Notices
Results 1 to 62 of 62

Thread: ESP of Atoms

  1. #1 ESP of Atoms 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    25
    Good morning (It is 9am in Toronto),

    I have practiced Buddhist meditation for 50 years. I have been a Buddhist monk for 30 years. I am 73 years old. I was born and educated in Canada. I am a retired mathematics and physics teacher.

    From a cultural point of view, I live in two parallel universes. I know quite a bit about physics and psychology and a lot about Buddhist meditation. From a Buddhist point of view, the use of the Siddhis (special meditative abilities) to explore the mental and physical world is taken for granted even though some Siddhis are very rare.

    Among other Siddhis, I have one called Anima, the ability to use ESP to perceive atoms. I am in the process of publishing a book about my experiences in meditation. I will tell you about it when it goes to press.

    My purpose for joining your group is to talk about Stephen Phillips. He has published two books called Extra-Sensory Perception of Quarks and ESP of Quarks and Superstrings. I have studied these books in detail. They both talk about the use of Anima. (The title page of the first book indicates he has a Ph.D.) I have sent you a post but it was rejected. I will try again to tell you about his first book. You can download this book in PDF format from his website.

    During the early part of the 20th century, two people reported having to used Anima to view the elements of the periodic table. The two are Charles Leadbeater and Annie Besant. They published their observations in a book called Occult Chemistry. This book can also be downloaded. Stephen Phillips examined this book in great detail. He compares each element observed to our modern knowledge of the elements. According to Phillips, Leadbeater and Besant observed large crystals formed from each of the elements.

    The extraordinary fact is that Phillips has provided substantial evidence that Leadbeater and Besant were actually perceiving the elements. I hope that one of your members knows someone fully qualified to review Phillips' book and publish that review in a professional physics journal.

    If Phillips is correct, he has made major scientific discovery. (I have been able to replicate some of the observations made by Leadbeater and Besant. But that is another story.)

    Sincerely,
    ESPinPhysics


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    You may be able to post in pseudoscience... I guess.

    I'm kinda' not... uh, feeling you otherwise.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,539
    Quote Originally Posted by ESPinPhysics View Post
    Good morning (It is 9am in Toronto),

    I have practiced Buddhist meditation for 50 years. I have been a Buddhist monk for 30 years. I am 73 years old. I was born and educated in Canada. I am a retired mathematics and physics teacher.

    From a cultural point of view, I live in two parallel universes. I know quite a bit about physics and psychology and a lot about Buddhist meditation. From a Buddhist point of view, the use of the Siddhis (special meditative abilities) to explore the mental and physical world is taken for granted even though some Siddhis are very rare.

    Among other Siddhis, I have one called Anima, the ability to use ESP to perceive atoms. I am in the process of publishing a book about my experiences in meditation. I will tell you about it when it goes to press.

    My purpose for joining your group is to talk about Stephen Phillips. He has published two books called Extra-Sensory Perception of Quarks and ESP of Quarks and Superstrings. I have studied these books in detail. They both talk about the use of Anima. (The title page of the first book indicates he has a Ph.D.) I have sent you a post but it was rejected. I will try again to tell you about his first book. You can download this book in PDF format from his website.

    During the early part of the 20th century, two people reported having to used Anima to view the elements of the periodic table. The two are Charles Leadbeater and Annie Besant. They published their observations in a book called Occult Chemistry. This book can also be downloaded. Stephen Phillips examined this book in great detail. He compares each element observed to our modern knowledge of the elements. According to Phillips, Leadbeater and Besant observed large crystals formed from each of the elements.

    The extraordinary fact is that Phillips has provided substantial evidence that Leadbeater and Besant were actually perceiving the elements. I hope that one of your members knows someone fully qualified to review Phillips' book and publish that review in a professional physics journal.

    If Phillips is correct, he has made major scientific discovery. (I have been able to replicate some of the observations made by Leadbeater and Besant. But that is another story.)

    Sincerely,
    ESPinPhysics
    You realise, I hope, that trying to get a hearing for ESP on a forum like this one will be an uphill struggle. I hope you have the necessary patience, fortitude and clarity of expression to deal with the reception you will get.

    Regarding your claim that these people have "viewed" or "perceived" elements from the Periodic Table, can you explain what that means? I can easily arrange to observe a physical specimen of most of the elements, in the physical states they exist in at NTP, if I want to. Is that what is meant? Or is it, rather, visualisation in the imagination of such specimens? Or does "perceive" have some other (more profound?) meaning in this context?

    (I should say that I am for now choosing to ignore the signal from my woo meter, to give dialogue with a new member a chance.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    25
    Dear Beer w/ Straw

    Why not download Phillips' and judge for yourself?

    Sincerely
    ESPinPhysics
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Welcome to the forum. Good luck. It sounds like you'll need it.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,539
    Quote Originally Posted by ESPinPhysics View Post
    Dear Beer w/ Straw

    Why not download Phillips' and judge for yourself?

