TK - size matters, or not?

[confuded]

Is it a mental block which we all have, that heavier objects are harder to manipulate, or is it really true?

I have been digging around various places on the web, on the subject of TK. A lot of people say that "size does not matter" when performing TK. I know from experience that it is harder to move heavier objects, but that might be just a mental block...
For example, I thought that it is harder to move a psi wheel (example) under a cover than without one. Now that I have removed it (the mental block), it is really the same thing (or I got better at TK, which is highly unlikely

Please, I would like to hear your opinions on the matter, even those who do not practice TK .

I hope this is worthy of the "Debate and Discussion" section on our forums .

~confuded

[innerfire]

I've yet to see any explanation that properly combated conservation of energy. Basically, most people can agree on the idea that in normal mechanics: it takes energy to move something, and that energy is relative to the mass of the object.

PK almost certainly follows the same rules and just uses a mechanism we haven't identified, so bigger objects would need more energy to move them, which would put limits on things. Even if you throw in the idea of taking energy from a source other than internally, that will still cause some strain and wear to conduct/channel, and there will be a logical limit point that comes up based on whatever you can currently handle. Since smaller objects would need less energy to move, they're less prone to this problem.

[leodragon]

Heavier objects have more mass, therefore, it would take more energy to move it, however, it is not in proportion to the energy that you have to generate, but it is in proportion to the energy that can be manipulated. I am speaking about energy in the sense of physics. Concerning movement, we would be talking about forces such as inertia, momentum, force, acceleration, and so on so forth. Keep in mind that you are not generating it, you are manipulating it, therefore, you would only be limited by how much you could manipulate. Psi is manipulating the energy to cause the telekinetic affect, it is not the powering force in itself, therefore, this energy has to obey physics, however, the manipulating force doesn't have to.

People generally fail when trying to generate the force themselves. Keeping in mind that you can not simply just create energy out of thin air, and that psi is not the powering force, they get limited successes, however, if they direct their attention to the energy already in the area and focusing on manipulating that in relation to the object, they generally get some success.

A person's potential at how large of an object they could move would be in proportion to how much energy, in the physical sense, that their mind could manipulate.

If you try to move a 2lb weight with the same force you moved a piece of paper, you will get limited success, because the energy required to move the weight would have to be more, so if you attempting to move a 2lb weight with the same amount of energy as a psi wheel, you will not get anywhere, however, if you increase the amount of energy, you will get results, however, this is not in direct proportion to what you would call "psi energy". You would have to increase the amount of kinetic energy, which would mean manipulating and directing a bigger pool of kinetic energy. That is where a lot of people mess up at.

I am best at manipulating things that are not solids and and thermodynamic energy, for the most part, so, for me, the size of an object doesn't really matter, because the particles can be moved somewhat more independently than within a solid. In a solid, the movement of the particles is restricted and its held in a rigid shape via bonds and forces. In order to move a particle out of that shape, I would have to generate enough force to overcome the opposing force that would be pushing back, which is hard for me to do. When I lock onto a place in that objects structure and try to move it, I get resistance. Like I run into something. It pushes back, like a barrier, on me. That being the case, I have to direct my attention to manipulating the external forces around the solid to move it as a whole, but that is also not my forte, so manipulating heavy solids is hard for me, however, the mass of a liquid or a solid doesn't really affect me. That being said, I think the structure of what is being manipulated needs to be taken into consideration, too.

I think the structure of the thing one is trying to manipulate in addition to what one is trying to do with PK is important. You said TK, though. Personally, I associate PK with manipulation of matter and TK with manipulation of energy to manipulate matter or an object. Perfect example is the cliche fork bending.

[The Devil's Advocate]

Good points, both Leo and Innerfire.

TK and PK are interchangeable. They mean the exact same thing.

