Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Anakim

Are you trying to learn Telekenisis?

1,187 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

G3N0M3

The thing with science is it is not about proving anything, it is just about evidencing.

As for a scientific theory, they never become anything other than a theory. A theory is the pinnacle in science, it is the empirical explanation of how and why formulated from tested hypothesise.

Scientific Method

See Genome, I don't believe in science, you don't need to believe in things that exist. I however, understand that it is the best and least biased method of study there is and that is the aim of the method.

LOL, so untill we witnessed a star being formed since that there was no evidence of stars being created your saying that they were never made, but always were?? I mean there are many theories with things along this scale and people take hypothesis and theories seriously like it is the accurate discription of the event or focal point to the 'problem'.

Also I do not think you even read my post, the first sentance was "Prove, and show to me and the rest of the world how scientific theory testing could be possible and therefore is quantifiably correct." Maybe re-read that just so you get it...

Also I'm not too sure you read that information, because unless you meant for this point to be made I gues you just, ummm, how could we put this...

Common Mistakes in Applying the Scientific Method

As stated earlier, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of the scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. That is, when testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference not bias the results or their interpretation. The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, without performing experimental tests. Sometimes "common sense" and "logic" tempt us into believing that no test is needed. There are numerous examples of this, dating from the Greek philosophers to the present day.

Another common mistake is to ignore or rule out data which do not support the hypothesis. Ideally, the experimenter is open to the possibility that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. Sometimes, however, a scientist may have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true (or false), or feels internal or external pressure to get a specific result. In that case, there may be a psychological tendency to find "something wrong", such as systematic effects, with data which do not support the scientist's expectations, while data which do agree with those expectations may not be checked as carefully. The lesson is that all data must be handled in the same way.

Another common mistake arises from the failure to estimate quantitatively systematic errors (and all errors). There are many examples of discoveries which were missed by experimenters whose data contained a new phenomenon, but who explained it away as a systematic background. Conversely, there are many examples of alleged "new discoveries" which later proved to be due to systematic errors not accounted for by the "discoverers."

In a field where there is active experimentation and open communication among members of the scientific community, the biases of individuals or groups may cancel out, because experimental tests are repeated by different scientists who may have different biases. In addition, different types of experimental setups have different sources of systematic errors. Over a period spanning a variety of experimental tests (usually at least several years), a consensus develops in the community as to which experimental results have stood the test of time.

- http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/PHY_LABS/AppendixE/AppendixE.html#Heading5

Sooo, tell me where your reasoning came in where everything that is not already measured by science is not real, and is some other thing that just is not something... I just have no clue how I could make my brain think that something that has been shown, evidenced, witnessed and measured is not a part of science nor is it actually real.

You say there is no evidence, the fact is YOU have not seen evidence and that is why you argue the fact that there is even evidence...

Again, something I have to post here so that you can read and understand what you just linked me, and how I don't see how you proved anything but me being right, in which case thanks for backing me up.

Are there circumstances in which the Scientific Method is not applicable?

While the scientific method is necessary in developing scientific knowledge, it is also useful in everyday problem-solving. What do you do when your telephone doesn't work? Is the problem in the hand set, the cabling inside your house, the hookup outside, or in the workings of the phone company? The process you might go through to solve this problem could involve scientific thinking, and the results might contradict your initial expectations.

Like any good scientist, you may question the range of situations (outside of science) in which the scientific method may be applied. From what has been stated above, we determine that the scientific method works best in situations where one can isolate the phenomenon of interest, by eliminating or accounting for extraneous factors, and where one can repeatedly test the system under study after making limited, controlled changes in it.

There are, of course, circumstances when one cannot isolate the phenomena or when one cannot repeat the measurement over and over again. In such cases the results may depend in part on the history of a situation. This often occurs in social interactions between people. For example, when a lawyer makes arguments in front of a jury in court, she or he cannot try other approaches by repeating the trial over and over again in front of the same jury. In a new trial, the jury composition will be different. Even the same jury hearing a new set of arguments cannot be expected to forget what they heard before.