    Sincerely
    ESPinPhysics
    Well that would mean agreeing to devote several days or weeks to reading and digesting an entire BOOK on this very dubious subject, wouldn't it?

    Generally, people don't invest that amount of effort and time unless they are given a persuasive argument that it will be worthwhile. With ESP, it must be pretty hard to mount an argument that will convince many scientists, since most of them think it is all balls - as I'm sure you will know from your experience as a physics teacher.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    It's like any other piece of research (not that this is such) I choose to read. If you cannot convince me it is worthwhile in a couple sentences, I'm not spending time on it. It's that simple. Putting the acronym ESP in those first sentences pretty much rules out any chance I'll give it more than a passing glance. I'm assuming most of the contributing members here (the ones who contribute useful material, that is) will feel roughly the same way.

    So, there's your challenge. Make me WANT to read it in two sentences.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    25
    Dear Woo Meter

    Your response is understandable given the information available to you. I suggest you download and read Extra-Sensory Perception of Quarks by Stephen Phillips. We can then talk about it.

    Sincerely
    ESPinPhysics
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    25
    Dear Exchemist

    Actually, a half hour of reading would tell you enough about the book to know what it is about.

    Sincerely
    ESPinPhysics
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,910
    Quote Originally Posted by ESPinPhysics View Post
    Dear Woo Meter

    Your response is understandable given the information available to you. I suggest you download and read Extra-Sensory Perception of Quarks by Stephen Phillips. We can then talk about it.

    Sincerely
    ESPinPhysics
    It is the Buddha himself who entered the "treacherous sea of words" for the benefit in innumerable sentient beings. We're not likely to read a whole book just because, you'll need to explain.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    25
    Dear Flick Montana

    Luck has nothing to do with it. Phillips conducts an thoroughly scientific investigation of Occult Chemistry.

    Sincerely,
    ESPinPhysics
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by ESPinPhysics View Post
    Dear Woo Meter

    Your response is understandable given the information available to you. I suggest you download and read Extra-Sensory Perception of Quarks by Stephen Phillips. We can then talk about it.

    Sincerely
    ESPinPhysics
    And I suggest you read Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut, but that isn't convincing in and of itself. Anyone can write about anything and the title of the piece you mentioned does not merit further consideration.

    Quote Originally Posted by ESPinPhysics View Post
    Dear Flick Montana

    Luck has nothing to do with it. Phillips conducts an thoroughly scientific investigation of Occult Chemistry.

    Sincerely,
    ESPinPhysics
    And how exactly does occult chemistry differ from ... chemistry? I'm assuming the same rules still apply being that those rules govern chemical interactions as we know them. Unless, of course, you're suggesting that adding the word "occult" allows them to violate known physics.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    25
    Dear Flick Montana

    Phillips is a physicist and an expert on string theory. See for yourself.

    Sincerely,
    ESPinPhysics
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,539
    Quote Originally Posted by ESPinPhysics View Post
    Dear Flick Montana

    Luck has nothing to do with it. Phillips conducts an thoroughly scientific investigation of Occult Chemistry.

    Sincerely,
    ESPinPhysics
    Oh no! Occult chemistry already! I'm afraid that is another word that moves the needle on the woo meter. This is not going well so far.

    Tell you what: you send me a link to a summary of this book that I can read in say 10 minutes, and I will undertake to read it and respond. But half an hour I don't have, unless my curiosity is seriously piqued.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    25
    Dear GiantEvil

    You do not need to read the whole book. A half hour of reading should tell you what the book is about.

    Sincerely,
    ESPinPhysics
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    25
    Dear Flick Montana

    You want to judge a book by its cover. That is not good enough in my view.

    Sincerely,
    ESPinPhysics
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by ESPinPhysics View Post
    Dear Flick Montana

    You want to judge a book by its cover. That is not good enough in my view.

    Sincerely,
    ESPinPhysics
    By its summary, not its cover. If I failed to make that judgment, I would have to spend my life reading the entirety of nonsense published by the human race. If an author (our a touter such as yourself) cannot convince me a reading is worth my time in a few short sentences, then they have failed ME, not the other way around.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    25
    Dear Exchemist

    An excellent review of Phillips book is provided in New Dawn Special Issue Vol 6 No 4.

    Sincerely,
    ESPinPhysics
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ESPinPhysics View Post
    Dear Woo Meter

    Your response is understandable given the information available to you. I suggest you download and read Extra-Sensory Perception of Quarks by Stephen Phillips. We can then talk about it.

    Sincerely
    ESPinPhysics
    And I suggest you read Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut, but that isn't convincing in and of itself. Anyone can write about anything and the title of the piece you mentioned does not merit further consideration.

    Quote Originally Posted by ESPinPhysics View Post
    Dear Flick Montana

    Luck has nothing to do with it. Phillips conducts an thoroughly scientific investigation of Occult Chemistry.

