great critical thinker if you can't reach out and take the information handed to you.
That's the point...you haven't handed it to me. You expect me to reach out and grab it.
if you can't do that, what critical thinker are you? you're simply lazy and only analyze what you "feel" you have enough power to analyze.
Being lazy has nothing to do with being a critical thinker. I value my time and I don't want to waste it searching through some 8-page paper about magic and mind-reading.
since when did i say "I" tested anything? and besides, telling you how to test my theory would not be any advantage for me, considering how you don't even believe that it works. why spend the time to go over somethin you don't trust?
If I tested it and it worked then maybe I would believe that it works. However, if you honestly don't want to tell me because the test doesn't actually work, then I understand.
i can tell you right now, there are many people who trust this kind of work
Yeah, alot of people believe in fairies too.
and no, science is not made from critical thinkers, science is made from people who give other ideas a chance.
Yes, but they don't blindly accept those ideas on faith. We're talking about science, not theology. They may give other ideas a chance, but it is necessary that the idea be critically analyzed in the process.
if you keep pushing away the ideas in front of you, how would science ever expand?
I don't push away all ideas in front of me, just the ones without merit or basis.
if these stupid and idiotic critical thinkers were not butting into everything and trying to put good ideas down, science would be much broader.
If the good ideas worked then they wouldn't be butting them down. Scientists judge things based on evidence, if there's no evidence there's no reason to accept it.
but people like you tear it appart, not in attempt to make it better, but in attempt to ruin it.
People like me tear it apart to make sure it has validity, and if it does we attempt to make it better. It's much more efficient than making everything we come across better, just to find that 99% of them don't actually describe the world around us.
the things i have observed....let's see. kinetics. telekinetics, psionics, pyrokinetics, hydrokinetics, you name it, i've seen it. and no, you don't have to have a perfect understanding of physics to say that something works with it.
If you've observed them then there must be some way to replicate your results. Tell us how.
if it works, it works, and if physics doesn't apply to it, that means physics is wrong. am i not correct?
No, you're not correct. Physics has a certain plasticity to it that would allow for it to accomodate what we see around us.
no one could explain a black hole, not until they FOUND the physics for it. no one could explain why a ball hit the ground, until the DISCOVERED the physics to it. people every day put people who discover new things down, and say that they are wrong, when they are in fact riht. a good lesson of this is einstein himself. you people should learn from your mistakes.
Black holes were predicted sometime around 1918. We're only beginning to see indirect evidence of them. Get your story straight before you try and use it to prove a point.
