6Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksWhat are the forum members views on this topic.
September 22nd, 2006, 10:29 AM
What are the forum members views on this topic.
Okay, this is al going to sound very stupid but I’ve got a question. Since everything consists of atoms etc. Would our brains be able to make waves that affect these atoms?
Nobody has yet demonstrated Telekinesis under laboratory conditions, there is [I believe] a $1M prize waiting to be claimed....
yes it is. and sincenobody who have the powers are willing to be tested its all shit. Bullshit that is
it aint possible thats it
What is that an answer to?Originally Posted by Zelos
By saying 'who have' you are suggesting that you believe some have the power.
What 'aint' possible?
And there really is NO need to swear.
i was refering from their perceptictive. i dont think anyone have those powers except in fantasy where everything is possible.By saying 'who have' you are suggesting that you believe some have the power.
where did i swear? where i live i havent said a bad word. Bullshit and shit is nothing you swear with.And there really is NO need to swear.
I am not quite sure about this subject. For example: I do not believe in fate and such tough I have had some moments that I thought…. We rode in, I believe it was pisa, a place I had never been before. I was asleep in the back of the car, while my parents couldn’t find the way. I dreamt of the street in which we rode and suddenly waked up. In my dream we turned right and I told my father to do so. Ten minutes later we were back on the highway.
Sometimes I dream of places I have never been to before and have never seen in books or on TV. I don’t know where it is, but then a few weeks later I am on that place, having exactly the same view as I had in my dream. A kind of deja-vu thing.
My mother works in a hospital. She once had nightshift and was doing her round. At the end of it there was some feeling, telling here she had to go back to the man in the room she had last inspected. There hadn’t been anything wrong with him when she had been there ten minutes earlier, but when she went back she was the only one seeing the last few minutes of the mans life.
I know this al sounds like Fantasy and nothing more then good story telling, but I don’t believe this is al the work of pure luck. The stories are a little bit out of topic but I think that telekinesis could be just like this. Remember that not everything has been proven yet by science. There still are loads of things of which we don’t know how it works. This could be just one of those things.
Sorry if I made any spelling mistakes, but the spelling check I usually use doesn’t work today.
I have one or two inexplicable experiences in my life as well. I well remember many years ago I pushed a colleague out of a workshop we were in, just as he asked "What the hell.." there was a large bange and a large storage capacitor had exploded - we would both have been injured had we stayed there. There was no sensory indication to me that anything was going to happen. As an Engineer Physicist it has always perplexed me.
Curiosly the only explanation I have is that I may have been about to play a trick on him but this co-incided with the explosion, perhaps the shock/distraction made me forget what I was going to do.
I dont know, I mean the body gives off a bit of "electricity" and the body is controlled by electricity so if you amped up the signal you probally could. But the one Im interested in is telepathy. People like good salesman, in my opinion, are able to deomonstrate slight telepathy in their ability to read customers.
So I am not alone. Are there others with these experiences as well. Or should I discus this in an other thread.
For telekinesis: I don’t know what to believe. We don’t use our brains for a 100% so who knows what is possible with the unused parts of the brains? Perhaps our brains are able to send and receive radio waves or something like that?! In that case mindreading could be possible.
Well no problem there, start a thread on telepathy, this one's for telekinesis which is moving matter by power of mind only, ie no physical interaction.
Heh, well, for my own stories:
I have, numerous times, dreamed of myself doing things (or places been to) long before they even happen. Although I can't exactly prove it, so it's up in the air. I've also had instances of "see it before it happens" type things that got me out of a few tricky situations before. There is also the "bad feeling that something bad happen before it does" bit that people tend to get sometimes.
All of which, save for the dreams, is scientifically explainable as a subconscious ability that we precieve as "paranormal" though. Google it.
As for telekinetics, it is possible scientifically. Since everything is composed of atoms it could be gravity you control (this may throw Einstein out the window, or not. I'm not sure), or the energy that effects an object.
The "I will give you *insert dollar figure here* if you can prove to me it exists" type thing never works. Even if someone lifted a car they've never seen from 50 feet away the person responsible for paying up would hawe an explanation, or "here's what you REALLY did" ready.
Of course, I will say that those TV psychics, "natural" mind readers, "sensitives", and such that appear on TV regularly are more often than not fakes (a lot of them continue to be debunked). This includes the "online community" composed of prepubescent morons that like DBZ too much (or psychologically disturbed people).
Honestly, if you could do it, don't you think the government would take some intrest in the ability? You wouldn't be flaunting it around, I can assure you. Nothing like killing a few hundred people just by destroying key areas in the brain or heart with telekinetics! Nope nope!
It'd also take a lot of training since the human body doesn't NEED it to survive, so why would it even be in our natural abilities? It's like swimming, you don't do it automatically. Although it's very probable to assume that others are born with a better manipulation ability due to the way their bodies developed or the genes in general, but that'd be fairly rare.
So overall, the chances of any person actually being able to do telekinetics is so slim it's similar to Einsteins following statement:
'The likelihood of transforming matter into energy is something akin to shooting birds in the dark in a country where there are only a few birds.'
P.S: Why is there never a headline "psychic wins lottery"?
MYTH: we only use 10% of our brain capacitySo I am not alone. Are there others with these experiences as well. Or should I discus this in an other thread.
For telekinesis: I don’t know what to believe. We don’t use our brains for a 100% so who knows what is possible with the unused parts of the brains? Perhaps our brains are able to send and receive radio waves or something like that?! In that case mindreading could be possible.
http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm
Google it as well. It's a myth. Probably started by religion to "disprove" evolution.
Also, radio waves and such CONTINUALLY interact with the brain and such. As do EM fields. "officially" it doesn't, though. This is why it's still legal to have waves bouncing all over hell and powerlines overhead. Common sense people, it effects your brain so it's bossible for your brain waves to effect it.
I'm sure that is proven already.
There is a myth that we only use 10% or so of our brains, this is false.
IF it were true that we only use 10% of our brains, President Kennedy would have been sent home with a packet of aspirin.
Jeremy,
Radio is my speciality, I have been VERY close to some pretty powerful transmitters in my time, believe me, no problem. Cell phones and microwave radiation are different though - I do not and will not ever have a cell-phone. I have seen birds land very close to powerful Microwave transmitters and drop dead in seconds.