    Sincerely,
    ESPinPhysics
    And how exactly does occult chemistry differ from ... chemistry? I'm assuming the same rules still apply being that those rules govern chemical interactions as we know them. Unless, of course, you're suggesting that adding the word "occult" allows them to violate known physics.
    Aha, I'm onto it, I think. Look at this: Modern Alchemy - Oxford Scholarship

    So this is all stuff from a century ago, when atomic physics was just being discovered. Seems these occultist groups sprang up from garbled perceptions of what science was doing (a bit like Robbitybob1 and virtual particles today, perhaps). The book in the reference is a historical piece, about the influence physics had on these mystical people's ideas and - interestingly - vice versa, i.e it was not all one way traffic, allegedly, in the search for models.

    But to argue that "occult chemistry"has something to offer modern science, a century on, seems a bit like someone telling us we must read about the phlogiston theory. Unless of course our poster can convince why this is not so.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    That's the kind of summary I was looking for. Thanks, exchemist. I'll wait for the rebuttal.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,539
    Quote Originally Posted by ESPinPhysics View Post
    Dear Exchemist

    An excellent review of Phillips book is provided in New Dawn Special Issue Vol 6 No 4.

    Sincerely,
    ESPinPhysics
    Can you give me a link then? I can't go trailing around hunting out editions of magazine from years ago without eating into the 10 minutes I promised you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    25
    Dear Flick Montana

    Summary: Phillips examines each ESP observation of an element in terms of modern physics and finds a credible correspondence.

    Sincerely,
    ESPinPhysics
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    25
    Dear Exchemist

    Try http://www.smphillips.8m.com/pdfs/ESP_of_Quarks.pdf.

    Sincerely,
    ESPinPhysics
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,910
    Quote Originally Posted by ESPinPhysics View Post
    Dear Flick Montana

    Summary: Phillips examines each ESP observation of an element in terms of modern physics and finds a credible correspondence.

    Sincerely,
    ESPinPhysics
    What is the nature of these "ESP" observations? How were they conducted?
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by ESPinPhysics View Post
    Dear Flick Montana

    Summary: Phillips examines each ESP observation of an element in terms of modern physics and finds a credible correspondence.

    Sincerely,
    ESPinPhysics
    You first need to put forth a convincing argument for ESP. You might as well be discussing the effect of introducing dragons to wetland ecosystems.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    25
    Dear Exchemist

    Yes. Occult Chemistry is a historical piece. But Extra-Sensory Perception of Quarks (1980) is not.

    For example, Leadbeater and Besant discovered isotopes before they were discovered by science.

    Sincerely,
    ESPinPhysics
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    25
    Dear GiantEvil

    Unfortunately, Phillips does not discuss the nature of ESP observations.

    Sincerely,
    ESPinPhysics
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,539
    Quote Originally Posted by ESPinPhysics View Post
    Dear Exchemist

    Try http://www.smphillips.8m.com/pdfs/ESP_of_Quarks.pdf.

    Sincerely,
    ESPinPhysics
    Access was not allowed when I clicked this link.

    This New Dawn magazine thingie has a website but their archiving system is crap - it will take me ages to scroll back to issue 6. They're at issue 145 or something now, you know.

    Meanwhile here's more background for scientific readers:Occult Chemistry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    This confirms the subject is a historical curiosity. The sentence that seems to sum it up is "Occult Chemistry proposes that the structure of chemical elements can be assessed through clairvoyant observation with the microscopic vision of the third eye."

    Not sure what is meant by the "structure" of chemical elements. Do they mean atomic structure (electron shells, subshells, Aufbau Prinzip etc), or crystal or molecular structure of the elements as they exist at normal temp and pressure, or what?

    All sounds a bit like the sort of language used by somebody who doesn't know what he's talking about (talking out of his "third eye", perhaps?). But I must try to suspend my disbelief for the time being…...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    25
    Dear Flick Montana

    Phillips' book provides a convincing argument for the ESP of atoms.

    Sincerely,
    ESPinPhysics
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,539
    Quote Originally Posted by ESPinPhysics View Post
    Dear Exchemist

    Yes. Occult Chemistry is a historical piece. But Extra-Sensory Perception of Quarks (1980) is not.

    For example, Leadbeater and Besant discovered isotopes before they were discovered by science.

    Sincerely,
    ESPinPhysics
    Eh? Leadbetter and Besant were the Occult chemistry people in 1907. Soddy first proposed isotopes in 1913, so they were just about contemporaneous. But what does this have to do with quarks?

    Quarks by the way, which take their name from an obscure reference in James Joyce's Finnegan's Wake, written in 1939, were proposed in 1964.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    25
    Dear Exchemist

    Thank you for suspending your disbelief. Unfortunately, I do not know how to attach a file to a post. Please email at ronaldcowen@rogers.com and I will send you a PDF copy of the New Dawn edition.

    Sincerely
    ESPinPhysics
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,539
    Quote Originally Posted by ESPinPhysics View Post
    Dear Exchemist

    Thank you for suspending your disbelief. Unfortunately, I do not know how to attach a file to a post. Please email at ronaldcowen@rogers.com and I will send you a PDF copy of the New Dawn edition.

