people with abnormal powers

[Mattshark]

everyone is psychic, read about the pineal gland that the forces of evil try to calsify in us so we cant use it.

Erm no. The pineal glad doesn't do anything like that.

[John from Lowell]

I have telepathic and clairvoyent abilitys and also push thoughts into peoples minds. its kinda scary.

Pushing thoughts into peoples minds does have a down side. It gives you a false sense of superiority and sets up the energy constructs so that you yourself will have less discernment. Each person's subconscious is completely aware of what is going on at all times. This has a number of implications that the conscious awareness can not appreciate. Naturally these are my views.

John

[Metalada2]

i have the ability to feel other peoples emotions, close range mind reading, . who else has powers??

well I believe you; im trying to levitate and when i do i feel strong schocks at my feet so i dont know but I have heard it takes to 4 to 6 years of levitational development

[Crow Woman]

well I believe you; im trying to levitate and when i do i feel strong schocks at my feet so i dont know but I have heard it takes to 4 to 6 years of levitational development

That's quite a goal you're trying to accomplish. Keep trying!

[Kevin7557]

Clearly there is a misunderstanding on your behalf and the country Niger is not pronounced or spelt the way as the derogatory team you are talking about.

I did nothing, I gave my opinion and you moaned and showed a lack of understanding of evidence and science.

* snip *

Moaned... ... ... ... ...No comment.

Now let me get the good doctor and let him explain it. He is on mandatory work duty for blowing up my com array. It was quite expensive to replace.

Lack O understanding. HA. * snip * Da science is not an all knowing entity, no rather it is a tool for us to understand. You would limit its power, its... Glory and then you would tell Mr. Kevin he not know the science. HA HA HA. Back to you Kevin.

Thanks.

LOL and the disease continues its movement on. Defining everything by itself. * snip * Everything is not as you see it. The world is infinite and is infinitly complex. When you think you understand it, it will blow your mind with new things. Science like the good doctor said is not an all knowing entity but rather a tool for our understanding and as a tool it is only as good as the user. Reflect upon this for awhile.

Kevin, you have been instructed to discuss the topic, and to refrain from discussing other posters.

In this case, you have dragged up a posting from a week ago to renew your personal attacks.

Stop it. Thank you for your cooperation.

Edited May 25, 2009 by eight bits

[insanemind]

* snip *

Moaned... ... ... ... ...No comment.

Now let me get the good doctor and let him explain it. He is on mandatory work duty for blowing up my com array. It was quite expensive to replace.

Lack O understanding. HA. * snip * Da science is not an all knowing entity, no rather it is a tool for us to understand. You would limit its power, its... Glory and then you would tell Mr. Kevin he not know the science. HA HA HA. Back to you Kevin.

Thanks.

LOL and the disease continues its movement on. Defining everything by itself. * snip * Everything is not as you see it. The world is infinite and is infinitly complex. When you think you understand it, it will blow your mind with new things. Science like the good doctor said is not an all knowing entity but rather a tool for our understanding and as a tool it is only as good as the user. Reflect upon this for awhile.

Kevin, you have been instructed to discuss the topic, and to refrain from discussing other posters.

In this case, you have dragged up a posting from a week ago to renew your personal attacks.

Stop it. Thank you for your cooperation.

Yes your right science is a tool and like any tool if not used correctly you will end up with wrong results, but you cant simply ignore scientific law because its interfers with what you want your results to be. If you do break or able to break a scientific law then you need to explain how its able to. Which would make your mark in history with great minds like Newton and Einstein, youd probably get a nobel prize and nice lump of money to further you research.

[Kevin7557]

* snip *

Moaned... ... ... ... ...No comment.

Now let me get the good doctor and let him explain it. He is on mandatory work duty for blowing up my com array. It was quite expensive to replace.

Lack O understanding. HA. * snip * Da science is not an all knowing entity, no rather it is a tool for us to understand. You would limit its power, its... Glory and then you would tell Mr. Kevin he not know the science. HA HA HA. Back to you Kevin.

Thanks.

LOL and the disease continues its movement on. Defining everything by itself. * snip * Everything is not as you see it. The world is infinite and is infinitly complex. When you think you understand it, it will blow your mind with new things. Science like the good doctor said is not an all knowing entity but rather a tool for our understanding and as a tool it is only as good as the user. Reflect upon this for awhile.

Kevin, you have been instructed to discuss the topic, and to refrain from discussing other posters.

In this case, you have dragged up a posting from a week ago to renew your personal attacks.

Stop it. Thank you for your cooperation.

No i am just slow to respond... That is proof. If I wanted to do personal attacks I would be way more hurtful. If I were furthering personal attacks I wouldn't just limit myself to one topic.

Yes your right science is a tool and like any tool if not used correctly you will end up with wrong results, but you cant simply ignore scientific law because its interfere with what you want your results to be. If you do break or able to break a scientific law then you need to explain how its able to. Which would make your mark in history with great minds like Newton and Einstein, you’d probably get a Nobel prize and nice lump of money to further you research.

I agree, but scientific law is only what we believe to be certain now. While it very well may be certain forever as it is a law not a theory there is always the possibility that somewhere along the line that something could come up to disprove that which you held to be a certain. Though problem lies in the argument which I am not claiming you to make but as a general point out that there is no law that disproves the existence of the paranormal. In fact there is a law that proves. Energy can not be destroyed only shifted into a different form. Something like that. Which can lead to speculative theories.