Soory about that I thought I saw telepathy, but about telekinesis, I know brains produce a variety of waves at different frequencies, has there been any research done in which they tried to manipulate that frequency with an outside frequency.Well no problem there, start a thread on telepathy, this one's for telekinesis which is moving matter by power of mind only, ie no physical interaction.
sure, i think 90% of communication is body language.
thats a problem if you ask me. toi much body language
Think of them as sound waves in music, most people would notice no mental or subconscious changes, yet others do. The brain most likely has it's own defenses, but it's still penetrable.
Take for example, this story I heard of a girl that was suffering from mysterious "hauntings" during the night that brought on a good deal of hysteria. Her parents, being skeptics, offered a reward (I think) to anyone who could figure out the problem. A scientist examining the bedroom found that her radio was emitting a stronger-than-normal EM output. Once the radio was removed, the hauntings stopped.
As it turns out the EM waves were effecting the girls system in such a was that she became delusional and highly terrified. Unfortunately I can't find the cursed link, so I'll have to ask the guy who told it to me for the link. I will post it later.
Here is an experiment for radio waves: Stand near a normal antenna and notice the static of a specific channel increase or decrease relative to your position or channel frequency. Your body can act as a conductor for the radio waves you want, absorbing the "bad" ones that interfere with the signal, or on some frequencies do the opposite. You're left with nothing but static while you absorb the signal you wanted to begin with. This also works by touching the antenna.
By that experiment it's fairly obvious that your body can mess with them. Guess what they can do to your body? Who knows, I've not tested it, but I do know it's not microwave lethal (if it was we'd all be dead). Although I think, in theory, it could cause some slight problems for those whose brains aren't used to it. Or some other side effect, I can't be certain as I've not been able to test it yet. Unless the brain can fully shield itself from them, but then one must wonder about the limits of that shield.
Jeremy, please, trust me, it really is crap.
I noticed this with my stereo. It is located in the study, only whenever anybody walks up the stairs in my house the radio goes out all static.Here is an experiment for radio waves: Stand near a normal antenna and notice the static of a specific channel increase or decrease relative to your position or channel frequency. Your body can act as a conductor for the radio waves you want, absorbing the "bad" ones that interfere with the signal, or on some frequencies do the opposite. You're left with nothing but static while you absorb the signal you wanted to begin with. This also works by touching the antenna.
Sometimes when it is static i put my hand over it and it magicaly fixed :?
That's not static, it's just the same effect you get on a TV aerial that's indoors. As you move around you reflect the EM waves which then 'phase' with the direct signal which then looks like it's 'fading'I noticed this with my stereo. It is located in the study, only whenever anybody walks up the stairs in my house the radio goes out all static.Here is an experiment for radio waves: Stand near a normal antenna and notice the static of a specific channel increase or decrease relative to your position or channel frequency. Your body can act as a conductor for the radio waves you want, absorbing the "bad" ones that interfere with the signal, or on some frequencies do the opposite. You're left with nothing but static while you absorb the signal you wanted to begin with. This also works by touching the antenna.
Sometimes when it is static i put my hand over it and it magicaly fixed :?
Prove it then?
Explain amplification then.
Why?Prove it then?
Explain amplification then.
Why not?
Why not?
becuase this kind of crap is physical impossible and also pose no biological solution and evolutionary profit.Why not?
damn you had to reply that fast. Dialup screwed up and made me douple post.
anyway: There are many advantages to it, but evolution is known to give side effects of advancement. Example, with higher brain function, more knowledge than is required to survive or live in this environment.
As for a profit, I think it's obvious.
It's not impossible, since that's like saying atoms can't interact,
Okay, if I get it right, there are some waves that affect our brains?! Could you train your brain to "translate" those waves? I don't mean something like being able to listen music without radio, but to recognize certain types of waves.
I ask this because of a question I have had in mind. Some humans have the ability to sense the emotions of others. They are very good at seeing and understanding how somebody feels. I am pretty good at this myself. I always thought it had something to do with the way people start acting when they are feeling sad etc. But maybe it could be that, when being emotional, our brains submit some kind of wave which can be "translated" by a receiver?!
Two possibilities: Empathy or subconscious noticings of certain body movements/phrases that allow you to decypher emotion.
and in theory, yes, some waves (if not all) interact with the body or brain in some way. Until I'm proven wrong, that is. As for translating, that's not likely unless it's the same wave your own body emits.
that is what I meant by: "the way people start acting when they are feeling sad etc"
Since the poll faced us with a dichotomy of possible/not possible, I'll choose the latter based on the fact that no evidence has ever shown TK to be something that is a real force. It would seem to only exist in the active imaginations of fiction writers and credulous believers of con-artists like Uri Geller and the like.
Had I posed the question as "Does TK Exist" then the third 'I don't know' option would have been required. I just wanted a yes/no, so I worded the way I did. Skinwalker, 'you have chosen wisely'.
So, basically, you start a discussion only to do what Zelos did and say "it doesn't exist" even after a few possibilities are mentioned.
Tell me, since there is no evidence FOR it being possible, why is it science hasn't completely thrown it out of the window? It's because science can't disprove the possibility of it existing. So saying that "yes it exists" means you have to prove/provide evidence for the possibility, saying "no it doesn't" means you have to provide evidence against the possibility.
In doing neither, and just passing it off as a scam thanks to numerous scam-artists that fooled countless idiots, or just going blidly by the belief it does, makes you the direct definition of "closed minded". View it with skepticism, not a predetermined outlook.
It's becomming a disturbing pattern with both you and Zelos to just say "it doesn't work like that" without providing the reason why. I hope that, for the sake of intrest, you start providing evidence for your views.
It does not exist. It is up to those who say it does, to prove it. There is no mechanism or science which supports it.So, basically, you start a discussion only to do what Zelos did and say "it doesn't exist" even after a few possibilities are mentioned.
Tell me, since there is no evidence FOR it being possible, why is it science hasn't completely thrown it out of the window? It's because science can't disprove the possibility of it existing. So saying that "yes it exists" means you have to prove/provide evidence for the possibility, saying "no it doesn't" means you have to provide evidence against the possibility.
In doing neither, and just passing it off as a scam thanks to numerous scam-artists that fooled countless idiots, or just going blidly by the belief it does, makes you the direct definition of "closed minded". View it with skepticism, not a predetermined outlook.
It's becomming a disturbing pattern with both you and Zelos to just say "it doesn't work like that" without providing the reason why. I hope that, for the sake of intrest, you start providing evidence for your views.
billco is right. There is no known physics capable to do it. and also once again nature wouldnt evolve it since there is way to solve all possible problem related to this biologicly
God how many mad people are there?