    Sincerely
    ESPinPhysics
    Sorry I try not to get into e-mail correspondence with strangers. Nothing personal, just a policy.

    But can you not copy a summary para or so, or give us a synopsis in your own words? Generally when I am enthusiastic about an idea I find I can write my own short explanation to convey the essence of it to others.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    25
    Dear Exchemist

    1907 came before 1913. Leadbeater and Besant did not talk about quarks. Phillips did.

    Sincerely
    ESPinPhysics
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,539
    Quote Originally Posted by ESPinPhysics View Post
    Dear Exchemist

    1907 came before 1913. Leadbeater and Besant did not talk about quarks. Phillips did.

    Sincerely
    ESPinPhysics
    OK thanks. Doing my own bit of sleuthing, I came across the following extract from the Journal of Scientific Exploration: http://www.scientificexploration.org...4_phillips.pdf

    This chap Phillips is writing from his flat in Bournemouth, that well-known retirement retreat for Englishmen of a certain type.

    Furthermore the provenance of this man seems to have been exhaustively researched before, on this very forum: Did anybody hear/read about Dr. Stephen M.Phillips?

    the conclusion being there seems to be no record of him being qualified in physics or anything else.


    Meanwhile, for its part, the JSE is described in Wiki in the following terms: Journal of Scientific Exploration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    And rather less kindly by RationalWiki here:Journal of Scientific Exploration - RationalWiki

    All in all, a pseudoscience publication trying to look scientific.

    That concludes the case for the prosecution, M'Lud.

    P.S. Similarities have often been remarked on, between feature of scientific models of nature and what non-scientific writers or thinkers happen to have written. (Think of ancient Greek atomism vs. modern atomic theory of matter, for example) But it takes a lot more than such coincidences to demonstrate that these arise from any special insights, let alone from ESP processes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    25
    Dear Exchemist

    You can buy a copy of New Dawn Special Issue Vol 6 No 4 for $2.95 at
    New Dawn Special Issue Vol.6 No.4 | New Dawn : The World's Most Unusual Magazine

    See "The Amazing Story of the Clairvoyants Who Observed Atoms" by Brendan Murphy (pages 57 to 64).

    Sincerely,
    ESPinPhysics
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by ESPinPhysics View Post
    Dear Flick Montana

    Summary: Phillips examines each ESP observation of an element in terms of modern physics and finds a credible correspondence.

    Sincerely,
    ESPinPhysics
    Isn't this a little bit like saying somebody examined the predictions of Nostradamus in terms of historical accounts? I mean, if you're looking for a pattern, you'll probably find it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,539
    Quote Originally Posted by ESPinPhysics View Post
    Dear Exchemist

    You can buy a copy of New Dawn Special Issue Vol 6 No 4 for $2.95 at
    New Dawn Special Issue Vol.6 No.4 | New Dawn : The World's Most Unusual Magazine

    See "The Amazing Story of the Clairvoyants Who Observed Atoms" by Brendan Murphy (pages 57 to 64).

    Sincerely,
    ESPinPhysics
    BUY this stuff?!

    You've had about 45mins of my time actually, on the various bits of web research I've posted to date, so you've done well out of me already.

    I can no longer ignore the screaming noise, the blue flashing lights and the smoke billowing from my woo meter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Funnily enough I just found that previous thread.
    But, surprisingly, I also found that his book claims to have published in "Physics Letters" (I find the lack rigour with regard to which version somewhat telling), and a further search turned up this, 4th one down (1979 - just cited once) has the title claimed in the book.

    Regardless of his science qualifications his subscription to the wild mental meanderings of Annie Besant (a known nutcase) and theosophy (founded on the fraud perpetrated by Helena Blavatsky) speaks against him.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    25
    Dear Exchemist

    The only way to judge a book is to look inside it.

    Sincerely
    ESPinPhysics
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,539
    Quote Originally Posted by ESPinPhysics View Post
    Dear Exchemist

    The only way to judge a book is to look inside it.

    Sincerely
    ESPinPhysics
    Yes you've used that mantra before, on Flick M earlier in the thread.

    But it's ballocks of course, when you stop and think about it. One jolly good way we all judge books, before we shell out money to buy them, is by reading some reviews by people whose views we respect, or at least by getting verbal recommendations from them. Without that, we'd either read nothing or would drown trying to wade through time-wasting junk. It's a basic process of quality control we all use, if we are honest about it. If we can't do either, then we do what I've done and try to suss out the credentials of the writer and the journals reporting his or her work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,641
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ESPinPhysics View Post
    Dear Exchemist

    You can buy a copy of New Dawn Special Issue Vol 6 No 4 for $2.95 at
    New Dawn Special Issue Vol.6 No.4 | New Dawn : The World's Most Unusual Magazine

    See "The Amazing Story of the Clairvoyants Who Observed Atoms" by Brendan Murphy (pages 57 to 64).