[insanemind]

I agree, but scientific law is only what we believe to be certain now. While it very well may be certain forever as it is a law not a theory there is always the possibility that somewhere along the line that something could come up to disprove that which you held to be a certain. Though problem lies in the argument which I am not claiming you to make but as a general point out that there is no law that disproves the existence of the paranormal. In fact there is a law that proves. Energy can not be destroyed only shifted into a different form. Something like that. Which can lead to speculative theories.

Your right no law does directly defines any paranormal event as none existing, however they do atleast from the majority of threads about "I have.....power"

tend to ignore or down right dismiss some of the laws. Like for exmple telekinesis, for one to move a stationary item with there mind they have to overcome friction and gravity. Friction is for the most part easy to overcome but gravity isnt. Yet people come onto this board claiming they do just that without using any know thrusting system. So if there is a person that can preform telekinesis the amount of research and understanding on how to build a less chaotic thrusting system that can either negate or ignore gravity would be a great achievement for human kind (we could finally have flying cars ). I dont personally see these laws as a certainty but more a guideline. Im just tired of hearing people on here us the old "science cant prove they dont exist" line, Im sorry but science has yet to prove bigfoot doesnt exist either. Science in my opinion isnt so much if but how.

[Kevin7557]

Your right no law does directly defines any paranormal event as none existing, however they do atleast from the majority of threads about "I have.....power"

tend to ignore or down right dismiss some of the laws. Like for exmple telekinesis, for one to move a stationary item with there mind they have to overcome friction and gravity. Friction is for the most part easy to overcome but gravity isnt. Yet people come onto this board claiming they do just that without using any know thrusting system. So if there is a person that can preform telekinesis the amount of research and understanding on how to build a less chaotic thrusting system that can either negate or ignore gravity would be a great achievement for human kind (we could finally have flying cars ). I dont personally see these laws as a certainty but more a guideline. Im just tired of hearing people on here us the old "science cant prove they dont exist" line, Im sorry but science has yet to prove bigfoot doesnt exist either. Science in my opinion isnt so much if but how.

I see. First yeah a lot of people are liars and we have to sift through them with a finely tuned comb. Though actually the proper term would be that they are moving the object with energy that is generated by part of the mind. As the mind can't move things on its own. It is just basic talk really. Like back in the early 1900 farmers pants were spontaneously combusting for no reason. Turned out something in the fertilizer was easily ignited. They weren't really combusting or exploding but to people who don't have a complete understanding of science and all of its terms they can only describe it as they see it with terms they know. Then it falls to scientists to understand them.

I don't think friction would play a big role in the moving of objects unless they got to a certain speed then they would just ignite. Gravity is... Well not really understood completely in my opinion at least. I side with this one scientist who said that gravity was waves and it makes sense as it appears to travel or at least reach fast. If that is true that would bump light down from the fastest thing in the universe. Which it will be eventually considering aliens are coming to earth (assume for sake of argument that I am right on this. No need for secondary argument based on the probability of alien visitation or the conjecture of people). If they are traveling to earth they must have a faster than light way of traveling as it would seem. (I studied UFOs and still do a bit) Now if you think about it and this is conjecture on my part, maybe they are not defying gravity but manipulating it to move said object. No matter what description you go off of that would be a possible theory that could be explored. Also on the note of aliens, many of them seem to be able to assert some form of mind power to use archaic terms.

On thrusting mechanism I support my hypothesis of Mass Drive which involves particle accelerators. It would be the fastest possible way to reach Mars at our current tech level.

Yeah I would get tired of hearing that old science can't disprove it which is true though. There are many things we don't want to hear, Like it is almost tax season...NOOOOOO!, and no amount of saying no it doesn't is going to change the fact that in a month I would still have to pay taxes, unless I left the country, but tax season would still happen irrelevant of my presence. I think though you hear that so much because so many want to try and use old science to disprove it. Which it can't and then you have arguments such as absence of proof is proof of absence which is incorrect. Though I know how you feel. I get sick and tired of hear people talk as if they know science when they are talking complete falsities. Hello did you ever read thermodynamic law... which reminds me, I have to finish reading thermodynamic law. Interesting stuff that, let me tell you.

I like the Socrates way of thinking and I think many could benefit. He believed he knew nothing, not in the literal term but in more metaphoric I guess is the word I will use. In which it is true. No matter how much we figure out and know in the end it is no greater than a grain of sand in a vast and endless desert. Even the smartest people can only claim maybe 2 or 3 grains at best. Thus in relation to total knowledge we do know nothing. Though that is one way you could look at it.

[insanemind]

I see. First yeah a lot of people are liars and we have to sift through them with a finely tuned comb. Though actually the proper term would be that they are moving the object with energy that is generated by part of the mind. As the mind can't move things on its own. It is just basic talk really. Like back in the early 1900 farmers pants were spontaneously combusting for no reason. Turned out something in the fertilizer was easily ignited. They weren't really combusting or exploding but to people who don't have a complete understanding of science and all of its terms they can only describe it as they see it with terms they know. Then it falls to scientists to understand them.

