincide with quantum theory i.e. the fact that the observer by witnessing the phenomenon (either by seeing, feeling or otherwise) could be influencing the outcome. Check out Schroedingers Cat etc. But when I first read this thread I kept on thinking of the example of a bumblebee which I read shouldn't be able to fly according to theoretical physicists but is. Or is that an (urban) myth?

I'm sure any sceptics reading this will be only too happy to clarify. That's not a dig at sceptics per se, just my personal observations!

Zillah

LostinBlanch wrote:

It could coincide with quantum theory i.e. the fact that the observer by witnessing the phenomenon (either by seeing, feeling or otherwise) could be influencing the outcome.

Only applicable on the sub atomic scale I'm afraid. Any resemblance to Quantum Theory on this level of existence is superficial.

Sapien

LostinBlanch wrote:

It could coincide with quantum theory i.e. the fact that the observer by witnessing the phenomenon (either by seeing, feeling or otherwise) could be influencing the outcome. Check out Schroedingers Cat etc.

You're mixing up Heisenberg's Uncertaintly and Quantum Superposition/the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory.

LostinBlanch wrote:

But when I first read this thread I kept on thinking of the example of a bumblebee which I read shouldn't be able to fly according to theoretical physicists but is. Or is that an (urban) myth?

Yes.

LostinBlanch

Cheers for the feedback Zillah, Sapien.