    Sincerely,
    ESPinPhysics
    BUY this stuff?!

    You've had about 45mins of my time actually, on the various bits of web research I've posted to date, so you've done well out of me already.

    I can no longer ignore the screaming noise, the blue flashing lights and the smoke billowing from my woo meter.
    I don't know if MacGyver has any spare parts left. We've been hit pretty hard recently with wave after wave of woo. All my meters blew up days ago.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ESPinPhysics View Post
    Dear Exchemist

    The only way to judge a book is to look inside it.

    Sincerely
    ESPinPhysics
    Yes you've used that mantra before, on Flick M earlier in the thread.

    But it's ballocks of course, when you stop and think about it. One jolly good way we all judge books, before we shell out money to buy them, is by reading some reviews by people whose views we respect, or at least by getting verbal recommendations from them. Without that, we'd either read nothing or would drown trying to wade through time-wasting junk. It's a basic process of quality control we all use, if we are honest about it. If we can't do either, then we do what I've done and try to suss out the credentials of the writer and the journals reporting his or her work.
    Dear Exchemist

    I am disappointed in you. You are, in fact, practicing a form of pseudoscience that is more dangerous than the pseudoscience you are complaining about. The truth of the matter is that the book in question is free. All you need to do is click on
    http://www.smphillips.8m.com/pdfs/ESP_of_Quarks.pdf
    and browse through the book.

    I was asking someone to provide a professional assessment of the book itself. All you have done is look at what other people have said about whatever, while claiming to having judged the book. This is unprofessional behavior. You have wasted your time, my time, and anyone else who has followed the dialogue.

    Sincerely
    ESPinPhysics
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    We always get inundated by nutcases when the seasons change.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,910
    Quote Originally Posted by ESPinPhysics
    Dear Exchemist

    I am disappointed in you. You are, in fact, practicing a form of pseudoscience that is more dangerous than the pseudoscience you are complaining about. The truth of the matter is that the book in question is free. All you need to do is click on
    http://www.smphillips.8m.com/pdfs/ESP_of_Quarks.pdf
    and browse through the book.

    I was asking someone to provide a professional assessment of the book itself. All you have done is look at what other people have said about whatever, while claiming to having judged the book. This is unprofessional behavior. You have wasted your time, my time, and anyone else who has followed the dialogue.

    Sincerely
    ESPinPhysics
    Dude! Your link comes up "FORBIDDEN".
    Anyway, your starting to come off as a dick.
    So yeah... whatever...
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by ESPinPhysics View Post
    I was asking someone to provide a professional assessment of the book itself.
    It's unmitigated bollocks.
    As is most of (I haven't looked at all of it) Phillips' website.
    It's cherry-picking and post-hoc data dredging done to support a pre-formed conclusion.
    All based on taking non-factual and scientifically unsupported crap as valid.

    You have wasted your time, my time, and anyone else who has followed the dialogue.[/quote]
    Much like this entire thread then...
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ESPinPhysics View Post
    Dear Exchemist

    You can buy a copy of New Dawn Special Issue Vol 6 No 4 for $2.95 at
    New Dawn Special Issue Vol.6 No.4 | New Dawn : The World's Most Unusual Magazine

    See "The Amazing Story of the Clairvoyants Who Observed Atoms" by Brendan Murphy (pages 57 to 64).

    Sincerely,
    ESPinPhysics
    BUY this stuff?!

    You've had about 45mins of my time actually, on the various bits of web research I've posted to date, so you've done well out of me already.

    I can no longer ignore the screaming noise, the blue flashing lights and the smoke billowing from my woo meter.
    I don't know if MacGyver has any spare parts left. We've been hit pretty hard recently with wave after wave of woo. All my meters blew up days ago.
    Dear tk421

    Your meters are not scientific. My challenge to you is to use
    http://www.smphillips.8m.com/pdfs/ESP_of_Quarks.pdf
    to download the book in question and show me where Phillips’ reasoning is scientifically flawed.

    I suspect you lack the expertise needed to provide such a critique. Your meters are merely toys for playing at being scientific.

    Prove me wrong,
    ESPinPhysics
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by ESPinPhysics View Post
    Prove me wrong
    I hereby award you 5 Crank Points for the use of this phrase.

    If you truly did know anything about science you'd also know that's not how it works.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    @ESPinPhysics

    During the course of a typical week on the science forums I frequent I encounter several members who are posting about a hypothesis, or "theory" lying outside of conventional science. Most ask that time be devoted to exploring their hypothesis. If I were to do this for each of these, devoting a reasonable amount of time to give each fair consideration, I would be committing to somewhere around forty to fifty hours each week. This is not practical for me.

    Consequently, I require something substantial to "whet my appetite" and provide the incentive to commit a few hours of my time. So far in this thread you have not done so.

    I was sufficiently intrigued to attempt to open the link you provided. As you have already been told, it does not work. Continuing to post the link after you have been told it doesn't work is bad form.