- http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/PHY_LABS/AppendixE/AppendixE.html#Heading7

Oh you know, all this me "showing you up" makes me want to post these links and C/P quotes from the website, I'll even throw in your name so you get credit for helping skeptics understand. Especialy the all important scientific ones.

I mean look at what it says, did you not read the information? Did it not make you understand? Did you read it but not understand it in any way?

I hope this has helped you out in understanding this area better, especialy with your understanding of science being the only answer.

G3N0M3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent. Mulder

Before you continue with your hypothisis research what disbelief and other factors do to a psychics ability, your saying we think that we are some superhuman, superhero people who have control over everything... Meanwhile everytime ANYONE tells you about their abilities, and anyone will say that they do not have control of their abilities, anyone who does is more likely to be a fake...

doesnt make sense.

someones likely a fake when they claim they have control over their abilities.

nope. both are far fetched.

OK, now for a test in your scientific knowledge:

Prove, and show to me and the rest of the world how scientific theory testing could be possible and therefore is quantifiably correct. Or how about the theory of evolution, though it is still a theory it is widespread knowledge that that is where we come from. In conjunction with natural selection and other Darwinian concepts/theories.

My point is your looking to the wrong place, for all the wrong answers... Oh books of science and ultimate knowledge of everything, please show us your unending wealth of information about everything... Serious, there is believing in something because you were told, if you were made to, or if you've experienced something... Which one are you?

MS explained this. if this was a test for your scientific knowledge, you failed.

im looking in all the right places, because im asking for evidence the right way. the only way really.

im neither of the catagories you are trying to pigeonhole me into though.

and please have some basic understanding next time of a scientific theory, and dont say "though it is still a theory".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
G3N0M3

doesnt make sense.

someones likely a fake when they claim they have control over their abilities.

nope. both are far fetched.

MS explained this. if this was a test for your scientific knowledge, you failed.

im looking in all the right places, because im asking for evidence the right way. the only way really.

im neither of the catagories you are trying to pigeonhole me into though.

and please have some basic understanding next time of a scientific theory, and dont say "though it is still a theory".

Wow, are you just ignorant?

Obviously you did not even read up on the subject so go read something and understand something for the life of you.

Someone IS likely to be fake IF they claim they had total control of their abilities, BEACAUSE thats just not how it works.

Also show to me how I failed at blatently explaining, proving, and denoting what Matt showed... If you are not able to comprehend what was C/P and linked, I have no problem because then obviously it is some type of learning disorder so I won't hold that back on you. If you continue to try and argue with me, try being in grade 9 and being in grade 12 advanced physics classes in your spares, I'm not scientific in anyway, I understand things MUCH deeper than you obviously so maybe once you get at par with me in intelligence than maybe try and argue, otherwise I highly doubt you have above 120 IQ... I mean I was 12 and had an IQ of 110 and the last ime I paid for an IQ test was at 17 and I had 120s and I still did not even believe in the outcome because both times I was not even ready (tired/busy) I'm sure if I took one now it would be even more...

So unless either your flamebaiting or just lurching around being a troll then try and prove for yourself something, not depend on what other people have posted.

LMFAO, far fetched... It was far fetched when they said that they were going to the moon, it was far fetched when they said that there was no water on Mars, they said it was far fetched that global warming was happening... Grow up seriously, how old are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark

LOL, so untill we witnessed a star being formed since that there was no evidence of stars being created your saying that they were never made, but always were?? I mean there are many theories with things along this scale and people take hypothesis and theories seriously like it is the accurate discription of the event or focal point to the 'problem'.

Also I do not think you even read my post, the first sentance was "Prove, and show to me and the rest of the world how scientific theory testing could be possible and therefore is quantifiably correct." Maybe re-read that just so you get it...

Also I'm not too sure you read that information, because unless you meant for this point to be made I gues you just, ummm, how could we put this...

Sooo, tell me where your reasoning came in where everything that is not already measured by science is not real, and is some other thing that just is not something... I just have no clue how I could make my brain think that something that has been shown, evidenced, witnessed and measured is not a part of science nor is it actually real.

Jumping to conclusions there aren't? I never said it is not real, I said there is no evidence of such. Hope you understand how that is not remotely the same thing.

I was also only telling you are misusing and misunderstanding scientific terminology. ;)

You say there is no evidence, the fact is YOU have not seen evidence and that is why you argue the fact that there is even evidence...

Again, something I have to post here so that you can read and understand what you just linked me, and how I don't see how you proved anything but me being right, in which case thanks for backing me up.

Show some evidence then, your at uni, go and show off to them. Personal experience is not evidence, it is subjective.

Oh you know, all this me "showing you up" makes me want to post these links and C/P quotes from the website, I'll even throw in your name so you get credit for helping skeptics understand. Especialy the all important scientific ones.

I mean look at what it says, did you not read the information? Did it not make you understand? Did you read it but not understand it in any way?

I hope this has helped you out in understanding this area better, especialy with your understanding of science being the only answer.

G3N0M3

Showing me up how? All you are doing is show gross (but sadly common) misunderstanding of the scientific term theory and jumping into a big mindless rant. Get you head of its current orifice and YOU evidence something, that burden is completely on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tinieblas

Matt; the operative word in your argument is "theory" ....I don't think any more needs to be said.

Didn't someone scientific say "if you can't replicate it under laboratory conditions, it is not established fact" ?

Edited by tinieblas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark

Matt; the operative word in your argument is "theory" ....I don't think any more needs to be said.

Didn't someone scientific say "if you can't replicate it under laboratory conditions, it is not established fact" ?

And the word theory in a scientific context is not the same as the general use of the word.

Examples:

Evolution theory

Germ theory

Atomic theory

Gravity theory

All are based on masses on masses of evidence and observed facts. Theory is the pinnacle of science, it is the explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent. Mulder

Wow, are you just ignorant?

Obviously you did not even read up on the subject so go read something and understand something for the life of you.

Someone IS likely to be fake IF they claim they had total control of their abilities, BEACAUSE thats just not how it works.

we disagree here. you believe someone deserves more credit, and believe they may be genuine when it comes to psychic powers because they cannnot do it on cue.

Also show to me how I failed at blatently explaining, proving, and denoting what Matt showed... If you are not able to comprehend what was C/P and linked, I have no problem because then obviously it is some type of learning disorder so I won't hold that back on you. If you continue to try and argue with me, try being in grade 9 and being in grade 12 advanced physics classes in your spares, I'm not scientific in anyway, I understand things MUCH deeper than you obviously so maybe once you get at par with me in intelligence than maybe try and argue, otherwise I highly doubt you have above 120 IQ... I mean I was 12 and had an IQ of 110 and the last ime I paid for an IQ test was at 17 and I had 120s and I still did not even believe in the outcome because both times I was not even ready (tired/busy) I'm sure if I took one now it would be even more...

you failed in the theory aspect of science. as matt already showed you.

try to keep up G3. let us know if were getting ahead of you and your 120IQ.

So unless either your flamebaiting or just lurching around being a troll then try and prove for yourself something, not depend on what other people have posted.

LMFAO, far fetched... It was far fetched when they said that they were going to the moon, it was far fetched when they said that there was no water on Mars, they said it was far fetched that global warming was happening... Grow up seriously, how old are you?

no flamebatting, just trying to help someone understand a common misconception that you share with thousands, if not millions world wide.

as for far fetched, the psi claims still are. whether they claim they can or cannot control it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
G3N0M3

LOL @ both matt and agent on this one...

This can't be put in both your heads...

You two are the most narcistic, individuals I have ever got close to meeting... I mean Mattshark blatently linked to a website that had information on scientific theory... I told him that unless he did not read the information given there would be no point argueing against me. In which case you both continue too...

The sheer fact that you two can't understand what it means, and try to tell me and the rest of the people here, and who was taught ANYTHING in science class (Grd 5 information here) that they are all wrong is just plain narcistic. Get over yourselves, one your wrong, and everywhere you look and get information (unless you are mentaly challenged like one of my threads say) its all wrong.

OK! IF YOU DON'T GET THIS I'M DONE WITH THE BOTH OF YOU!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html

http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyofscience/tp/CriteriaScientificTheory.htm

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

http://www.dinosaurtheory.com/theory.html

...........................................................

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_(principle)

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/scientific-law.html

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Scientific_law

http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/scientific+law

I hope that somehow you two can read through these links and understand something for once... If you can not understand what the difference between scientific law and scientific theory than you litteraly have no place in the scientific community.

As for anything along the lines of psychics, psionics, or any other metaphysical part of the world, and us you both seem to have no idea what your talking about, nor do you understand or practice what we know. Therefore because you do not know, experience, or can not measure you think that it is fake or the billions of people who experience it, and practice it are all crazy.

You both are either unable, or unwilling to even comprehend the world as a whole, in which case you are stuck to your pre-determined course of actions beliefs, and self controled aspects of how the world works.

I'm done with you two this is rediculas, you should both be ashamed of your sad existances... Thinking you know everything, HA, laughable...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark

How dare you be so condescending when YOU use the term "still only a theory" which is one of the biggest fallacies you make regarding scientific theory.

Maybe if you bothered to read your links yourself you would see they say exactly what I said to you.

:no:

It is spelt ridiculous btw ;)

Oh again you are jumping to massive conclusions all I ever asked for was evidence unless something was explainable by far more parsimonious answers.

Edited by Mattshark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent. Mulder

i dont think he gets it MS.

G3, matt and myself have been correcting You, on the use of the term 'theory'. your posts have reflected the fact that you didnt understand what a Scientific Theory' was. we are both well aware of a scientific theory and law, however you are the one who kept bringing up the fact that "Oh, its only a theory".

however, im curious as to what you understand and practise that WE do not seem to know. i for one am not claiming anything is fake, but simply asking for evidence to back up any claim related to psychic abilities. which, you have not tey given, but only stated "you dont know what i know or have seen".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tinieblas

better to try and stop a deluge with a teacup G......or stun an elephant with a nerf gun.....ain't going to happen mate...their eyes will be opened one of these days but not here and not now I'm afraid.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
G3N0M3

The thing with science is it is not about proving anything, it is just about evidencing.

As for a scientific theory, they never become anything other than a theory. A theory is the pinnacle in science, it is the empirical explanation of how and why formulated from tested hypothesise.

Scientific Method

See Genome, I don't believe in science, you don't need to believe in things that exist. I however, understand that it is the best and least biased method of study there is and that is the aim of the method.

And the word theory in a scientific context is not the same as the general use of the word.

Examples:

Evolution theory

Germ theory

Atomic theory

Gravity theory

All are based on masses on masses of evidence and observed facts. Theory is the pinnacle of science, it is the explanation.

How dare you be so condescending when YOU use the term "still only a theory" which is one of the biggest fallacies you make regarding scientific theory.

Maybe if you bothered to read your links yourself you would see they say exactly what I said to you.

:no:

It is spelt ridiculous btw ;)

Oh again you are jumping to massive conclusions all I ever asked for was evidence unless something was explainable by far more parsimonious answers.

i dont think he gets it MS.

G3, matt and myself have been correcting You, on the use of the term 'theory'. your posts have reflected the fact that you didnt understand what a Scientific Theory' was. we are both well aware of a scientific theory and law, however you are the one who kept bringing up the fact that "Oh, its only a theory".

however, im curious as to what you understand and practise that WE do not seem to know. i for one am not claiming anything is fake, but simply asking for evidence to back up any claim related to psychic abilities. which, you have not tey given, but only stated "you dont know what i know or have seen".

I'm not saying a much more than highlighted words here... If there is a difference between scientific law and scientific theory than why are you saying that one is the same? Scientific Law = provable, replicable - Scientific Theory = only a theory...

If your saying that the theory of evolution is not just a theory howcome there is religion that constitues creationism? Its a THEORY because we still do not know for a fact what made what happen, when, and why... we have as my links state a hypothesis, when more than one scientist has one hypothesis it then becomes a THEORY...

You guys, really, do I have to keep going into this? I really do not want to get into this all the time...

LOL, just like typical scientists, never accept being wrong. I would accept me being wrong because your trying to explain what theory is, but then there is still no arguement because I had given the deffinition. So I don't know where the both of you get off saying that I'm wrong, meanwhile the only thing I've done was given you information...

So long, hope you re-read my links to get the whole just of it.

G3N0M3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark

I'm not saying a much more than highlighted words here... If there is a difference between scientific law and scientific theory than why are you saying that one is the same? Scientific Law = provable, replicable - Scientific Theory = only a theory...

If your saying that the theory of evolution is not just a theory howcome there is religion that constitues creationism? Its a THEORY because we still do not know for a fact what made what happen, when, and why... we have as my links state a hypothesis, when more than one scientist has one hypothesis it then becomes a THEORY...

You guys, really, do I have to keep going into this? I really do not want to get into this all the time...

LOL, just like typical scientists, never accept being wrong. I would accept me being wrong because your trying to explain what theory is, but then there is still no arguement because I had given the deffinition. So I don't know where the both of you get off saying that I'm wrong, meanwhile the only thing I've done was given you information...

So long, hope you re-read my links to get the whole just of it.

G3N0M3

Wow, did you even read your own links? Did you know laws are used in making theories?

Fact < Hypothesis < Law < Theory.

Just like typical scientists we don't like misuse of scientific terminology, who's own links tell them such and are too ignorant to learn.

THEORIES DO NOT BECOME ANYTHING ELSE. THEY ALWAYS REMAIN THEORIES.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

From: http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

From your link. How dare you accuse me of not reading it when here is YOUR link contradicting YOUR post.

Don't tell me to learn about science when you get basic facts wrong. A theory is the how and why, you links even say so.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works,what causes it, and how it behaves. We also use that to develop another theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

Oh look same link is contradicting you again. Well done.

Both you an tinnie seriously need to learn what a scientific theory is because right now you both look wilfully ignorant.

And in non-oversimplified examples a theory isn't made from just one hypothesis.

Edited by Mattshark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent. Mulder

checkmate, gin and yahtzee.

Nice MS :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tinieblas

*sigh* why must it always be a competition with you two rather than what should be a relaxed and polite discussion as it was intended? The question here was, I believe " Are you trying to learn Telekenisis?" ; not "Is Telekinesis real or made up?" ....maybe for those of you who encourage reading things, you should read the title of the thread and not keep going off topic in order to persist on your personal debunking agenda rather than contributing?

Of course derailing threads is what you and Matt are all about it would seem......

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark

*sigh* why must it always be a competition with you two rather than what should be a relaxed and polite discussion as it was intended? The question here was, I believe " Are you trying to learn Telekenisis?" ; not "Is Telekinesis real or made up?" ....maybe for those of you who encourage reading things, you should read the title of the thread and not keep going off topic in order to persist on your personal debunking agenda rather than contributing?

Of course derailing threads is what you and Matt are all about it would seem......

Give over Tinnie, I politely pointed out (as I did for you) a misunderstanding of the term scientific theory. G3NOM3 then decided to dig his own hole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
G3N0M3

Give over Tinnie, I politely pointed out (as I did for you) a misunderstanding of the term scientific theory. G3NOM3 then decided to dig his own hole.

Matt.. I hope I don't have to include you in this childish game...

Agree to disagree;

Otherwise keep up the good posting, keep it within the thread and its subject... If you have a point to prove or an opinion your going to uphold please share it... Even if it gets tiring of typing it out every time, just dont do what I'm doing with this stupid game... I'm right your wrong crap, is anoying, childish and should stop please...

Just to include information about this thread; If anyone reading this is tired of reading about sad, and pethetic bickering between individuals over the stupidest things. Listen up, there are many threads that can help you learn telekinesis, in which I have linked much information on the subject. My personal advice is to practice meditating at first, then make a 'contraption' which is mentioned in these threads. Some are psi wheels (personaly don't approve) and others deal with strings, wires, and metallic objects incased in glass.

The largest and most widespread missconception about this ability is that you can "wake up" with it... You can not learn how to master or even use it within a couple months or even a couple years. This subject is not for the faint of heart, nor short on time. It takes a lot of dillegence and concintration, in which turn will help build other skills along the way, such as focus, and dependability.

Another subject that should be studied; Qi Gong, Tai Chi and other centering and physical aiding systems such as Yoga:

If anyone wants any help with things other than telekinesis you can contact me through PM, the only experience I have in it is moving a battery uphill multiple times in one shot. But it must have been a fluke, or something along the lines... Though I have never tried practicing for a couple years since that happened.

G3N0M3

Edited by G3N0M3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark

Matt.. I hope I don't have to include you in this childish game...

Agree to disagree;

Otherwise keep up the good posting, keep it within the thread and its subject... If you have a point to prove or an opinion your going to uphold please share it... Even if it gets tiring of typing it out every time, just dont do what I'm doing with this stupid game... I'm right your wrong crap, is anoying, childish and should stop please...

Just to include information about this thread; If anyone reading this is tired of reading about sad, and pethetic bickering between individuals over the stupidest things. Listen up, there are many threads that can help you learn telekinesis, in which I have linked much information on the subject. My personal advice is to practice meditating at first, then make a 'contraption' which is mentioned in these threads. Some are psi wheels (personaly don't approve) and others deal with strings, wires, and metallic objects incased in glass.

The largest and most widespread missconception about this ability is that you can "wake up" with it... You can not learn how to master or even use it within a couple months or even a couple years. This subject is not for the faint of heart, nor short on time. It takes a lot of dillegence and concintration, in which turn will help build other skills along the way, such as focus, and dependability.

Another subject that should be studied; Qi Gong, Tai Chi and other centering and physical aiding systems such as Yoga:

If anyone wants any help with things other than telekinesis you can contact me through PM, the only experience I have in it is moving a battery uphill multiple times in one shot. But it must have been a fluke, or something along the lines... Though I have never tried practicing for a couple years since that happened.

G3N0M3

I'm not talking about any of those things, all I did was point out a common but important error in terminology and you went off ranting. Sorry terminology is not a matter of opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
G3N0M3

I'm not talking about any of those things, all I did was point out a common but important error in terminology and you went off ranting. Sorry terminology is not a matter of opinion.

What?

K, I was not refering to what you said after the first full paragraph... So I don't know where that would come from, as for terminology and this whole discussion about theory and fact. Like I said, do not continue, agree to disagree as it were, myself and millions if not billions of people know the difference between fact and theory. I will even make a thread today about this whole topic, that I will be happy for you to share DETAILED opinions, and facts that you yourself believe make theory more than theory and fact less than fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nightbreez

i Have been trolling forums for a while and i can honestly say.... it is nice to find a topic that contains little arguing. anyway i am relatively new to telekinesis by relatively i mean i have tried to move objects a couple of times but to no effect. i now realize that i started at a lvl way to high.

so where should i start? i guess thats the question i am looking for. lolz.

to further help you in answering my question i would like to give a little background information about me. i started messing with "ki" when i was about 9 years old (i am 19 now) i started with a psi ball (that was visable) then i moved to what i call the finger technique and controlling various aspects of it (whether it is hot or cold, painful or soothing) then i moved to minor healing cuts scratches ect. (i acheived this by "enjecting" my ki, and making it stimulate the other persons blood/cells and speed up activity) after that i figured out how to delay the feeling of my ki and make it "activate" anytime i chose, then i was finally able to literally hurl my psi ball into things, unfortunately the most i can move with that technique is paper, so i don't foresee me blowing up anything DBZ style anytime soon lolz. and my strategy sofar in telekinesis has been ki oriented but i am thinking it is the wrong approach. and again any ideas would be greatly appreciated.

Edited by Nightbreez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
catalyst of change

i Have been trolling forums for a while and i can honestly say.... it is nice to find a topic that contains little arguing. anyway i am relatively new to telekinesis by relatively i mean i have tried to move objects a couple of times but to no effect. i now realize that i started at a lvl way to high.

so where should i start? i guess thats the question i am looking for. lolz.

to further help you in answering my question i would like to give a little background information about me. i started messing with "ki" when i was about 9 years old (i am 19 now) i started with a psi ball (that was visable) then i moved to what i call the finger technique and controlling various aspects of it (whether it is hot or cold, painful or soothing) then i moved to minor healing cuts scratches ect. (i acheived this by "enjecting" my ki, and making it stimulate the other persons blood/cells and speed up activity) after that i figured out how to delay the feeling of my ki and make it "activate" anytime i chose, then i was finally able to literally hurl my psi ball into things, unfortunately the most i can move with that technique is paper, so i don't foresee me blowing up anything DBZ style anytime soon lolz. and my strategy sofar in telekinesis has been ki oriented but i am thinking it is the wrong approach. and again any ideas would be greatly appreciated.

Yea I recently learned that mental energy/psi is FAR easier to control in feats like tk. But only if done with the third eye. The grip you feel is AMAZING. Like your mind is tightly bonded with an object. To strengthen my third eye, I have mental training with my friend where we take turns trying to get in each other's mind while the other blocks. I've gotten good enough to do this over long distances as well by locking on to their energy signature. When I attempted sending ki balls instead, they felt a minor nudge but I'm going to still strengthen my ki and take better control of it because in some techniques, you use so much energy that you can barely keep it together and it leaks. I used to use the ki shell but no longer and I believe it'll condense my energy a lot more if I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John from Lowell

i Have been trolling forums for a while and i can honestly say.... it is nice to find a topic that contains little arguing. anyway i am relatively new to telekinesis by relatively i mean i have tried to move objects a couple of times but to no effect. i now realize that i started at a lvl way to high.

so where should i start? i guess thats the question i am looking for. lolz.

to further help you in answering my question i would like to give a little background information about me. i started messing with "ki" when i was about 9 years old (i am 19 now) i started with a psi ball (that was visable) then i moved to what i call the finger technique and controlling various aspects of it (whether it is hot or cold, painful or soothing) then i moved to minor healing cuts scratches ect. (i acheived this by "enjecting" my ki, and making it stimulate the other persons blood/cells and speed up activity) after that i figured out how to delay the feeling of my ki and make it "activate" anytime i chose, then i was finally able to literally hurl my psi ball into things, unfortunately the most i can move with that technique is paper, so i don't foresee me blowing up anything DBZ style anytime soon lolz. and my strategy sofar in telekinesis has been ki oriented but i am thinking it is the wrong approach. and again any ideas would be greatly appreciated.

You may find the group at this link helpful:

http://www.telepathyacademy.com/forum/

Best Wishes!

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nightbreez

thanks for the quick replies, i am going to check that link you gave john. if i have any improvements i will be sure to post. but i don't think i'll make a major leap anytime soon, but i can always hope.

i like the training idea you mentioned walker but i have no idea how to use my third eye. i have tried before but it just doesn't work to well for me. i once knew a girl that was amazing with her psychic senses but her strongest was her psychic sight. she told me that my key was to overpowering and that i needed to control it better, cause other beings where starting to follow me around. i always knew there had to be a reason my luck was so bad. so if you have any tips on how to convert my knowledge of ki to using my third eye it would be greatly apreciated. if you have any ki related questions i would be glad to try to answer them as well. i don't know how advanced you are so i can't say for sure if i can help you or not. well hope to post back later.

Edited by Nightbreez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Soup Nazi
<_< I'm able to move small objects, but it requires ungodly concentration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
catalyst of change

Lmao @ chaos. Know what you mean. Meditation helps. Well nightbreeze. Focus on a violet dot the size of a pea opening and budding into a strong vibrant flower or vortex. Keep that concentration and imagine that that vortex is a portal to mass amounts of energy. Use that energy to amplify your third eye. Do it for 5-10 minutes a day and you should start to feel sensations. Overuse could cause daydreaming and headaches. After a week, clear your mind. Meditate on the chakra and fall into it see what things you can catch. Tune into the chakra and become one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.