Caedes - Proof is not a word I have used, evidence is what I have made reference to. Forming an informed opinion requires an analysis of at least some of the mass of evidence collected over the last 150 years or so. I have reached the conclusion that absolute proof must include direct personal experience. I don't think any amount of reading or research should be able to convince a reasonable person completely of the fact of survival. I would say though that in my opinion it is impossible for a reasonable, open-minded person to dismiss the possibility of survival having read even the limited works I have suggested earlier in the thread.
As an aside Sir Oliver Lodge and Sir William Barratt were the foremost physicists of their day do some reading for God's sake. In answer to your comment: no, you don't have to examine the research as I said already. Why would I expect you to do research for me when I have done it already - your comment makes no sense to me. You on the other hand are however currently speaking from ignorance. Frankly why should I care? As I said I have no interest in persuading you. Merely correcting your misleading statements by referring to the voluminous research on the subject of which you appear to have read absolutely nothing. If you were really interested you would examine the evidence and do some research but you're not, so engaging with you is a waste of time. There may be other people who are actually prepared to get off their ass and read about the subject - if you don't want to then it is of no interest to me. I cannot engage you in discussion when you have not and will not read the research.