    It would have been helpful if you had been more forthcoming with details, presented an abstract of the arguments put forward in the ESP of Quarks paper for example. Or properly replied to the queries about what characteristics of elements were being "discovered" by these methods.

    You have received one of the calmest, most open receptions I have seen on this forum for "alternative ideas". You could actually have an almost neutral audience here, but your approach is not helping your case. Your last close, saying "prove me wrong" is, for example, a red rag to a bull. You surely know that is not how science works. The onus is on you to prove, not us to disprove. I hope, when you are in a more reflective mood, you will consider withdrawing that particular remark.


    (And on a purely personal note, that likely reflects a weakness in me and not you, your Dear Member and Sincerely top and tails to posts are bloody annoying.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by ESPinPhysics View Post
    The truth of the matter is that the book in question is free. All you need to do is click on
    http://www.smphillips.8m.com/pdfs/ESP_of_Quarks.pdf
    and browse through the book.


    Sincerely
    ESPinPhysics
    This what we get when we click that link.
    Forbidden

    Remote Host:

    You do not have permission to access this page or fileData files must be stored on the same site they are linked from.

    Thank you for using FreeServers
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    If anyone truly wants to risk their sanity this link works.
    Bear in mind that the introduction mentions Capra's Tao of Physics in a somewhat more than favourable light and that the author (despite claims that he's neither sceptical of 1 nor "firmly committed" to "the reality of ESP") does rather seem to take Theosophy, Besant, Leadbeater and the claims of yogis (among others) at face value.

    1 Uh, what? It appears that by "sceptical" he actually means here "don't subscribe at all". Surely, if one genuinely is not "firmly committed" to a claim then, by definition one is sceptical. But maybe that's just me...
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    If anyone truly wants to risk their sanity this link works.
    Bear in mind that the introduction mentions Capra's Tao of Physics in a somewhat more than favourable light and that the author (despite claims that he's neither sceptical of 1 nor "firmly committed" to "the reality of ESP") does rather seem to take Theosophy, Besant, Leadbeater and the claims of yogis (among others) at face value.

    1 Uh, what? It appears that by "sceptical" he actually means here "don't subscribe at all". Surely, if one genuinely is not "firmly committed" to a claim then, by definition one is sceptical. But maybe that's just me...
    That link still didn't work for me. Same forbidden message as before.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Dagnabbit!
    It doesn't work for me now either.
    How about this one.
    And the link to the downloadable PDF is in the first yellow box entitled "Extra-sensory Perception of Quarks".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    25
    Dear John Galt

    I happily withdraw the “prove me wrong” challenge.

    The truth is that I am a Buddhist monk. I have practiced Buddhist meditation for 50 years. I am retired now. I also taught mathematics and physics for more than 20 years in Canada. The talk of woo meters is nonsense to me, honestly.

    In Buddhist meditation, the notion of ESP is taken for granted as possible. I have, in fact, practiced meditations on ESP with considerable success. Being born Canadian, I have a keen interest in science, especially psychology. I am presently publishing a book on my experiences with meditation. It will be going to press in a couple of weeks.

    I discovered the work of Phillips some 20 years ago. (When you get to be 74 years old, you too will round time off time to the nearest ten.) The diagrams he took from Leadbeater and Besant were, in fact, meditation experiences. I have replicated some of the more important ones. From the point of view of Buddhism, the development of the siddhis (psychic powers such as ESP) is consider possible but a waste of effort compared to the pursuit of Enlightenment. Meditation teachers are pretty oh-hum about ESP, but they never dismiss it as a possibility the way Western scientists do.

    But Phillips demonstrates a strong link between these diagrams and string theory. Let me explain a little bit. Leadbeater and Besant observed “UPAs” or tiny balls of string arranged in complex geometric patterns. After resolving various errors in counting these UPAs, Phillips came to the conclusion that the number of UPAs divided by 18 was exactly equal to the number of protons and neutrons of the isotope being viewed. This, he suggests, is due to the fact that the ESP of atoms caused pairs of atoms to form a single crystal.

    For example, in the case of hydrogen gas, two protons formed a crystal containing 18 UPAs. Phillips concluded that, since a proton has 3 quarks, each quark contains 3 UPAs.

    If you were to read his books, you would find that Phillips is a real physicist and knows a lot about string theory. From my point of view, the next step is for a physicist to examine the claims made by Phillips. He could be wrong but not obviously so. His book on ESP of Quarks and Superstrings is beyond any amateur scientist.

    Given my background, I hope you find it understandable that I became impatient with people who dismissed the works of Phillips on the basis of their woo meters! As a teacher, I stand behind my views of pseudoscience. Real science is hard work in my experience.

    Sincerely (I do mean sincerely!)
    ESPinPhysics
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ESPinPhysics View Post
    The truth of the matter is that the book in question is free. All you need to do is click on
    http://www.smphillips.8m.com/pdfs/ESP_of_Quarks.pdf
    and browse through the book.


