:rofl:russ_watters said:Anyway, I disagree that it's nonsense: for it to be nonsense, he actually has to make concise, positive claims, which he does not appear to do. Its not nonsense, its just meaningless word-salad.
Anecdotal evidence is essentially useless except as a starting point for real research. Looks like you can expect arguments mainly consisting of quotes from true believers and famous people. I see that he was quick to use Einstein's "mediocre minds" quote (a favorite among crackpots).THE ULTIMATE EVIDENCE... there is nothing more powerful than personal experience.
Is there a list somewhere of his "23 proofs". The whole page is densely packed with a collage of things, and I don't know where I'm supposed to look for his "proofs".malganis said:Oh, noone took time to examine the evidences he presents.
Yes, russ watters made an unforgivable mistake here:LENIN said:Meaningless word-salad sounds like a good description of the page, but I personally wouldn't use it becouse it might be offenisive to some salads
I don't know from where did Zammit get the information that less than one ounce of matter destroyed Hiroshima, but supposing he is right, the dematerialization of a 75kg man would provide energy to destroy a whole country.David Ash and Peter Hewitt's book, The Vortex, (1994) gives, among other things, one scientific explanation for materialization. They argue that Einstein's formula[tex] E=mc^2 [/tex]— energy equals mass to the speed of light, shows that mass 'm' is equivalent to energy 'E'.
This explains how materialization and dematerialization operate by matter being transformed into energy. When people try to argue that this equation is all theory but cannot be demonstrated they should be reminded that less than one ounce of matter was transformed into energy to destroy Hiroshima.
Unless there is a concise list of 23 proofs, saying there is a list of 23 proofs is a little misleading, don't you think??malganis said:a book is on the right and you can d/l it for free.
There is much in that site (the above, first and foremost) that sets off the "skeptic alarm" of even the most open-minded skeptic (no, "open-minded skeptic is not a contradiction in terms).Oh, noone took time to examine the evidences he presents. I guess you all came with made up mind about the topic. Now dont tell me you are objective about the paranormal. You are just afraid that your beliefs might be wrong as many are.
I had a salad for lunch (chef salad, French dressing), and meant no offense.LENIN said:Meaningless word-salad sounds like a good description of the page, but I personally wouldn't use it becouse it might be offenisive to some salads
Yeah, why can't there be some magical vortex where you can go faster than light, despite all the evidence to the contrary! Oh I have another idea I just pulled out of my ass! What if you go so fast you like totally swirl out of our dimension and into another! That hangs together so well it must be true!Ash and Hewitt ask: why should the speed of the movement of the vortex be limited to the speed of light? They argue that once the movement of the vortex exceeds the speed of light, then a person or thing will enter into superenergy, a new dimension, a new world. But in that new dimension the person or thing will be as solid as you and me in this dimension. The only thing is that the vortices will be swirling at a speed faster than on the earth plane.