I don't think friction would play a big role in the moving of objects unless they got to a certain speed then they would just ignite. Gravity is... Well not really understood completely in my opinion at least. I side with this one scientist who said that gravity was waves and it makes sense as it appears to travel or at least reach fast. If that is true that would bump light down from the fastest thing in the universe. Which it will be eventually considering aliens are coming to earth (assume for sake of argument that I am right on this. No need for secondary argument based on the probability of alien visitation or the conjecture of people). If they are traveling to earth they must have a faster than light way of traveling as it would seem. (I studied UFOs and still do a bit) Now if you think about it and this is conjecture on my part, maybe they are not defying gravity but manipulating it to move said object. No matter what description you go off of that would be a possible theory that could be explored. Also on the note of aliens, many of them seem to be able to assert some form of mind power to use archaic terms.

On thrusting mechanism I support my hypothesis of Mass Drive which involves particle accelerators. It would be the fastest possible way to reach Mars at our current tech level.

Yeah I would get tired of hearing that old science can't disprove it which is true though. There are many things we don't want to hear, Like it is almost tax season...NOOOOOO!, and no amount of saying no it doesn't is going to change the fact that in a month I would still have to pay taxes, unless I left the country, but tax season would still happen irrelevant of my presence. I think though you hear that so much because so many want to try and use old science to disprove it. Which it can't and then you have arguments such as absence of proof is proof of absence which is incorrect. Though I know how you feel. I get sick and tired of hear people talk as if they know science when they are talking complete falsities. Hello did you ever read thermodynamic law... which reminds me, I have to finish reading thermodynamic law. Interesting stuff that, let me tell you.

I like the Socrates way of thinking and I think many could benefit. He believed he knew nothing, not in the literal term but in more metaphoric I guess is the word I will use. In which it is true. No matter how much we figure out and know in the end it is no greater than a grain of sand in a vast and endless desert. Even the smartest people can only claim maybe 2 or 3 grains at best. Thus in relation to total knowledge we do know nothing. Though that is one way you could look at it.

Well yes its using energy that comes from the brain (least thats the theory) I didnt actually think I had to write it all out since its pretty common knowledge what the term means.

I think you need to go reread about fiction cause it plays a big role in everything you do, even moving your hand to type on the keyboard your over coming friction left and right. Even moving your arm through the air produces friction. Friction does produce hat but doesnt always mean ignition, good exmple of this is your tires and brakes on your car both undergo alot of friction. Ive seen brake rotors glow from so much friction but never ignite. Ignition is depend the rate of pilot igntion of said material.

I do kinda like your theory on gravity and light but it has to be a great gravititonal pull (like found in blackholes) to actually effect light. I think however light moves to fast for gravity of earth or even the sun to bring light down as you stated. However when you shine a flashlight into a mirror at and upward angle the light reflects and keeps going up in direction, those you see the light shining on the ceiling. If what you stated was true then it would have to be pulled down towards the earth. We use the electromagnetic waves to communicate with our satellites, which wouldnt beable to reach out of to space if gravity had a strong pull on it. However speed does tend to breaks gravities hold on us, havent you ever seen those cars that break speed records that get enough speed to produce lift. My guesstiement would be around 200+ mph(or 320 km/h for are metric users) before gravities hold starts to losen. After that you need to start working on ways for downforce to occur so the car stays grounded.

I understand what you mean but the reason I get tired of hearing it is because it always used as an excuse to support the claim psychic phenomenon exist. As you said in your one post that science is a tool, its used to explain why and how, not if it doesnt exist. I mean how can you even begin to test something you dont have to test. Ive tried numerous times to get a thread to discuss the sceintifical elemants of said ability being discussed and it always ends up a skeptic vs believer this section if filled with them and nothing ever gets even remotally into a hypothesis that I could test. Thats all Im after is a workable hypothesis, I dont jump on board the skeptic bandwagon untell I have ran there story through and found conflict against know laws or processes of said effect. Then Ill explain it as dumbed down as I can(most people will not read something that has big words and lots of mathmatic equations) and that will either kill the thread or they go back to the it doesnt exist vs it exist BS.

[N080DY]

I mean how can you even begin to test something you dont have to test. Ive tried numerous times to get a thread to discuss the sceintifical elemants of said ability being discussed and it always ends up a skeptic vs believer this section if filled with them and nothing ever gets even remotally into a hypothesis that I could test. Thats all Im after is a workable hypothesis.

I'd really like to see this done... Most of the "real scientists" are discouraged to pursue this avenue with all of the "it's impossible" -arguments... You could start a topic, and point out that you wouldn't like the "it's impossible" -people to post there so those who belief/want to know more about the phenomena/want to actually know if and how it could be possible can post and discuss in peace (though the "it's impossible" -people could point out how certain hypothesis is against the "known science" or something)...

On the subject of telekinesis, couldn't you first focus to overcome just the friction then? Using telekinesis to move an object on the table, not "fly it aorund the room" or something...

And what I understood from the wave-gravity thing, just because a wave is fast (like kevin said) doesn't mean it's strong enough to affect light (so that we could tell) or other wave-thingies...

[aquatus1]

The big problem (the one that tends to cause "real" scientists to roll their eyes), is that you are talking about something that sounds like physical science, but acts like theoretical science, which is something that, by definition, does not exist.

[N080DY]

The big problem (the one that tends to cause "real" scientists to roll their eyes), is that you are talking about something that sounds like physical science, but acts like theoretical science, which is something that, by definition, does not exist.

I don't get this... It sounds like physical science, but is in fact theoretical science, why wouldn't it exist? We're talking about possibilites that could be worth researching for, if someone could form a solid hypothesis on the so called "psychic phenomena" we could test the effects (cause that's what a solid hypothesis is in my book, something that could be tested, I think...) But instead we have wild speculations and rumours, nothing solid, which is a big problem from a scientific point of view... We would like to discuss more about it (or perhaps even other scientists would like to talk/research the subject), but some narrow-minded people come in and say "it's impossible because blaa blaa blaa"... The best way people have come up to research the subject so far is to test the people who say they possess these abilities (or even the potential of normal people in some situations), which is far from perfect... If any of this even makes sense...

*edit* Some of the best "psychic abilities" people have managed to record are so miniscule that they can be considered a coincidence, "stroke of luck", if they even were result of an actual psychic ability cannot be determined because of it... Which is why I personally think that even if the psychic powers exist in humans, they're too weak to be properly tested (on most cases at least), which is why we should find another way to research the subject...

Edited May 27, 2009 by N080DY

[John from Lowell]

I don't get this... It sounds like physical science, but is in fact theoretical science, why wouldn't it exist? We're talking about possibilites that could be worth researching for, if someone could form a solid hypothesis on the so called "psychic phenomena" we could test the effects (cause that's what a solid hypothesis is in my book, something that could be tested, I think...) But instead we have wild speculations and rumours, nothing solid, which is a big problem from a scientific point of view... We would like to discuss more about it (or perhaps even other scientists would like to talk/research the subject), but some narrow-minded people come in and say "it's impossible because blaa blaa blaa"... The best way people have come up to research the subject so far is to test the people who say they possess these abilities (or even the potential of normal people in some situations), which is far from perfect... If any of this even makes sense...

*edit* Some of the best "psychic abilities" people have managed to record are so miniscule that they can be considered a coincidence, "stroke of luck", if they even were result of an actual psychic ability cannot be determined because of it... Which is why I personally think that even if the psychic powers exist in humans, they're too weak to be properly tested (on most cases at least), which is why we should find another way to research the subject...

We could for example, focus on a particular example of evidance and evaluate the potentials instead of condeming the testing conditions.

Take a peek at this video and see if it is worth evaluating.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGTETx9cFHE...re=channel_page

It would be nice, as I see it, if we could speculate about what could be happening instead of defending our ideas about it.

John

[aquatus1]

Let me see if I can explain it better...

In physical science, you have a phenomena that exists beyond question. There is absolutely no doubt about it. It is factual, it's there, it can be measured by pretty much anyone. For instance, gravity exists, no one can argue that the effect is there. Fire exists, it can be measured, predicted. The phenomena itself is not in question. The ball drops, the fire burns.

Because of this, one can design a series of tests based on the process of accounting for all possible variables and removing them until only the variables which have a direct effect on the process are left. Once we can isolate those variables, we can pretty much replicate the original phenomena. That's the physical sciences.

Now, theoretical sciences are a little harder to define, but at their foundation, they are sciences that rely a great deal on solid interpretation of probabilities. They are theories that are built more on logical argument that physical evidence because physical evidence is not yet available. Because of their unique futuristic nature, in theoretical sciences, the explanation often comes prior to the actual phenomena. For instance, the existence of black holes was predicted by theoretical science decades prior to evidence of their existence being uncovered.

So, in the theoretical sciences, because there is no physical evidence yet, logical arguments are used to predict a given phenomena. In the physical sciences, we have an existing phenomena, which we then use theory to explain.

In the field of psychic powers, there is no factual phenomena. There is no universally accepted "process", nothing that can be pointed to. Whereas the physical sciences debate the validity of a theory to explain a phenomena, there is really no argument whether the phenomena itself exists. So, by this definition, we can't test psychic powers as a physical science.

But, if psychic powers are indeed real, then we should have evidence for it. This is not something that we have complex and solid mathematical or logical arguments that predict how energy behaves. This is something as simple as being able to push a pencil. This is not futuristic, but rather immediate. If this phenomena existed, we should be able to find evidence of it now.

So, based on that, we can't rightly refer to it as a theoretical science either. Psychic abilities are now a paradox. They are both (or, perhaps, neither) physical and/or theoretical.

Is that a little clearer?

[N080DY]

Let me see if I can explain it better...

In physical science, you have a phenomena that exists beyond question. There is absolutely no doubt about it. It is factual, it's there, it can be measured by pretty much anyone. For instance, gravity exists, no one can argue that the effect is there. Fire exists, it can be measured, predicted. The phenomena itself is not in question. The ball drops, the fire burns.

Because of this, one can design a series of tests based on the process of accounting for all possible variables and removing them until only the variables which have a direct effect on the process are left. Once we can isolate those variables, we can pretty much replicate the original phenomena. That's the physical sciences.

Now, theoretical sciences are a little harder to define, but at their foundation, they are sciences that rely a great deal on solid interpretation of probabilities. They are theories that are built more on logical argument that physical evidence because physical evidence is not yet available. Because of their unique futuristic nature, in theoretical sciences, the explanation often comes prior to the actual phenomena. For instance, the existence of black holes was predicted by theoretical science decades prior to evidence of their existence being uncovered.

So, in the theoretical sciences, because there is no physical evidence yet, logical arguments are used to predict a given phenomena. In the physical sciences, we have an existing phenomena, which we then use theory to explain.

In the field of psychic powers, there is no factual phenomena. There is no universally accepted "process", nothing that can be pointed to. Whereas the physical sciences debate the validity of a theory to explain a phenomena, there is really no argument whether the phenomena itself exists. So, by this definition, we can't test psychic powers as a physical science.

But, if psychic powers are indeed real, then we should have evidence for it. This is not something that we have complex and solid mathematical or logical arguments that predict how energy behaves. This is something as simple as being able to push a pencil. This is not futuristic, but rather immediate. If this phenomena existed, we should be able to find evidence of it now.

So, based on that, we can't rightly refer to it as a theoretical science either. Psychic abilities are now a paradox. They are both (or, perhaps, neither) physical and/or theoretical.

Is that a little clearer?

That's better, thanks...

Now lets see if I understood it... Here'sa thought... In the case of psychic phenomena, being a paradox and all, it feels more like a choice, two different ways to approach this phenomenom... Either use physical science and find people who have strong enough "powers" to be tested, or theoretical science to predict how these "powers" could(/will?) work and what would it take from a human to achieve the "powers"... Just because it might be both or neither, doesn't lock away either of the physical or theoretical approach... Just for curiosity, do you know if there are/have been any other phenomena in a similar paradox?

Physical science does seem more like a dead-end at the moment (and like I said before, could be because the psychic abilities are too weak to be tested) so theoretical science would seem a more logical way to pursue psychic phenomena...

And John A Spera, I agree with you...

In the video the movement of the chapstick does seem kinda "magnetic"... Some kind of force-field like thingy or whatever... Really haven't thought any way how telekinesis could be possible, but I would like to hear if someone else has an idea... I've heard that some people (me included) feel this "magnetic" force when they're making a "psiball"... Though there is probably an actual scientific explanation for that sensation...

[insanemind]

Yes I agree it is all just theortical science because as you said there is not base foundation to work off of, other then speculation and peoples claims. Though they do have some ground in physical science, as you stated we know how fire is made we have the process it requires. Take for example this is my theory(for lack better term) on pyrokenisis. The resaon I believe its not possable for a human to produce this effect is that for fire to happen you need 3 things heat or ignition source, oxygen, and fuel source. Oxygen is all around so thats not hard, a fuel source is simple whatever your trying to start on fire, but heres were the problem arises humans cant produce enought heat to ignite most matter, let alone produce a spark. So there is were the theortical science comes in, the question is how could a human produce such heat/spark? without hurting themselves? and keep it repeatable?

Simple stating it doesnt exist when someone post there claim, is like playing a dog chasing its tail, gets you know where. So Mod if I started a thread about discussing the therotical sense of these abilities could I report anybody that disrupts it with the "it doesnt exist vs it exist BS"? Otherwise theres no point it will just turn into every other circle running thread into this section.

[insanemind]

That's better, thanks...

Now lets see if I understood it... Here'sa thought... In the case of psychic phenomena, being a paradox and all, it feels more like a choice, two different ways to approach this phenomenom... Either use physical science and find people who have strong enough "powers" to be tested, or theoretical science to predict how these "powers" could(/will?) work and what would it take from a human to achieve the "powers"... Just because it might be both or neither, doesn't lock away either of the physical or theoretical approach... Just for curiosity, do you know if there are/have been any other phenomena in a similar paradox?

Physical science does seem more like a dead-end at the moment (and like I said before, could be because the psychic abilities are too weak to be tested) so theoretical science would seem a more logical way to pursue psychic phenomena...

And John A Spera, I agree with you...

In the video the movement of the chapstick does seem kinda "magnetic"... Some kind of force-field like thingy or whatever... Really haven't thought any way how telekinesis could be possible, but I would like to hear if someone else has an idea... I've heard that some people (me included) feel this "magnetic" force when they're making a "psiball"... Though there is probably an actual scientific explanation for that sensation...

You have to use both to a degree, therotical and physical. Ill say it again im not intrested in find someone that can do it, more rather like to pull the human element out. I know that sounds silly huh, but let me explain humans provide to many uncontrolled variables. They can get stage fright, performance anxiety, exorting that amount of energy will deplet them(least i couldnt imagine it not), fruads, maybe they cant perform it repetitively the list could go on. What I would like to accomplish is to find a sound hypothesis and try to create a machine that would beable to produce the effect of the ability and then test it till its completely understood, then try to figure out if humans could even be capable of performing said effect. The reason I feel this would be the best course of action is because it would prove or disprove if the effect is even possable, if it proves it is possable then we can start understanding if it possable or not for humans to even do it. It limits the number of field of sciense that have to be taken in to account. With a machine performing these effect we dont have to really look to much into biology and biochemistry. I hope that better explains my view of the process that Im trying to accomplish and why I said you need to use both. Not to mention there is certain laws and such that need to be taken in consideration when testing and research on humans, why do you think they mostly use chimps in the lab.

[Sleuth]

I believe that a majority of people across the world think that they have these abilities, when they obviously do not. These people simply want to be known as gifted with something unexplainable because they demand some form of attention.

Thats not to say that these ablities do not exist because throughout history mankind has been heavily interested in the paranormal. God is a great example, not one living organism on plant Earth knows for certain that he/she/it exists, yet a very high percentege of people belive in God. Same case with the unexplained, unproven, theory of these abnormal abilites. No one knows if they exist, and may never know. However, I think that people have skewed normal human emotion so far that it appears abnormal.

Now I'm not saying I have not had my share of strange experiences, because I have had quite a few. Examples such has predicting accerate birthdays of people I have just met, predicting the peoples playing cards, and just plain knowing things that are soon going to happen. The human mind is very complex though. So I have never been too suprised by the strange things that happen everyday all over the world. It is amazing what kinds of things can happen if you truly believe in something. The mind is the ultimate weapon in this thing we call life.

[Kevin7557]

Well yes its using energy that comes from the brain (least thats the theory) I didnt actually think I had to write it all out since its pretty common knowledge what the term means.

I think you need to go reread about fiction cause it plays a big role in everything you do, even moving your hand to type on the keyboard your over coming friction left and right. Even moving your arm through the air produces friction. Friction does produce hat but doesnt always mean ignition, good exmple of this is your tires and brakes on your car both undergo alot of friction. Ive seen brake rotors glow from so much friction but never ignite. Ignition is depend the rate of pilot igntion of said material.

I do kinda like your theory on gravity and light but it has to be a great gravititonal pull (like found in blackholes) to actually effect light. I think however light moves to fast for gravity of earth or even the sun to bring light down as you stated. However when you shine a flashlight into a mirror at and upward angle the light reflects and keeps going up in direction, those you see the light shining on the ceiling. If what you stated was true then it would have to be pulled down towards the earth. We use the electromagnetic waves to communicate with our satellites, which wouldnt beable to reach out of to space if gravity had a strong pull on it. However speed does tend to breaks gravities hold on us, havent you ever seen those cars that break speed records that get enough speed to produce lift. My guesstiement would be around 200+ mph(or 320 km/h for are metric users) before gravities hold starts to losen. After that you need to start working on ways for downforce to occur so the car stays grounded.

I understand what you mean but the reason I get tired of hearing it is because it always used as an excuse to support the claim psychic phenomenon exist. As you said in your one post that science is a tool, its used to explain why and how, not if it doesnt exist. I mean how can you even begin to test something you dont have to test. Ive tried numerous times to get a thread to discuss the sceintifical elemants of said ability being discussed and it always ends up a skeptic vs believer this section if filled with them and nothing ever gets even remotally into a hypothesis that I could test. Thats all Im after is a workable hypothesis, I dont jump on board the skeptic bandwagon untell I have ran there story through and found conflict against know laws or processes of said effect. Then Ill explain it as dumbed down as I can(most people will not read something that has big words and lots of mathmatic equations) and that will either kill the thread or they go back to the it doesnt exist vs it exist BS.

I understand friction (may need to read it over as it has been awhile since science class) my point though is that it is not an active force on the object, pressure is. Friction comes from brushing against something and until it moves there is not friction. Though it could be argued that on some level we are all under friction even is standing perfectly still and frozed (heart and vitals stop) becasue the earth is moving.

I was trying to say was that they say that because they are already believing that the other party will. The fact of the matter is no matter how annoying they are right. Old science can't, as it hasn't done so yet. I was not trying to lecture you, my appologies if that is the way it came acrossed. I was just stating base knowledge along with my statement or agruement of the case in point. (hope I worded tha right)

Thus comes the back the they don't know science argument and why so many people cry out that science can't disprove it. Most of the none believers try to use science in some way and fact of the matter is that science base laws give credit to not against. Basically it comes down to they are idiots using illogic to defy something they don't want to believe because of conditioning or not wanting their world to fall apart. That is why I normally talk normal, more people understand and it is easier to do.

Let me see if I can explain it better...

In physical science, you have a phenomena that exists beyond question. There is absolutely no doubt about it. It is factual, it's there, it can be measured by pretty much anyone. For instance, gravity exists, no one can argue that the effect is there. Fire exists, it can be measured, predicted. The phenomena itself is not in question. The ball drops, the fire burns.

Because of this, one can design a series of tests based on the process of accounting for all possible variables and removing them until only the variables which have a direct effect on the process are left. Once we can isolate those variables, we can pretty much replicate the original phenomena. That's the physical sciences.

Now, theoretical sciences are a little harder to define, but at their foundation, they are sciences that rely a great deal on solid interpretation of probabilities. They are theories that are built more on logical argument that physical evidence because physical evidence is not yet available. Because of their unique futuristic nature, in theoretical sciences, the explanation often comes prior to the actual phenomena. For instance, the existence of black holes was predicted by theoretical science decades prior to evidence of their existence being uncovered.

So, in the theoretical sciences, because there is no physical evidence yet, logical arguments are used to predict a given phenomena. In the physical sciences, we have an existing phenomena, which we then use theory to explain.

In the field of psychic powers, there is no factual phenomena. There is no universally accepted "process", nothing that can be pointed to. Whereas the physical sciences debate the validity of a theory to explain a phenomena, there is really no argument whether the phenomena itself exists. So, by this definition, we can't test psychic powers as a physical science.

But, if psychic powers are indeed real, then we should have evidence for it. This is not something that we have complex and solid mathematical or logical arguments that predict how energy behaves. This is something as simple as being able to push a pencil. This is not futuristic, but rather immediate. If this phenomena existed, we should be able to find evidence of it now.

So, based on that, we can't rightly refer to it as a theoretical science either. Psychic abilities are now a paradox. They are both (or, perhaps, neither) physical and/or theoretical.

Is that a little clearer?

Now a problem arrises in acceptable evidence. IF they are so strong against it then no evidence will be accepted. Which begins an ego problem and battle.

Yes I agree it is all just theortical science because as you said there is not base foundation to work off of, other then speculation and peoples claims. Though they do have some ground in physical science, as you stated we know how fire is made we have the process it requires. Take for example this is my theory(for lack better term) on pyrokenisis. The resaon I believe its not possable for a human to produce this effect is that for fire to happen you need 3 things heat or ignition source, oxygen, and fuel source. Oxygen is all around so thats not hard, a fuel source is simple whatever your trying to start on fire, but heres were the problem arises humans cant produce enought heat to ignite most matter, let alone produce a spark. So there is were the theortical science comes in, the question is how could a human produce such heat/spark? without hurting themselves? and keep it repeatable?

Simple stating it doesnt exist when someone post there claim, is like playing a dog chasing its tail, gets you know where. So Mod if I started a thread about discussing the therotical sense of these abilities could I report anybody that disrupts it with the "it doesnt exist vs it exist BS"? Otherwise theres no point it will just turn into every other circle running thread into this section.

Nice theory. I theorised once that it was a build up of energy that they did not know how to control or direct and they simply combusted as a result though there actually are survivors of spontanious combustion as the proccess didn't complete itself which begs the argument of if they are pyrokenisis enabled on some level but were unable to direct it or master it so the power dies. To fully study this we would have to sacrifice morality which is not something I am willing to do for such petty results.

I believe that a majority of people across the world think that they have these abilities, when they obviously do not. These people simply want to be known as gifted with something unexplainable because they demand some form of attention.

Thats not to say that these ablities do not exist because throughout history mankind has been heavily interested in the paranormal. God is a great example, not one living organism on plant Earth knows for certain that he/she/it exists, yet a very high percentege of people belive in God. Same case with the unexplained, unproven, theory of these abnormal abilites. No one knows if they exist, and may never know. However, I think that people have skewed normal human emotion so far that it appears abnormal.

Now I'm not saying I have not had my share of strange experiences, because I have had quite a few. Examples such has predicting accerate birthdays of people I have just met, predicting the peoples playing cards, and just plain knowing things that are soon going to happen. The human mind is very complex though. So I have never been too suprised by the strange things that happen everyday all over the world. It is amazing what kinds of things can happen if you truly believe in something. The mind is the ultimate weapon in this thing we call life.

Now you have a problem and it is a problem this field (for lack of a better word) has. The fakes. People naturally are fasinated on some level by this and you will have people who want to get something out of that. They really don't have powers but want people to think they do. Which takes away from those that do have powers. There should be some accredation board or group. This leads people to believe all are fakes as they don't want to be fooled again. Not all are going to have super powered powers. Like myself, I have had dreams all though useless in nature where i had a glimps of the future but they never were useful and were rare. This would only qualify on the low end of the spectrum and hardly merits mentioning other than this example.

I think the really powerful people don't tell anyone out of shame or worry of not being accepted. They hide it their whole lives and some probably go to extremes to do so. These people don't want people to know they have powers as they don't want to be lable freaks, outcasts, ext. Those are the people that could do what science wants. Though also consider that the dangers to doing such high level power puts on a person. Like that episode of Justice League Unlimited where that girl was going to die because of her powers putting so much pressure on her brain and she did. As we don't know the dangers of such powers we could by asking them to do the extremes to put themselves in mortal danger. That is a lack of morality if you ask me.

(Wow a serious discussion Also my computer was in the shop for a few days. So I am not accused of waiting a week to restart something!)

[N080DY]

I understand friction (may need to read it over as it has been awhile since science class) my point though is that it is not an active force on the object, pressure is. Friction comes from brushing against something and until it moves there is not friction. Though it could be argued that on some level we are all under friction even is standing perfectly still and frozed (heart and vitals stop) becasue the earth is moving.

It is an active force, which you have to overcome before an object moves on a table for example... You need to overcome static friction to get an object moving at all, and then work against kinetic friction to keep it moving... If there was no static friction, stuff would easily move once you slightly even brush something on your table... Another interesting point is that static friction is usually more powerful than kinetic friction, meaning that you need more force to get an object moving than keeping it moving...

Now a problem arrises in acceptable evidence. IF they are so strong against it then no evidence will be accepted. Which begins an ego problem and battle.

I don't think this is true, if someone could get a working testable hypothesis, or a repeatable experiment, people will have no choice but to accept it as a scientific fact. The problem is that we don't have a proper hypothesis or any unquestionable data which science "needs".

Now you have a problem and it is a problem this field (for lack of a better word) has. The fakes. People naturally are fasinated on some level by this and you will have people who want to get something out of that. They really don't have powers but want people to think they do. Which takes away from those that do have powers. There should be some accredation board or group. This leads people to believe all are fakes as they don't want to be fooled again. Not all are going to have super powered powers. Like myself, I have had dreams all though useless in nature where i had a glimps of the future but they never were useful and were rare. This would only qualify on the low end of the spectrum and hardly merits mentioning other than this example.

Now this indeed is a problem, like you said, and additionally some of the fakes actually think they have the abilities/powers mentioned and blame scientists when they can't get their so called "powers" working in a way the results would be definate... Which in turn only rises the suspicion of the phenomena... And like I've said as well, even if the powers exist, they're mostly too weak to have any results in a scientific test... I do consider myself to extraordinarly lucky and have a good intuition, but as I can't really prove it in any way I won't go and advertise it everywhere...

I think the really powerful people don't tell anyone out of shame or worry of not being accepted. They hide it their whole lives and some probably go to extremes to do so. These people don't want people to know they have powers as they don't want to be lable freaks, outcasts, ext. Those are the people that could do what science wants. Though also consider that the dangers to doing such high level power puts on a person. Like that episode of Justice League Unlimited where that girl was going to die because of her powers putting so much pressure on her brain and she did. As we don't know the dangers of such powers we could by asking them to do the extremes to put themselves in mortal danger. That is a lack of morality if you ask me.

Or alternatively, the really powerful people have gone through some serious meditation and self-discovery and have no need or reason to show off their abilities... By the way, even if I do take some "theories" (in a non-scientific sense) off from tv-shows and such, I wouldn't post about them if I wanted people to take me seriously Makes people question if you really do have the science right behind your opinions/"hypotheses"... Just say the stuff in a logical sense without referencing a cartoon-show...

(Wow a serious discussion Also my computer was in the shop for a few days. So I am not accused of waiting a week to restart something!)

(Don't jinx it! The impossible-nuts probably haven't just noticed this yet! )

[Kevin7557]

It is an active force, which you have to overcome before an object moves on a table for example... You need to overcome static friction to get an object moving at all, and then work against kinetic friction to keep it moving... If there was no static friction, stuff would easily move once you slightly even brush something on your table... Another interesting point is that static friction is usually more powerful than kinetic friction, meaning that you need more force to get an object moving than keeping it moving...

I don't think this is true, if someone could get a working testable hypothesis, or a repeatable experiment, people will have no choice but to accept it as a scientific fact. The problem is that we don't have a proper hypothesis or any unquestionable data which science "needs".

Now this indeed is a problem, like you said, and additionally some of the fakes actually think they have the abilities/powers mentioned and blame scientists when they can't get their so called "powers" working in a way the results would be definate... Which in turn only rises the suspicion of the phenomena... And like I've said as well, even if the powers exist, they're mostly too weak to have any results in a scientific test... I do consider myself to extraordinarly lucky and have a good intuition, but as I can't really prove it in any way I won't go and advertise it everywhere...

Or alternatively, the really powerful people have gone through some serious meditation and self-discovery and have no need or reason to show off their abilities... By the way, even if I do take some "theories" (in a non-scientific sense) off from tv-shows and such, I wouldn't post about them if I wanted people to take me seriously Makes people question if you really do have the science right behind your opinions/"hypotheses"... Just say the stuff in a logical sense without referencing a cartoon-show...

(Don't jinx it! The impossible-nuts probably haven't just noticed this yet! )

Didn't know about static friction. Then again I never read up on friction.

Well now here is the thing about testing though. Most tests would involve a violation of human rights and privacy. Illegal genetics and the sort. As the powers are generated in the brain or the energy or whatever is going on in there. Though I do think science wouldn't except it. It wouldn't be the first time. I have joke about this, Big foot could walk up and kick them in the balls and they still wouldn't believe big foot was real. Which is sad but true.

Agreed. Though if they think they have powers I don't think that makes them fakes. I am sure there is a word for it.

Well no I wasn't basing it off of a tv show (even though it was awesome), I was giving a reference. Plus it was awesome, she knew she was going to die and he stayed with her instead of killing her like he was asked.

(owe crap, your right. Eyes dart back and forth looking for suspisious people.)

[aquatus1]

Now a problem arrises in acceptable evidence. IF they are so strong against it then no evidence will be accepted. Which begins an ego problem and battle.

Wow...

Way to skip over everything I wrote.

I don't think this is true, if someone could get a working testable hypothesis, or a repeatable experiment, people will have no choice but to accept it as a scientific fact. The problem is that we don't have a proper hypothesis or any unquestionable data which science "needs".

Absolutely true. If you could get a repeatable phenomena, that would be all you needed to present perfectly valid scientific theories. You wouldn't even need an explanation of why it works, as long as you could explain why it works.

[insanemind]

Wow...

Way to skip over everything I wrote.

Absolutely true. If you could get a repeatable phenomena, that would be all you needed to present perfectly valid scientific theories. You wouldn't even need an explanation of why it works, as long as you could explain why it works.

That dont sound quite right, I understand what your saying. I bet someone gets confused lol, but I agree a repeatable phenomena would be the best way to come up with a valid theory. I dont realy think a human would be capable of using the amount of energy required to overcome known forces and not deplet themselves. I think the first thing one should think about is what energy is being used, is it something thats already bein discoverd or is it an unknown energy yet to be discovered.

[cspooky00]

i have the ability to feel other peoples emotions, close range mind reading, . who else has powers??

mind powers are apart of evolution and devine rights soon enough in 2012 we will all ascend. for the skeptics be afraid cause you will be left behind.