    Sincerely
    ESPinPhysics
    This what we get when we click that link.
    Forbidden

    Remote Host:

    You do not have permission to access this page or fileData files must be stored on the same site they are linked from.

    Thank you for using FreeServers
    ESP_of_Quarks.pdf is a huge file, 18.7 MB. Your server does not give you permission access the file. I have no trouble accessing it even though it takes several minutes to download.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,539
    Quote Originally Posted by ESPinPhysics View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ESPinPhysics View Post
    Dear Exchemist

    The only way to judge a book is to look inside it.

    Sincerely
    ESPinPhysics
    Yes you've used that mantra before, on Flick M earlier in the thread.

    But it's ballocks of course, when you stop and think about it. One jolly good way we all judge books, before we shell out money to buy them, is by reading some reviews by people whose views we respect, or at least by getting verbal recommendations from them. Without that, we'd either read nothing or would drown trying to wade through time-wasting junk. It's a basic process of quality control we all use, if we are honest about it. If we can't do either, then we do what I've done and try to suss out the credentials of the writer and the journals reporting his or her work.
    Dear Exchemist

    I am disappointed in you. You are, in fact, practicing a form of pseudoscience that is more dangerous than the pseudoscience you are complaining about. The truth of the matter is that the book in question is free. All you need to do is click on
    http://www.smphillips.8m.com/pdfs/ESP_of_Quarks.pdf
    and browse through the book.

    I was asking someone to provide a professional assessment of the book itself. All you have done is look at what other people have said about whatever, while claiming to having judged the book. This is unprofessional behavior. You have wasted your time, my time, and anyone else who has followed the dialogue.

    Sincerely
    ESPinPhysics
    Then you are remarkably naive. You must know that ESP is regarded with something between extreme scepticism and outright ridicule in science. Yet, in spite of being asked in posts 3, 6 and 7 what this was about and why we should be interested, we have had to wait until post 53 for you offer any form of summary of what is being claimed. Up to that point, our various enquiries have been fobbed off with links that don't work or responses along the lines of: "Ah, glasshopper, it is unwise to judge book by cover [I am Buddhist, by the way]"

    In fact the only person chasing up and supplying links on the subject was me.

    Nevertheless, it being a wet October day in London and having now read your response to John G, I have gone back and read the first part of Phillips' article in the JSE (I linked to this in post 34). That is the part about "occult chemistry", which I can follow, since it is chemistry. (String theory is not something I can comment on.). The conclusion Phillips reaches is that the idea of occult chemistry does not stand up - though I was amused by his argument that Besant and Leadbetter could not have been charlatans because their findings correlate so poorly with actual chemistry.

    Nevertheless, he then proceeds to take some of their reported findings and starts to compare them to subatomic physics. At this point I stopped, since subatomic physics is not my speciality. If anyone cares to read and comment on the second part I shall be interested, but so far I am not at all impressed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    exchemist, help me out here. I think I understand what you are saying, but if I have read you correctly it is, surprising.

    Phillips, whom ESPinPhysics, is making much of, refutes the very findings that ESPinPhysics believes he supports. Is that what you just said? You can understand, I hope, why I am doubting my own comprehension skills here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    exchemist, help me out here. I think I understand what you are saying, but if I have read you correctly it is, surprising.

    Phillips, whom ESPinPhysics, is making much of, refutes the very findings that ESPinPhysics believes he supports. Is that what you just said? You can understand, I hope, why I am doubting my own comprehension skills here.
    It wouldn't be surprising. Confirmation bias works that way. One just ignores the part that goes against one's preconceptions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    exchemist, help me out here. I think I understand what you are saying, but if I have read you correctly it is, surprising.

    Phillips, whom ESPinPhysics, is making much of, refutes the very findings that ESPinPhysics believes he supports. Is that what you just said? You can understand, I hope, why I am doubting my own comprehension skills here.
    It wouldn't be surprising. Confirmation bias works that way. One just ignores the part that goes against one's preconceptions.
    Yes, Harold, John G, that is indeed how I read the article. If you want to take a look, see the first link in my post 34 and go to p499, the section titled "Problems with Science". Phillips goes through a number of the difficulties they encountered trying to match what they call micro-psi atoms, ("MPA"s in the article) to the periodic table and properties of elements, and concludes none of the possible explanation works. But what he then does is come back to a claim that these people foresaw there was more than one kind of atom in neon, five years before Soddy's announcement of the concept of isotopes. He then uses this as a springboard to say, given it wasn't chemistry they were "perceiving", what was it?…could it be?….etc etc. (the Erich von Daniken technique)…and then introduces his theory.

    What I suspect (cynic that I am) is that Philiips went through the original "occult chemistry" claims, found they were entirely unconvincing and then hastily dreamed up the idea that perhaps they predicted string theory instead. That would be handy, you see, because far fewer people understand string theory than understand chemistry, so the chance of being blown out of the water would be less.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    ^Like^
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ESPinPhysics View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ESPinPhysics View Post
    Dear Exchemist

    The only way to judge a book is to look inside it.