Wow, I ask you to prove it disproves it then you ask me to prove it. I've given possible explantions for some things, but now I have to say "I asked first" since you want to be that childish.
Well it's like this, this is a science forum, in [modern] science we do not seek to prove non-existence. If that were the case I could say 'my cat can fly' now dis-prove it. In science we can only prove something.
So just because my cat won't fly when you come round to witness this miracle, does not mean he cannot fly, it means you did not see him fly.
Those who say a thing exists, must prove it if, they wish science to believe them. That's why it's stupid for scientitst's and religious people to argue. Scientist's can't prove god does NOT exist and religious people cannot prove he does.
So those who believe in Telekinesis or telepathy or other such are required to prove it! :wink:
billco is once again right.
I really hate to admit this, but Zelos is right on that one... :wink:
of course
I thought this tread was about the possibility and not the existence of TK. You don’t have to prove anything for having your own believes, but you only explain why you think what you believe is true. The same counts for believing in non-existence of TK. Why is it not possible?
You are correct. The debate is indeed whether or not it is 'possible'. The answer [to my humble aged mind] is that it is not, there is no mechanism available, no phenomina which lends itself to TK, and since the brain is 100% used, no place for it to start.
N.B I am aware of the fallacy that says we only use 7-11% of our brain, and I am sure there may be people who's intellectual capability is equivalent to a domestic cat. I however use 100% of my brain. And as I have said before, if the 7% figure was true, Kennedy would have gone home with just a headache.
we use 10% of our brain (approximently) every second, while over a day 100% is used
Does using a 100% of your brain mean you can’t use it for other purposes? Maybe we can use certain functions of our brain to perform TK. I see the world as a kind of computer, a computer consists of bytes, our world consists of molecules. There might be a lot more possibilities of the usage of those molecules then we have first thought?!
If TK were possible and had been developed by evolution there would be some evidence for this in some species somewhere. There is none. All parts of the brain are physically connected to something. Our body works by using chemical and nerve stimuli. Since it is connected it suggests there are no 'short-cuts' - otherwise nature would not have wasted it's time developing the 'wires' that are nerves. As far as I can ascertain it is only proposed by people who have a vested interest [ie are authors or sell products]. Science is an attempt to explain observed physical phenomina and investigate them to the smallest detail. Science does not recognise TK simply because it does not fall within the category of 'observed physical phenomina'. So far all supposed TK events have been satisfactorily explained by conventional science.
Incidentally, having designed several computers they actually consist of three parts. CPU, MEM,IO.
The CPU performs the processing by 'move-manipulate-move' data.
MEM is the area from where the CPU stores data[which may be program,data,or temporary storage]
IO is the name for the physical interface(s) to the outside world - it consists of Keyboard, VDU,mouse,printer, modem etc etc.{stands for IN OUT].
The Engineers definition is:
A Computer is an electronic, binary-coded, logic-driven, rule-following idiot. Nothing more, Nothing less.
Contrary to popular belief computers have no inherent intelligence whatsoever.
Heh, this is just getting too funny. Well, I will go all out on a reply with everything. So hold your horses until I do. Since I have school and other things to jumble, expect my attendance rating in the forum to drop for now.
However, for the moment, I'll just stick to shoving what billco said down his throat.
Wrong. There is none *officially*. And *officially* many things in science don't "pop up" until they're discovered. Besides, given the rareity of the possibility in a practitioner, and how few practice, it's common sense to think it wouldn't be official.If TK were possible and had been developed by evolution there would be some evidence for this in some species somewhere. There is none.
As for not in our evolution, I disagree. think of it as a dormant aspect that isn't *needed* at present and thus *not used*.
who says the brain needs an area directed specifically at TK? Pheh, closed minded people. the brain works by using multiple areas to produce results. Science can only go so far as to say which areas are *most* responsible for something.All parts of the brain are physically connected to something. Our body works by using chemical and nerve stimuli. Since it is connected it suggests there are no 'short-cuts' - otherwise nature would not have wasted it's time developing the 'wires' that are nerves.
Also, Neurology can't exactly say "oh well this area of the brain does this" with perfect accuracy, as there is still research being done.
you're wrong old-timer. There are many (myself included) more interested in the possibility rather than dollar signs. Although we are few. HehAs far as I can ascertain it is only proposed by people who have a vested interest [ie are authors or sell products]. Science is an attempt to explain observed physical phenomina and investigate them to the smallest detail.
It should be added, again, that if anyone actually does do TK do you think for one second the government wouldn't latch on to them in an instant? Your common sense must slip in your old age.Science does not recognise TK simply because it does not fall within the category of 'observed physical phenomina'. So far all supposed TK events have been satisfactorily explained by conventional science.
Also, a computer is a tad more set than the universe. At base it has 1's and 0's. The universe has more subatomic particles than that. Hah
this poll is showing what ive allways said about humanity
Yes Jeremy,
Of course I'm wrong, the universe works the way you say it does.
how come humanity is so freaking STUPID?
Is that the whole of humanity or just part of it?
because in a socialist riddden democracy survival of the fittest doesnt exist. And people as a mass are always stupid because they dont follow the smartest but the loudest.
Would anybody who believes TK is possible care to enlighten the rest of us as to what the mechanism might be?
I suggest this is a mind shatterlingly, superficial, thoughtless, unfounded, unsubstantiated, misinterpretation of reality. (Such observations, with these characteristics are also called opinions.)because in a socialist riddden democracy survival of the fittest doesnt exist.
All humanity is subject to natural selection all the time. Always has been. Always will be. Fitness is appropriate to the environment currently in place. Perhaps you aren't especially fit for a socialist ridden democracy. If so, and you have recognised this personally disturbing fact, perhaps you are suffering anxiety attacks. :wink:
If the whole of humanity is stupid, but one Borg isn’t…Then consider what’s stupid. I think finding everybody who thinks different than you stupid is quite stupid.
Allness says "Intelligence is but a comparison to stupidity, neither can exist without the other.."If the whole of humanity is stupid, but one Borg isn’t…Then consider what’s stupid. I think finding everybody who thinks different than you stupid is quite stupid.
most of itIs that the whole of humanity or just part of it?
that would be true. when it comes to SUBJECTIVE things. objective this rule dont applyI think finding everybody who thinks different than you stupid is quite stupid.
You believe “the whole of humanity is stupid” is an objective statement?
look at the poll and we see some truth in it
look at what humans usualy do and we get more evidence
and look what humanity do mostly and we got more evidence
and look at the fact its a few person that get society to move forward and i have all the evidence i need
If you look at the books/videos/dvds etc in most peoples homes, I am sure you will find very little non-fiction material, and in many homes it will be all fiction. I think Zelos might be alluding to peoples ignorance of science, If he is looking at each person's individual contribution to preserving our species then I cannot disagree with him.
In that case I am the most stupid human alive 8)
A knowledge of Allness is sufficient to show you are not stupid. I am sure that any non-fiction material you have, was purely collected for research purposes... :wink:
Sure,
Psi: The unknown mechanism behind various psychic skills. Considered to be an energy.
Psychokinesis: "Mind over Matter" - Affecting/moving matter with the mind.
Psionics: The practice of psychic abilities, like psychokinesis.
Psion: A practicioner of psionics.
I will call PK-force (psychokinetic-force) the thing that makes objects move to clarify my theorie. It might be the same as psi, but that is not certain yet. The link between thoughts from the human brain and PK-force is also not certain yet. We do know that thoughts are the key behind psychokinesis.
By 'becoming one' with an object (focusing your attention on an object), you'll be able to move it with the power of the mind. There must be something/a force, to make movement possible, because in theorie, something will not move unless there is some sort of force. So, PK-force must be sómething, something we can 'touch' and has a mass. Something that has a mass would be messurable. Lets assume psi (or PK-force) has been messured. Some psions have had results by trying to create it nearby a geiger counter. This would suggest it has a mass.
But what is the link between this 'product' and thoughts? How do thoughts coordinate this 'energy' to make objects move? How does this energy forms?
Since somebody who practices psychokinesis can't exactly explain how an object moves - except saying that he sends energy to it in some cases - it is assumeable that your subconsciousness deals with this process.
So basicly we have:
Thoughts (attention/focus) -> energy -> force -> sub-c -> movement.
This m*ght be something towards the actual mechanism behind it.
Utter twaddle - all of it - You'd be more convincing if you said "There are no elephants in my house because I warn them with telepathy to keep away".Sure,
Psi: The unknown mechanism behind various psychic skills. Considered to be an energy.
Psychokinesis: "Mind over Matter" - Affecting/moving matter with the mind.
Psionics: The practice of psychic abilities, like psychokinesis.
Psion: A practicioner of psionics.
I will call PK-force (psychokinetic-force) the thing that makes objects move to clarify my theorie. It might be the same as psi, but that is not certain yet. The link between thoughts from the human brain and PK-force is also not certain yet. We do know that thoughts are the key behind psychokinesis.
By 'becoming one' with an object (focusing your attention on an object), you'll be able to move it with the power of the mind. There must be something/a force, to make movement possible, because in theorie, something will not move unless there is some sort of force. So, PK-force must be sómething, something we can 'touch' and has a mass. Something that has a mass would be messurable. Lets assume psi (or PK-force) has been messured. Some psions have had results by trying to create it nearby a geiger counter. This would suggest it has a mass.
But what is the link between this 'product' and thoughts? How do thoughts coordinate this 'energy' to make objects move? How does this energy forms?
Since somebody who practices psychokinesis can't exactly explain how an object moves - except saying that he sends energy to it in some cases - it is assumeable that your subconsciousness deals with this process.
So basicly we have:
Thoughts (attention/focus) -> energy -> force -> sub-c -> movement.
This m*ght be something towards the actual mechanism behind it.
Now you know why I hate online communities megabrain, and probably why most people utterly hate anybody that believes in it.
However, philosophically, one can claim that the conscious mind can have certain affects on reality. The larger an overall consciousness is, the better the effect. This doesn't translate to "So if I believe that I can fly, I can" so much as "if a certain amount of people have their conscious minds focused on something, it's likely to happen."
While that isn't a very good wording, it's a basic idea of a possible mechanism. For example, space bends due to certain affects matter has on it (or visa versa?). why can't consciousness have a similar effect that matter does on space? The mechanism, according to this speculation, could very well be consciousness.
This'd also be why "if you don't believe in it, it wont happen." But that's not entirely true. I'm an extreme skeptic, always will be, that doesn't mean I wont be able to do it. That only means I'll be skeptical of the results.
On the other side, I still suggest that electromagnetism is the best bet for a physical substance. Since it matches the description of most ancient cultures and current people in society in regards to "energy." But this is still under study. XP
Always?
Could be, yes.
You make my day :-D
Made your day or not, I agree with him. Your explanation, while full of typo's, misspells, and utter tripe, only adds insult to injury for the whole debate over telekinetics. But by the same coin, my earlier remarks never helped matters either...
First of all, my primary language isn't English, so give me a break. Second, you should really stop being so close-minded.
I'm banging my head against the wall here, all those years studying Electronics, electromagnetism, the EM spectrum, radio telescopy...
A life time of working in telecommunications, bits for NASA, two IBM patents, and finally portions of a radar system to defeat stealth
(oops can't say any more about that...)
Just tell me where there is enough electricity in the brain to create enough electromagnetic force to even move a single iron filing.
THe brain comsumes somewhere around 20watts of energy the electrical content of this (by way of nerve signals) might power a handful of digital watches.... The characteristic impedance of nuerone connections is in the hundreds of thousands of ohms - so forget the electromagnets and electromagnetic waves we are organic not some form of power generator.
To move something you need a physical force. When Chris Reeve broke his back no matter how much he tried and believed he could bridge a gap of a millimetre in his spine he could NOT influence the other side - he could not get them to grow together he could not will his limbs to move- if nature had a way of moving matter by power of mind alone it would have manifested itself in some species somewhere and there would be evidence of it as it would clearly have been a succesful strategy.
Some scientists have learned that it is never prudent to say "a thing can never happen or be possible" I am usually that way myself but there is a line I draw - suggesting TK is about as practical to a serious scientist as saying that one day the statue of david will pick up a pen and scrawl his name on the wall - we cannot decisevly say it will never happen but think about it...
*sigh* I don't care if english is your 10th language, if you are going to speak a language do it properly. I'm learning japanese, is that an excuse for me to do it in a sloppy manner? Hell no.
Finally, closed minded? Oh really? So rather than refuting my claim with some sort of evidence or rebuttal, I'm "closed minded?" Closed minded enough to prove you don't know what you are talking about apparently!
Yes, think about it.
Let's say I know it exists, what will you do, call me a liar?
No I would not call you a liar, I will borrow a phrase from a Gilbert and Sullivan opera. "Well meaning but mis-guided".
As for lies a lie is a deliberate untruth, not a mis-guided belief.
Just tell me how would you would know that it exists?
You have a point. But, it was not my intention to do it in a sloppy manner, I thought I posted something in proper English. And you learning Japanese, great. I've also had thoughts about learning Japanese.
You are excessively generalizing and closing arguments in such a manner that it's similar to a lawyer leading a witness. It's so funny, yet sad at the same time.
Appeal to Authority fallacy.
One can't limit it to the brain alone. As I said in a prior post, the rest of the body is also a possibility. However, as I'll say again, since my knowledge of matters is still highly limited I can't say exactly anything.Just tell me where there is enough electricity in the brain to create enough electromagnetic force to even move a single iron filing.
And since you're conducting your posts in such a closed manner, I can't take your word on it either. Sufficed to say, you are only making it harder on yourself.
Best part here...wasn't it earlier you said the brain operates at around 15 watts? Also, if the brain consumes 20 watts of energy, how much does the entire body? Certainly enough to disrupt radio signals, I know that by simple experimentation.THe brain comsumes somewhere around 20watts of energy the electrical content of this (by way of nerve signals) might power a handful of digital watches.... The characteristic impedance of nuerone connections is in the hundreds of thousands of ohms - so forget the electromagnets and electromagnetic waves we are organic not some form of power generator.
And it'd be nice if you spoke clear english. I'm not going to college just so I can learn fancy jargon.
Perfect example of leading a witness. I forget the name of this logical fallacy, however. Anyway, you apparently didn't pay attention to what I said regarding consciousness. Once again, your system is too closed.To move something you need a physical force. When Chris Reeve broke his back no matter how much he tried and believed he could bridge a gap of a millimetre in his spine he could NOT influence the other side - he could not get them to grow together he could not will his limbs to move- if nature had a way of moving matter by power of mind alone it would have manifested itself in some species somewhere and there would be evidence of it as it would clearly have been a succesful strategy.
Jim reeve never "believed" he could. He merely raked in the millions from the accident and enjoyed his life by throwing around those millions. Furthermore, jim reeves didn't practice anything, nor believed in any paranormal phenomena to my knowledge.
also, your final comparison is so closed it's really aggrivating. If nature had a way of moving matter by the power of the mind, it would still require large amounts of practice to do anything. Not to mention proper practice. It's like exercising a muscle, you aren't born with sufficient strength.
And another point here is that you defeated your own claim of energy consumption. If it would have been a "successful" strategy, it would have drained large amounts of energy to move a sufficient amount of matter to make it seriously usable.
However, evolution wise, there are a number of probabilities. One ties in with my suggestion of the influence of numerous conscious beings, as it'd only be a recent evolved trait.
Which is why "I'll pay you X amount of dollars if you prove X exists" never works. Scientifically, you may have the jargon. Philosophically, and idea wise however, you are just basically repeating the jargon you learned in class. You offer nothing new to the table, no speculation, no nothing.Some scientists have learned that it is never prudent to say "a thing can never happen or be possible" I am usually that way myself but there is a line I draw - suggesting TK is about as practical to a serious scientist as saying that one day the statue of david will pick up a pen and scrawl his name on the wall - we cannot decisevly say it will never happen but think about it...
By going along the lines of that same belief towards telekinetics, one might also say the same reaction was brought about by evolution and other theories. People used to say "there is no mechanism!" until they found one. Was it the old scientists that repeated what they learned in class that did? No, it was the newer scientists that were busy researching the probability rather than sticking their heads in the sand.
----EDIT----
And for good god start listing SOURCES to your claims. I can find nothing to back up your continual statements of "this is how much the brain uses" and other things. It's highly irritating when all you do is shove off data that could very well be falsified.
Assuming "it" is telekineses or some such nonsense, the most parsimonious and likely explanations include you being a liar or deluded. That it actually exists doesn't appear to be within the realm of reality nor has it been successfully demonstrated in the hundreds of years its been claimed.
Liars and the deluded, however, are repeatedly demonstrated to exist with much success on a nearly daily basis.
Clearly you must be joking. Such hostility is quite against a civil discussion. I'm not quite sure how it couldn't fit within the relm of reality. Hypothetically speaking, it isn't too far fetched. unless of course you're more used to the popular idiocy you see on TV.Assuming "it" is telekineses or some such nonsense, the most parsimonious and likely explanations include you being a liar or deluded. That it actually exists doesn't appear to be within the realm of reality nor has it been successfully demonstrated in the hundreds of years its been claimed.
Liars and the deluded, however, are repeatedly demonstrated to exist with much success on a nearly daily basis.
Anyway, I'm well aware it's never been successfully demonstrated. This is mostly because it's always highly disputed. However one might say that, common sense wise, why would someone that can do it demonstrate it? The government would most likely instantly grab them and make a new military unit out of them or something like that.
Sufficed to say, just because it hasn't been done publicly, doesn't mean it can't.
Guess what, I am not delusional or a liar, or both.
Oh really, then please explain what reality is. And please tell me, what are your sources to claim it has never been succesfully demonstrated.
If it was successfully demonstrated, it would've been all over history.Guess what, I am not delusional or a liar, or both.
Oh really, then please explain what reality is. And please tell me, what are your sources to claim it has never been succesfully demonstrated.
Lastly, this is a knights and knaves issue. You may say you aren't delusional or lying, but you could very well be. Similarly, people say they KNOW god exists. Does he? The more skeptical would say no.
Also, I believe the burden of proof rests on YOUR shoulders, since you claim you can.
You may pick the text to pieces you may suggest I format my posts in a juvenile fashion, but I notice you cannot dismiss the scientific fact. Suggesting I say in one post the power consumed by the brain is 15 watts then in another 20 is somehow wrong is a fallacy, there is a range and both of these values are within that range within the same order of magnitude. The brain generates signals, the nerves pass them around, and the muscles act upon them, the total energy used by the body can be between 60 and 300 watts - though even these can be disputed, it depends upon many factors, size, effort, conciosness, environment etc.
You can disrupt radio signals with your body yes. Since you have a great many water molecules in your body radio waves can be deflected and or absorbed by you in the same way as a bag of water would - so what?
Fancy jargon? I think you used Electromagnetics first - I then thought if you undertood this word then charateristic impedance should be a doddle.
The rest of your post appears to be an attempt to throw the reader away from your lack of understanding of physics/science and shift the argument towards my lack of ability to debate.
Turning the language of the debate to philosophy cuts no ice with me - philosophy is in another section.
What if it was succesfully demonstrated - but regarded as false? Like, for example, Nina Kulagina?If it was successfully demonstrated, it would've been all over history.Guess what, I am not delusional or a liar, or both.
Oh really, then please explain what reality is. And please tell me, what are your sources to claim it has never been succesfully demonstrated.
Lastly, this is a knights and knaves issue. You may say you aren't delusional or lying, but you could very well be. Similarly, people say they KNOW god exists. Does he? The more skeptical would say no.
Also, I believe the burden of proof rests on YOUR shoulders, since you claim you can.
Oke, you got me there, I could as well be delusional... or maybe not?
I haven't claimed to be able to perform PK. Until now, yes I can do it.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=P2Wy9_9RJ8M
So does a friend:
http://psistudies.net/_media/Lasseni...19nov-2006.JPG
Yeah...where is the source I requested? and you say that NOW. Why didn't you say that earlier?
And I have not said you fromat your posts in juvenile fashion, and I have not even READ one scientific fact thus far from your post. You've never provided a source that says it's a "fact." You are basically attempting to lead everybody on and away from the lack of sources by saying "well you say THIS, but science says THIS" while not backing that up with any source whatsoever.
And no, it isn't a fallacy, because you always state it as though it's a "fact." then provide no source. When your numbers start to change it suggests you aren't telling the truth. Liars rarely remember what they said previously.
No, not exactly. This would only mean they would be disrupted if you were in FRONT of the raido signal. I mean regardless of positioning.You can disrupt radio signals with your body yes. Since you have a great many water molecules in your body radio waves can be deflected and or absorbed by you in the same way as a bag of water would - so what?
Electromagnetics isn't in the class of "jargon." More like in the class of "what it is." You also utterly avoid directly replying to my post in debate fashion. You appear to be weaseling around like a snake avoiding a persons boot.Fancy jargon? I think you used Electromagnetics first - I then thought if you undertood this word then charateristic impedance should be a doddle.
So basically, because I understand some simple terms, I should automatically comprehend the wide array that scientists use to confuse people. Riigght...are you SCARED of saying things in ENGLISH or what?
Which part? This is why debate fashion quoting is supposed to be used. Also, why are you concerned about the reader? Since you are, this suggests you are attempting to impress the readers, rather than use facts.The rest of your post appears to be an attempt to throw the reader away from your lack of understanding of physics/science and shift the argument towards my lack of ability to debate.
Er...right...except it is a philosophy. You and I both know you are weak in that area, and it's fine if you want to avoid it, but you don't see me avoiding my weak points (in this case scientific jargon).Turning the language of the debate to philosophy cuts no ice with me - philosophy is in another section.
Telekinetics exists both in the realm of science and philosophy. denying one or the other is rather short sighted.
So you'll be collecting Randi's $ Million?
Not likely.So you'll be collecting Randi's $ Million?
Edit: http://www.psipog.net/show.php?cmd=wp&id=14
Yeah...where is the source I requested? and you say that NOW. Why didn't you say that earlier?
And I have not said you fromat your posts in juvenile fashion, and I have not even READ one scientific fact thus far from your post. You've never provided a source that says it's a "fact." You are basically attempting to lead everybody on and away from the lack of sources by saying "well you say THIS, but science says THIS" while not backing that up with any source whatsoever.
And no, it isn't a fallacy, because you always state it as though it's a "fact." then provide no source. When your numbers start to change it suggests you aren't telling the truth. Liars rarely remember what they said previously.
No, not exactly. This would only mean they would be disrupted if you were in FRONT of the raido signal. I mean regardless of positioning.You can disrupt radio signals with your body yes. Since you have a great many water molecules in your body radio waves can be deflected and or absorbed by you in the same way as a bag of water would - so what?
Electromagnetics isn't in the class of "jargon." More like in the class of "what it is." You also utterly avoid directly replying to my post in debate fashion. You appear to be weaseling around like a snake avoiding a persons boot.Fancy jargon? I think you used Electromagnetics first - I then thought if you undertood this word then charateristic impedance should be a doddle.
So basically, because I understand some simple terms, I should automatically comprehend the wide array that scientists use to confuse people. Riigght...are you SCARED of saying things in ENGLISH or what?
Which part? This is why debate fashion quoting is supposed to be used. Also, why are you concerned about the reader? Since you are, this suggests you are attempting to impress the readers, rather than use facts.The rest of your post appears to be an attempt to throw the reader away from your lack of understanding of physics/science and shift the argument towards my lack of ability to debate.
Er...right...except it is a philosophy. You and I both know you are weak in that area, and it's fine if you want to avoid it, but you don't see me avoiding my weak points (in this case scientific jargon).Turning the language of the debate to philosophy cuts no ice with me - philosophy is in another section.
Telekinetics exists both in the realm of science and philosophy. denying one or the other is rather short sighted.
Look, IF I said the world was round would you ask for a source?
What I have stated is as much of a part of my education as the fact that the world is round.
Your assumption that objects only interfere with radio signals when in a direct line with the transmitter is utter garbage!
Have you EVER (before Digital/satellite TV) seen your TV picture flash and fade repeatedly as a plane flew overhead? - do you think the transmitter is up in the sky? THis is siganl phasing, the direct signal arrives at a different time to the reflected signal - as the plane moves so the path lengths change and each time it alters by a wavelength the signal has both summed and cancelled - check it out - it's called wave theory.
- have you ever heard of the Ionosphere - do you know of it's effects on radio transmission?
If you want my sources - here they are - Southampton University, University of Sussex - Highbury Technical College. That's where I got my knowledge from (mostly).
If you think I am pulling 'facts' out of thin air then you can either find your own source - or go back to philosophy.
I removed the last two posts because they're borderline flames.
Also, I explained why "give me X amount of dollars to prove X exists" doesn't work. Kindly pay attention.
---edit---
One of the posts are missing because in my haste I hit "EDIT" instead of "quote". Skinwalker will be reposting it shortly, and then I'll repost my rebuttal. Damn that button just had to be so close to the "quote" button...
Jesus mother christ! I'm not asking if the world is round I'm asking you to back up your numbers! Either do so or stop claiming them!
Which is why I said your rebuttal to the radio bit was utter garbage. you just proved my point. Regardless of my positioning, the radio is interfered. This suggests some type of interference that encompasses the entire area of the radio.Your assumption that objects only interfere with radio signals when in a direct line with the transmitter is utter garbage!
Have you EVER (before Digital/satellite TV) seen your TV picture flash and fade repeatedly as a plane flew overhead? - do you think the transmitter is up in the sky? THis is siganl phasing, the direct signal arrives at a different time to the reflected signal - as the plane moves so the path lengths change and each time it alters by a wavelength the signal has both summed and cancelled - check it out - it's called wave theory.
Unless I misunderstood you.
so you offer no sources. Fine, then you have no right to claim anything. You've basically said "I got my education here, here, and here, so you have to go to these locations if you want sources." Which I doubt anybody would. Impossible expectation to meet. You might as well have said the brain uses 1 watt of energy, without a source both claims are equally invalid.If you want my sources - here they are - Southampton University, University of Sussex - Highbury Technical College. That's where I got my knowledge from (mostly).
If you think I am pulling 'facts' out of thin air then you can either find your own source - or go back to philosophy.
My specialty is electromnics and radio physics, I don't give a monkey's toss whether you believe what I say is true or not - I am certainly not going to trawal the internet looking for items to back up things that I know are fact - so you are welcome to dismiss anything/everthing I say as you please. THe fact is that I have considered TK and I consider it impossible. If you want to yell sources fine - it's not something I do, if a person says something I go and check it up unless I know to the contrary - Like Ol Thomas Crapper is not the source of the word crap.
Your tactics have been to critisise my style of post, then attempt to turn it into a philosophical discussion, and finally yell 'source' at every word I write - I'll leave it to others to decide who (if anyone) is being less than honest here.
Here you can have this one - as it was relatively easy to find but sorry it's full of jargon.
Do *I* know it is fact? No. Do I want to find out? Yes. Are you doing so? No. Does this suggest what you say is false? Yes. Can I read your mind, and thus know it is fact? No. Is it possible that this "fact" isn't fact? Yes.
Also, since you do not study neurology (as it's no listed) how exactly do you know how much energy the brain outputs/drains in regards to watts?
I'm not sure what field would be in charge of gathering energy estimates for the rest of the body, however...
Then why are you posting? Since you are obviously all knowing, and you *KNOW* it is impossible, why are you debating it? While using further ad-hominems here would definitely please my increasing temperament over the matter, I do believe I'll leave it rest with those questions.
Your tactics have been to avoid answering questions, avoid providing anything that backs up your claims, point out "what you are doing" (as I'm doing now in mocking fashion), and utterly duck/weave around what I say. Ah yes, you also apparently are out to impress the readers. Screw the readers!Your tactics have been to critisise my style of post, then attempt to turn it into a philosophical discussion, and finally yell 'source' at every word I write - I'll leave it to others to decide who (if anyone) is being less than honest here.
Now, to refute that bit of moronic writing: I criticize your logic. Furthermore, where I 'criticize' you're writing I only point out that it's much easier if you were to post in a certain style. Which is more suggestion than criticism.
Philosophical discussion? Sorry, but telekinetics falls under both categories. You are RELIGIOUSLY avoiding philosophy, which is fine, I'll cease mentioning it then. But I'm not attempting to shift focus, I am attempting to broaden it.
I yell "source" every other word, do I? So basically, because I want proof that what you say is true, I'm lying. Oh yeah, that's totally how science works. Lets turn this around, I say that I can do telekinetics. You want proof, right? I say this or that about the body, you'd probably want proof if you didn't know otherwise. Science tends to work on the give/take of evidence.
Yet thus far, you have provided none. Only "this is how it is, take it or leave it." In the name of skepticism, that's so absurd it's laughable.
And again a reference to the readers! Stop trying to impress people!
Ah yay, the "brain as a computer" link again. Want to know the best part?Here you can have this one - as it was relatively easy to find but sorry it's full of jargon.
That quote has a purpose. The best part about the whole thing, is that they are estimating by pure mathematics. These aren't from official studies done, these aren't from people taking machines and testing stuff, this is 100% estimation based on information from a few sources (none of which are quoted. I'm not going to read all those books just to possibly find some obscure reference!).There are other ways to estimate the brain's computational power.
Another funny part, is that they use the word "guess" numerous times. It's fine and all for mathematics, but don't send out a guess as a reference. Again, I am highly skeptical.
I've done some googling myself. Aside from that one link, I can find nothing regarding energy output/consumption of the human brain.
----edit----
One other thing, this calculation relies entirely on perfectly fixed values. Yeah...that'll so work for the human brain...
I think you are behaving a bit like Richard Topp here, to say I know nothing of nuerology so why am I posting, well you know nothing of Electromagnetism - why are you posting? I've laid out my points, you will not accept anything I say - you asked for a source I put one up, guess what, how many calories do you take in each day? now go and find out how many joules per calorie - work out the relative mass of the brain verses the weight of the other organs, and guess what you can arrive at an estimate of the power of the mind in watts. then come back with the figures and tell me I'm wrong (I already know the answer) - you suggested it [tk] was something electrical so surely a link to a site linking the brain to electronics was more appropriate than a bio one - so stop being silly.
Now if you were to say "I think if I ate magic mushooms and they give me the power to move objects using TK" then fine, I cannot argue with that, I am not a magic mushroom expert, but say it's done or may be done electrically or electronically and I'll cut it to shreds - now face up to it lad, (you did say you were 16) you need to find a new theory.
YOu object to the word guess? well remember your best guess was electromagnetism.
Can't find another soource-- tut tut suggesting there is only one - try this then
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/...lineLing.shtml
There's loads more perhaps I may recommend a course in computing to help you more efficiently find things.
Finally the assertion you make that what I have said is false is, tantamount to calling me a liar I challenge you to find any proof that any of my technical information is lacking in truth.
Stop sticking to the brain alone. Think of the entire body. What I really want are numbers that cover the whole body.
No, I'm asking why you are giving neurology estimates, when you didn't even STUDY it. I never questioned other estimates. If I were to throw around numbers like you have, you'd be reacting the same way.
I asked why you posted that, when you've never studied it. And the source you provided I voiced my skepticism on.
If you want to play "point the finger," YOU will not accept anything I say. I don't really care, I'm being skeptical here, you are being "this is this, and that's final" without providing definitive proof.I've laid out my points, you will not accept anything I say - you asked for a source I put one up
Your calculation is flawed from the start. First you have to judge how much energy per organism within the body it emits. We're talking every. Last. Organism. Mathematically speaking this is impossible. Then you have to calculate the energy generated by eating it, which is different for every person, which vitamins are mostly used, the list goes on and on!now go and find out how many joules per calorie - work out the relative mass of the brain verses the weight of the other organs, and guess what you can arrive at an estimate of the power of the mind in watts.
Which is why mathematical calculations are about as useful as a broken broom. I'd rather there be a study done on it instead of a GUESS.
And once again...the body, not the brain alone. I've said this how many times in every post?
So you knew my answer would be that you based the mathematics on a flawed closed perception? Somehow I doubt that.then come back with the figures and tell me I'm wrong (I already know the answer) - you suggested it [tk] was something electrical so surely a link to a site linking the brain to electronics was more appropriate than a bio one - so stop being silly.
And not exactly. A link to a biological website that covers both the physical and mathematical aspects (ergo, one which has physical proof rather than pure guesswork), would sufficed. Which I continue to search for every time I think of a new keyword (and I find nothing). Inevitably I may start working on it myself.
Really, since the matter involves both electronics, and biology, as well as physics, it'd be best to find something that meshes them all together. Unfortunately I've yet to find something similar.
Rip it to shreds? Ripping to shreds would be providing some amount of sources, listing why it's impossible, providing full mathematical calculations, etc. All you have done is throw out numbers without backing them up. And each time, I say I'm skeptic of them (and list why), and each time you just continue the same old drivel.Now if you were to say "I think if I ate magic mushooms and they give me the power to move objects using TK" then fine, I cannot argue with that, I am not a magic mushroom expert, but say it's done or may be done electrically or electronically and I'll cut it to shreds - now face up to it lad, (you did say you were 16) you need to find a new theory.
Yeah, I'm 16. And? My age has...what to do with it? And I'll start looking for an alternative when someone sort of provides actual proof I'm utterly and inconceivably incorrect. Is that too much to ask?!
Yeah, and? I'm not throwing out mathematical numbers. I'm not ignorant enough to say "well this is a perfectly unflawed probability." It's a guess, yes, because it's about the only thing that has thus far matched some relevant description.YOu object to the word guess? well remember your best guess was electromagnetism.
I could stick to philosophy, but I'd rather exhaust the physical probabilities first.
About damn time. However, that link contradicts the mathematical guess. You refuted your own source! Grah!Can't find another soource-- tut tut suggesting there is only one - try this then
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/...lineLing.shtml
Also, this source admits that it's a variable result. Which is basically what I expected, and why a closed-mathematical calculation is utterly flawed.
Har. Cute, but utterly irrelevant. However I don't see you learning x86-32 assembly. Lastly, what keywords are you using?There's loads more perhaps I may recommend a course in computing to help you more efficiently find things.
WTF! The burden of proof lies on the one that makes the claims. You're basically asking me to prove what *YOU'VE* said. that's counterproductive! Also a logical fallacy if I can find it...Finally the assertion you make that what I have said is false is, tantamount to calling me a liar I challenge you to find any proof that any of my technical information is lacking in truth.
Well you cannot exactly determine the energy estimates for the body, what you can do is measure the heat output and energy intake and produce an estimate -
THis link shows a table of several sources which broadly agree on the energy used by the brain they are all in agreement with my recollections of the estimate I originally posted where I indicated an approximate, not exact figure of 15 watts. The previous source says 10 watts, this one is 20.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/...lineLing.shtml
I'm quite happy to continue debating and if you are interested in the figures I will try and source them to your satisfaction, what I do not like doing is posting longer and longer rebuttals the fewer points you raise in a post the more likely I am to answer all of them.
*sigh* they do not agree. One source says 10, you said 15, this one says 20. If the numbers are in a constant state of flux, who the hell knows what it really is?
Furthermore, the mathematics showed on that page are based on the same flawed closed-beginning as the example you gave. Example
Fine. But...the calculation is based on a flawed premesis.The average power consumption of a typical adult is 100 Watts and the brain consumes 20% of this making the power of the brain 20 W.
...they're basing it on calories. Not the rest of the body, just that. That basically only suggests that the body intakes that much energy from calories, it says nothing about the rest.Based on a 2400 calorie diet
And the sources listed on the website make the same fallacy. they also generalize 100 watts for everybody.
It's no good you sighing, hadn't it occured to you that people come in all sizes? If one study was done in the US and another in japan what would you expect? with the average American [I am told] being larger than the average jap, get the picture... What other energy does the body intake?
Basing it on calories?
That IS the energy intake of a body, 1 calorie - 4.184 joules, 1 joule = 1 watt second. 1 calorie = amount of heat required to raise the temperature of one cc of water by 1 degree celcius.
What would you like it to be measured in ? Telekinetic energy units?
So whatever sources I put up you seem to shout down, well find another tha disputes them ie what is your source for saying mine are wrong?
ungh...I've provided perfectly good reasons as to why. Why should I need sources for them? You can refute them with your own perfectly good reasons. The only instance where sources are required is with subjects like history, quotations, math, etc.
Regardless, I'm through for today. My cysts hurt. I'll reply to this extensively tomorrow.
Don't bother, you are not going to accept the sources I used, you refuse to research any that may contradict them, I have to put up sources but you dont have to. You tell me that you are not versed in physics [too well] and not at all in electronics in which case you seem to be only relying on a gut instinct that somehow TK is possible through electromagnetics - you say it is, I say it is not - you ask me to prove it's not, you present NO evidence that it is - at least I have provided data that agrees with what I said after you implied I may have been making it up - similarly, I did not make up any of the other data or technical information. You then suggest that there are other sources of energy, implying these may make a difference - well stop eating and see how long you can survive on them. You suggest my education is not counted as a source of information. I'm not qualified to speak of nueral matters yet you apparently are freely able to suggest the body can move objects etc...
Just step back and take an overall view.
I'll say it again Telekinesis whether by human or alien was, is and will always be a non starter, impossible.
Don't say it is impossible. It isn't. Get that through your mega brain.
IF you are saying it is not impossible, then you are implying it is possible, what grounds do you have for saying that?
Before I can accept it is possible I need a credible means by which it may be achieved, until such time as this is presented, it remains impossible.
If it's a gut instinct, then allow me the common courtesy of the same.
Nope, not just gut instinct. Knowledge + experience.
You can't leave it at that, enlighten me, change my mind...
Meanwhile I claim the same - knowledge and experience tells me it is impossible.
If this comment isn't sarcastic, I'll be willing too.
That's where you are wrong, you don't posses the knowledge - you posses an opinion.Meanwhile I claim the same - knowledge and experience tells me it is impossible.
Oh yes I do, the accepted laws of physics prevent telekinesis, so what's your knowledge?
| « What are the fundamental requirements for a theory of gravity? | Defining c = i/E(when -1 = m) » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