Now, we've had the mechanical end of conservation of energy discussed. Potential energy turned into kinetic energy (E_total = E_potential + E_kinetic) This equation works for the mechanical energy in a given system. We can use this energy to produce Force. Force then produces work. Force is calculated as a change in an objects state. It is usually a VECTOR (you apply a force in a given direction. The positive and negative signs have meaning in indicating the manner or direction the state was changed) The equation for force is F = ma Where m is mass, and a is acceleration. Kinetic energy is given by the equation E_k = .5mv².

As you see these two equations wind up giving the same units. Force is in Newtons as is Kinetic energy. If you play with the equations sufficiently you can even equate them to one another. We can demonstrate that often TK at least ENDS in Kinetic energy. Something moves. It goes from a state of rest to motion; therefore, there must be some form of force being applied. The effects we can observe are all happening in Newtonian space so we can start our theories there, and expand into relativistic space at a later time. Most of us don't have the resources to set up non-newtonian experimental sets.

Now, let's consider another form of energy: Electrical energy. This energy generates force in a different manner. You have the interaction between two charges. These charges create fields. These fields are not always uniform. Each of these charges contains energy. That energy is directional. It follows the equation E = k(q/r²) Where k is a constant on a radial mapping plane. Traditionally this would be displayed as 1/(4piE₀); however, the forums aren't really set up for the special characters (such as Pi and a true Epsilon), so I use the usual substitute for that set k. q is the charge and r is the distance between that charge and your test charge (because the field weakens the farther you get from it's center of mass the distance is critical). Force in an elctrical field is similar, like energy it is vectoral, that is it has a direction. F = k((q₁q₂)/r²). q1 is your first charge, q2 is your second charge and r is the distance between them.

Unfortunately I can't draw the graphs out to demonstrate further, but the key is, that different energy forms are generated in different ways and they are all capable of applying force. The amount and quantity of that force and the ease of conversion all depends on the circumstances of the system in question. While their upper limits are mathematically non-existent in many cases, their practical limitations are also dependant upon the system. A wire can only carry so much current. A human can only exert so much pressure on a given object to make it move. They can be limited by distance.

Now for Psi. We are exerting a force. We don't know how, but in TK we are manifestly exerting a force of some description. Things get knottier if you're manipulating an electric field, since the factors that go into generating that force are so different from a psiwheel. Unfortunately it's difficult to measure the mechanism. The results we can mess with. There are limitations to Psi. There are limitations to everything, but calculating those limits? Well we can say somewhat, by talking to people like Rainsong. We can attempt experiments with various practitioners of TK in various manners, but without being able to analyze the mechanism more directly quantifying those limits becomes much more difficult, especially since there IS a belief factor, not in the physics but in our ability to reach out, and subconsciously grasp the mechanisms we don't understand to do what we do, that everyone ELSE doesn't understand.

Note: I have not gone into quantum mechanics, that just makes the energy vs. force debate even more complicated, though even there energy and mass are conserved. They're just not necessarily conserved as the same one they went in as. MY personal guess is that the mechanism lies somewhere here, but for now newtonian physics is enough to understand the results, even if it may not be able to explain how those results were achieved. It also gives us a place to start eliminating possibilities.

~The Devil's advocate

[leodragon]

Feb 9, 2009 22:44:30 GMT -5 The Devil's Advocate said:

Note: I have not gone into quantum mechanics, that just makes the energy vs. force debate even more complicated, though even there energy and mass are conserved. They're just not necessarily conserved as the same one they went in as. MY personal guess is that the mechanism lies somewhere here, but for now newtonian physics is enough to understand the results, even if it may not be able to explain how those results were achieved. It also gives us a place to start eliminating possibilities.

It wouldn't apply. Solid objects are macroscopic objects, so classical physics would take over. Quantum physics would only affect the manipulation of the energy involved due to various states of superposition. Macropscopic objects exist not in a state of quantum superposition. They also exist in a finite and locked in state, therefore, what can be done in terms of manipulating the uncertainty and probable nature of the structure of the object wouldn't matter.

Feb 9, 2009 22:44:30 GMT -5 The Devil's Advocate said:

Now, let's consider another form of energy: Electrical energy. This energy generates force in a different manner. You have the interaction between two charges. These charges create fields. These fields are not always uniform. Each of these charges contains energy. That energy is directional. It follows the equation E = k(q/r²) Where k is a constant on a radial mapping plane. Traditionally this would be displayed as 1/(4piE₀); however, the forums aren't really set up for the special characters (such as Pi and a true Epsilon), so I use the usual substitute for that set k. q is the charge and r is the distance between that charge and your test charge (because the field weakens the farther you get from it's center of mass the distance is critical). Force in an elctrical field is similar, like energy it is vectoral, that is it has a direction. F = k((q₁q₂)/r²). q1 is your first charge, q2 is your second charge and r is the distance between them.

That is a form of thermodynamic energy. Of course momentum would be different than electric energy due to them being caused by different forces. Momentum, and the measurements attached to it, are connected to the gravitational force whereas thermodynamic energy is connected to such systems as entropy and the electromagnetic force. The electromagnetic force mediates the charge between two electrons in a current via a meditation by photons through a type of field. Also, a field is an extension of an object. An electro or electromagnetic field affects the electrons within a current by imposing a force, which carries the electromagnetic force that charges the electrons, on the electrons in the current thereby influencing them. If it disrupts the mediation between the photons, it can cancel out the current altogether. The field is a result of the current.

An electric or electromagnetic field (difference between the two depends on the current involved) would have a limited affect on an object in relation to motion unless the object had a charge of structure that was susceptible to influence by the electro or electromagnetic field. Ever try to attract wood with a magnetic. The loose localized electrons and positive ions of a metal make it susceptible to manipulation and influence by an electromagnetic field due its dipole structure and loose electron structure. The field imposes an influence over the electrons due to the field already carrying energy or carrying a force that messes with the charge of the current or a charge that attracts it.

Psychokinetic methods to affect a field/current would be different than in trying to manipulate a solid object. That is where you get differences in peoples psychokinetic abilities. People have an affinity for manipulating different forms of energy and different structures. I can manipulate thermodynamic such as heat and electric energy very well, but I find it difficult to manipulate vector and/or scalar Newtonian forms of energy such as momentum, force, so on and so forth. For some reason, my awareness, alone, is enough to disrupt a electric device. I have no idea why. When I hone in an electronic object in terms of interactively sensing its structure by sinking my awareness into it, I have to take care not to allow my awareness not to interfere with anything. I am not attempting to do PK, it just comes about as a result of my awareness being sunk into the object.

Telekinesis is the most common form of psychokinesis, in the context of manipulating Newtonian scalar and vector models of motion. People find it really hard to affect fields due to a field being an extension of an object and not the cause itself. Due to psi not being able to be shielded, it is actually quite common for a person to have an emotional outburst that sends out a type of disturbance that messes with the interaction within the current thereby canceling out the current or creating an overloading affect which will fry an electric device and may even doing something flashy like blowing up a light bulb. Of course, people take this to mean that psi is like an EMP and is similar to an electromagnetic field, which isn't the case. It is just imposing an interference on the interactions already in place (photons are highly reactive to consiousness).

Feb 9, 2009 22:44:30 GMT -5 The Devil's Advocate said:

Now for Psi. We are exerting a force

A person is manipulating either matter (MicroPK) or energy (MacroPK) to manipulate an object. One is not creating it. Exertion implies generation versus manipulation or diversion of energy.

The limit is how much the mind can handle and manipulate, but that can be circumnavigated if you have one person drawing off of the power of more than one mind or conceptual archetype in a networked and coordinated fashion. Some people do it without realizing it, so it makes trying to measure how much one person can do even harder.

[The Devil's Advocate]

No, exertion does NOT imply generation in any way shape or form. A an electric field EXERTS a force on a charge within it. A moving pendulum EXERTS a force when it collides with another ball in the series, energy is transfered either to or through the metal ball (if you've got 6 touching it'll go through and only the last one will move significantly). Force is exerted. This is how even physicists refer to force. It is EXERTED and APPLIED. Where it comes from depends on what's going on in the system.

The point, leodragon, is that all forms of energy have their limits. They have their ways of functioning and fields of influence. They can interact with each other in different ways, and even more critically, they can interact with the mechanical world, even though they are not TECHNICALLY mechanical forces. Psi produces a mechanical result. It EXERTS a force, like every change in a system comes from a force being exerted against or applied to that system.

As for quantum mechanics impacting the macroscopic world, it does. Or do you want to ignore the impacts of rather obvious quantum mechanical items like your average atomic weapon? Everything's inter-related. Yes, the results can be measured in Newtonian space, but our methods and psionic mechanisms do not appear to be measurable in the Newtonian space. Gravity has both quantum mechanical and newtonian effects. These things can interact, how do they interact specific to psi? No Ideas I'm willing to tender for general.

We cannot discount the limits of our system completely, even if we only acknowledge that they exist even though we do not know what they are. We can test the limits of our own box... eliminate possibilities. "I know this type of force behaves in this manner, let us test TK to see if it behaves in the same manner or if it doesn't when does it and when does it not? Does it act like an electric field? A magnetic field? A gravatic field? Does it act like a purely mechanical force?" These will give us ideas as to what we MIGHT be able to do, which can help counteract some of the other factors. (Mental 'networking' which would still be limited by the capacity of the individuals, energy drawn from elsewhere, and assumptions that limit capacity. "I can't lift 50 pounds." Tell yourself that you can't often enough and you won't be able to even if you're physically capable of it.)

1) Yes, bigger objects require more force to change their state. (fact)
2) There are many kinds of energy that are all capable of exerting force. (Fact)
3) These energy types can and do interact with the physical world (fact)
4) They all have their own limits and rules and behaviors that are based on their natures. (Fact, one sentence summary of all of energy physics.)
5) There is no reason to assume that Psi does not have it's own behavior patterns that are quite likely based on ITS nature. (Conclusion)
6) Psi can exert force. (Fact)
7) As each system has a limit, so is each psion likely to have a limit. (conclusion)
8) Since energy cannot be created nor destroyed, (fact) we are limited by the available of whatever energy we use to fuel psi. (Conclusion)
9) Since Psi, or at least psi fields can be scanned directly, (fact) it is likely Psi is it's own type of energy. (Conclusion)
10.) We currently cannot externally measure the mechanism by which psi functions. (sad fact, but fact)

Overall conclusion: There is no substantial reason to assume that Psi disobeys the law of conservation of energy. There is also no reason to assume there are not limits simply because we have not encountered them. Since exerting force requires energy (energy converts into force) and larger objects require more force to affect, it is logical to assume that psi also requires more energy to move a larger than a smaller object. Limiting factors are frequently many. (we must also fight friction on a physical level, and there may be a mental equivalent that we don't know about.) In psionics we need to do more experiments to determine what those factors are. This is not a quick or an easy process.

Drop the Micro/macro PK, Leo. Just drop it. The terms are no where near precisely defined so just flat out drop them. Use matter and energy if you care to, but right now Micro/Macro are just cluttering things up.

~The Devil's Advocate

[leodragon]

Feb 10, 2009 14:19:59 GMT -5 The Devil's Advocate said:

As for quantum mechanics impacting the macroscopic world, it does. Or do you want to ignore the impacts of rather obvious quantum mechanical items like your average atomic weapon? Everything's inter-related. Yes, the results can be measured in Newtonian space, but our methods and psionic mechanisms do not appear to be measurable in the Newtonian space. Gravity has both quantum mechanical and newtonian effects. These things can interact, how do they interact specific to psi? No Ideas I'm willing to tender for general.

You aren't demonstrating how in relation to psychokinesis. Manipulation of thermodynamic systems and Newtonian concepts of motion are examples of classical systems and not quantum systems. The only role quantum systems would play would be the manipulation of energy in superposition before it is collapsed via the wave function where there is an uncertainty present and a probable nature versus a finite one. Macroscopic systems can not reverse themselves. An objects nature is fixed, so one is applying energy in the classical sense.

I have a problem with people throwing in quantum as a filler in psi. Also, you are not taking into account what is called the Plank scale which measures quanta. Manipulation of that quantum system would only be allowed due to the uncertainty within that indeterministic system (classical phsyical systems are deterministic).

Throwing in the quantum word, without a connection is useless and annoys me, especially when we are discussing classical systems.

Explain, outside of initial superposition, how a classical system follows quantum mechanics?

Transference of heat, electricity, mechanical work, momentum, and so on and so forth are classical systems. The whole quantum link would be the photons mediation of the electromagnetic force.

Also, MicroPK is the manipulation of probability. Not altering a dice. Do you know how an RNG works. A stream of photons is used. The probable path of the location of the photons is altered by the person. The person isn't touching the photons, they are altering the photons probable location. There is no such thing as true randomness in macroscopic systems. The forces involved are within a deterministic system. One is forcing the outcome by generating a force that manipulates the dice in favor to what one wants versus altering the probable nature of a particles wave function.

A wave function represents a particles location, but it is not determined until it is fixed due to uncertainty, however, it is in relation to a parameter. It is not totally random, which is why it can be mapped within a set range. In fact experiments with teleportation have gotten around that with entanglement. Due to coherence, and other things, the uncertainty within most systems in relation to the human consiousness is quite small. In this context, consiousness refers to the quantum domain that arises as a result of underlying quantum mechanics. One theory states that this quantum domain interacts with a Bose Einstein condensate to mediate the information in such a way as to manipulate the probable firing of the sodium ion potassium switches in the brain, but, again, you run into the Plank scale.

Also, you provided the equation for what I said, earlier, about the mediation of the charge between two or more electrons via photons. The only quantum system would be consiousness, and the only quantum thing being affected would be the energy in superposition (probable quantum states). After that, classical physics takes over, and macroscopic objects can not behave as quantum systems, so there is a big divide. A soccer ball can not go back into superposition, be non local, quantum tunnel, or any other weird things that quantum particles can do.

A microscopic system (quantum system) and a macroscopic system operate on two different mechanics, therefore, MicroPK and MacroPK are different. MicroPK focuses on the probable manipulation of something in superposition. MacroPK, like other classical systems, builds on quantum systems, but manipulates and obeys classical systems and can not go backwards. Once energy is energy, it can not go into a probable state of being either energy or matter. Consciousness manipulates the energy in a probable state of superposition, which, at a certain level, acts on mechanical systems in such a way as it can not disobey classical physics. Otherwise I could turn a pencil into energy with PK.

Also, I was pointing at the fact that psi doesn't exert any type of force. Psi manipulates the force which exerts influence on an object. It puts the dominoes into play. Disagree with me? Provide evidence that supports the existence of psi as something beyond a manipulating force that can exert an influence on its own. Wait, wouldn't you have to provide documentation of psi as being able to act as a physical wave carrier? Problem. Non locality and empirical evidence.

We are discussing classical/mechanical systems, therefore, quantum mechanics would not apply. It would only apply in the initial stages of manipulating the energy, but the energy, in itself, has to obey the classical system. If you say it does, explain in a detailed and a relevant way how it does.

An object can not exist in a state of superposition and a classical state at the same time. A thing can not obey and disobey Newtonian spatiotemporal parameters at the same time. It could be contingent on it, but not restricted to it, so you can't say that psi is an energy or whatever that can be a magnetic field one second and something else another. That is useless and senseless filler. Information can be encode onto energy, but it is not energy, in itself. What is exchanged and manipulated in psi is essentially information. Information from the quantum domain that arises from underlying quantum mechanics (Bohem's Implicate Order and Bohr's research) interacts with another quantum system in varying stages of superposition due to uncertainty thereby influencing how its wave is collapsed influencing its location (wave function determines its location and state as matter or energy it does not create it). That being said, the succcess would rely on the ability to obtain/generate required information, organize it, and apply it on a desired affect. The desired affect would not/could not violate physical laws.

Your observations about psi are awfully subjective. I see a fallacy in one, actually.

Feb 10, 2009 14:19:59 GMT -5 The Devil's Advocate said:

9) Since Psi, or at least psi fields can be scanned directly, (fact) it is likely Psi is it's own type of energy. (Conclusion)

Do you know the difference between a field in the classical sense, energy in the classical sense, field in the quantum sense, and what a domain is?

Fields can contain energy and matter but they don't have to, therefore, a thing that has a field doesn't have to be the result of or contain energy. Also, the research has shown that psi is linked to mental processes, therefore, any theory about psi would have to incorporate theories about consiousness:

In sum, we have little direct evidence for psi being based on some physical wave-carrier; therefore, Newtonian space-time parameters can be taken as influencing factors and contingent conditions. What is indisputable is that psi phenomena are related to mental events: they implicate the psyche, or the mind of individuals. Thus, my position is that we may assume mind as being a necessary condition for psi, and explore the mental facet of psi, while leaving open the possibility that additional necessary condition(s) will turn up at some later date.

Insofar as psi seems to be nondependent (in the sense of a necessary condition) on Newtonian time and space parameters, it displays nonlocality. Moreover, if psi is primarily a function of the mind, it follows that any complete theory of mind must accommodate nonlocal processes-such as psi.

Psi As A Multilevel Process: Semantic Fields Theory

That being said, consiousness is thought to take place on a quantum domain, so it would be a manifestation of quantum information that interacts with the brain at certain points.

Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness:
A Causal Correspondence Theory

That doesn't constitute energy. You are interpreting your perception as literal.

However, we are talking about PK in the classical, mechanical, or or thermodynamic sense, which doesn't go by quantum mechanics due to the objects being to large, therefore, psi, or consiousness, is the only initial quantum thing that manipulates classical systems which obey classical physics.

This goes without saying, but your interpretation of sensation via ESP is not a valid thing to build upon. It is subjective and prone to interpretation errors, therefore, building hypothesis and stating the mechanics of things via your perception with your scans is highly inaccurate. Something is not accurate because you say "I scanned it and interpreted it as this." That is in relation to you saying that psi can be scanned within a field. Like your previous statement, that implies that psi exist as an energy and/or a particle that can be contained within a field. There is NO evidence to support this and consensual perception does not constitute empirical evidence, so lining people up and saying we all experienced the same thing doesn't cut it, otherwise, religion would be empirical, wouldn't it?

Experience can be and are often times warped and filtered through cognitive and perception biased, so bu nature, anything you say in relation to your perception would be biased unless its measured in some fashion. So, unless you have a secret legitimate lab set up with legitimate research, it is highly inaccurate to take your word based upon your perception, because the information is filtered through your perception. It is not raw sensory info, but your analysis and perception of that info, therefore, it is anecdotal, subjective, and not empirical.

Also, the thing that fuels psi is your mind.

Is it physically possibly to lift a car with a crane? Yes. If psi manipulates the forces present, then what would keep one from manipulating the forces present to manipulate the car? It would be the ability of a person's mind to organize and manipulate the forces present. There lies the limitation. Also branches into ESP, because manipulation of energy on large scales generally makes use of ESP to sense the energy to manipulate in in the way one wants. Psi is not an independent physical wave carrier or a metaphysical filler. It is the name for the mechanism that allows for the mind to operate in such a manner, therefore, the thing is the mind that is doing it and not psi. Nothing has to fuel "psi". Instead of thinking of it like gas, one can think of it as memory on a computer or CPU usage. The bigger the program, the more data storage and computer resources have to be allocated to run it.