    Sincerely
    ESPinPhysics
    Yes you've used that mantra before, on Flick M earlier in the thread.

    But it's ballocks of course, when you stop and think about it. One jolly good way we all judge books, before we shell out money to buy them, is by reading some reviews by people whose views we respect, or at least by getting verbal recommendations from them. Without that, we'd either read nothing or would drown trying to wade through time-wasting junk. It's a basic process of quality control we all use, if we are honest about it. If we can't do either, then we do what I've done and try to suss out the credentials of the writer and the journals reporting his or her work.
    Dear Exchemist

    I am disappointed in you. You are, in fact, practicing a form of pseudoscience that is more dangerous than the pseudoscience you are complaining about. The truth of the matter is that the book in question is free. All you need to do is click on
    http://www.smphillips.8m.com/pdfs/ESP_of_Quarks.pdf
    and browse through the book.

    I was asking someone to provide a professional assessment of the book itself. All you have done is look at what other people have said about whatever, while claiming to having judged the book. This is unprofessional behavior. You have wasted your time, my time, and anyone else who has followed the dialogue.

    Sincerely
    ESPinPhysics
    Then you are remarkably naive. You must know that ESP is regarded with something between extreme scepticism and outright ridicule in science. Yet, in spite of being asked in posts 3, 6 and 7 what this was about and why we should be interested, we have had to wait until post 53 for you offer any form of summary of what is being claimed. Up to that point, our various enquiries have been fobbed off with links that don't work or responses along the lines of: "Ah, glasshopper, it is unwise to judge book by cover [I am Buddhist, by the way]"

    In fact the only person chasing up and supplying links on the subject was me.

    Nevertheless, it being a wet October day in London and having now read your response to John G, I have gone back and read the first part of Phillips' article in the JSE (I linked to this in post 34). That is the part about "occult chemistry", which I can follow, since it is chemistry. (String theory is not something I can comment on.). The conclusion Phillips reaches is that the idea of occult chemistry does not stand up - though I was amused by his argument that Besant and Leadbetter could not have been charlatans because their findings correlate so poorly with actual chemistry.

    Nevertheless, he then proceeds to take some of their reported findings and starts to compare them to subatomic physics. At this point I stopped, since subatomic physics is not my speciality. If anyone cares to read and comment on the second part I shall be interested, but so far I am not at all impressed.
    Dear Exchemist

    Thank you for reading something written by Phillips.

    Sincerely
    ESPinPhysics
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    exchemist, help me out here. I think I understand what you are saying, but if I have read you correctly it is, surprising.

    Phillips, whom ESPinPhysics, is making much of, refutes the very findings that ESPinPhysics believes he supports. Is that what you just said? You can understand, I hope, why I am doubting my own comprehension skills here.
    Dear John Galt

    I support Phillips not Leadbeater and Besant who made mistakes.

    Sincerely,
    ESPinPhysics
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    exchemist, help me out here. I think I understand what you are saying, but if I have read you correctly it is, surprising.

    Phillips, whom ESPinPhysics, is making much of, refutes the very findings that ESPinPhysics believes he supports. Is that what you just said? You can understand, I hope, why I am doubting my own comprehension skills here.
    It wouldn't be surprising. Confirmation bias works that way. One just ignores the part that goes against one's preconceptions.
    Yes, Harold, John G, that is indeed how I read the article. If you want to take a look, see the first link in my post 34 and go to p499, the section titled "Problems with Science". Phillips goes through a number of the difficulties they encountered trying to match what they call micro-psi atoms, ("MPA"s in the article) to the periodic table and properties of elements, and concludes none of the possible explanation works. But what he then does is come back to a claim that these people foresaw there was more than one kind of atom in neon, five years before Soddy's announcement of the concept of isotopes. He then uses this as a springboard to say, given it wasn't chemistry they were "perceiving", what was it?…could it be?….etc etc. (the Erich von Daniken technique)…and then introduces his theory.

    What I suspect (cynic that I am) is that Philiips went through the original "occult chemistry" claims, found they were entirely unconvincing and then hastily dreamed up the idea that perhaps they predicted string theory instead. That would be handy, you see, because far fewer people understand string theory than understand chemistry, so the chance of being blown out of the water would be less.
    Dear Exchemist

    Thank you for reading the first 10 pages of Phillips paper. It is unfortunate that The Science Forum does not have a member who knows string theory. It is also unfortunate that you find it necessary to end our dialogue with a "suspicion" that Phillips is a fake.

    Sincerely
    ESPinPhysics
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. ESP group?
    By changedforever in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: September 25th, 2013, 03:23 AM
  2. I'm Aubree with ESP among other gifts
    By aubre in forum Introductions
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: May 22nd, 2013, 04:17 AM
  3. Schizophrenia vs. ESP
    By KilkennyJake in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: May 10th, 2013, 08:16 PM
  4. ESP
    By Arcane_Mathematician in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 221
    Last Post: April 24th, 2011, 04:14 AM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •