A Little Weird » Forums » Measuring Psi

A Little Weird

reality bizarres the standard

You are not logged in - Join for Free - Login Forum Home » Weird Discussions » Measuring Psi

Page: Previous - 1, 2

Measuring Psi

Author | Message
--- | ---

Akio

Yes, exactly.
The problem with the Idea of Psi is your putting multiple effects into the same Category and generalizing to much... When you do things like that, you don't make yourself credible, in fact the opposite is true.
You're Assuming that telepathy and pk have the same mechanic, or at the very least, that is how you will come across to any Scientist looking at this with no background information or belief in the matter (one of the reasons behind Scientist having a tendency for Atheism).
Radioactive decay is different from Psi in the method in which it was discovered. First we discovered the Effect in which Radioactivity caused decay in the atomic structure of an atom which in turn cause the atom to change element (note; this is a very loose description). It was THEN elaborated on by the further elaboration of it's effects.
Because Psi is a mechanic, not an effect itself. We have to do this process in reverse. Meaning that we have to find all of the subsystems and variables before we can accurately classify it as the master set psi or any other master set (meaning that it is possible that everything we are doing is not related to psi and rather turns to the Idea that Psi is false, and there is no mechanic, or at least it is caused by something already defined as something else)
To find an accurate description of what psi is, we must abandon the Idea that Psi is Relative. This allows us to further our knowledge in a subject without bias.
Now do you see what I'm saying redefine?
By continuing on the course that we are taking we are performing a scientific syntax error that results in loss of credibility in the scientific community.
__________________________________________________________________
Yes, exactly. The problem with the Idea of Psi is your putting multiple effects into the same Category and generalizing to much... When you do things like that, you don't make yourself credible, in fact the opposite is true. You're Assuming that telepathy and pk have the same mechanic, or at the very least, that is how you will come across to any Scientist looking at this with no background information or belief in the matter (one of the reasons behind Scientist having a tendency for Atheism). Radioactive decay is different from Psi in the method in which it was discovered. First we discovered the Effect in which Radioactivity caused decay in the atomic structure of an atom which in turn cause the atom to change element (note; this is a very loose description). It was THEN elaborated on by the further elaboration of it's effects. Because Psi is a mechanic, not an effect itself. We have to do this process in reverse. Meaning that we have to find all of the subsystems and variables before we can accurately classify it as the master set psi or any other master set (meaning that it is possible that everything we are doing is not related to psi and rather turns to the Idea that Psi is false, and there is no mechanic, or at least it is caused by something already defined as something else) To find an accurate description of what psi is, we must abandon the Idea that Psi is Relative. This allows us to further our knowledge in a subject without bias. Now do you see what I'm saying redefine? By continuing on the course that we are taking we are performing a scientific syntax error that results in loss of credibility in the scientific community. __________________________________________________________________

Last edited by Akio, 4 years, 5 months ago
Posted 4 years, 5 months ago

redefine

i see what your saying, and in one sense your right. but i still dont agree that we should abandon 'psi'.
oh well. to be honest, it dosent REALLY matter what you call it, and having this discussion isnt gonna change the mechanic either.
(i just prefer keeping 'psi' as a master set, and dumping all the mechanics inside of it, weather known or unknown)
i see what your saying, and in one sense your right. but i still dont agree that we should abandon 'psi'. oh well. to be honest, it dosent REALLY matter what you call it, and having this discussion isnt gonna change the mechanic either. (i just prefer keeping 'psi' as a master set, and dumping all the mechanics inside of it, weather known or unknown)

Posted 4 years, 5 months ago

Akio

To be honest... I think that we should truly abandon psi either... I'm just saying that we need to stop using it so generally. I don't agree with the end statement in parenthesis just because of my thirst for knowledge.
I think that we should keep the definition, but abandon it in explanation in order to further our knowledge of the subject.
Granted, for teaching, sometimes having a master set is helpful. Needed? No, but helpful for the teacher.
In reality, half the time we don't know what the fuck (excuse the language ^.^) we're actually experiencing, so we tend to describe it one of the two ways.
1.) We generalize the effect as Psi and move on, not taking any time to really examine what it is (excluding rooting out key issues such as wind and the like).
2.) We describe the feeling of it through your own body, the reactions, etc. In this we tend not to have any doubt in the experience (which leads to possible corruption of information), which allows us to elaborate, but at a risk of fallacious information.
Both of these lead us to discreditably in the eyes of the scientific community, who, lets face it, control a good portion of the general public's opinion.
I think that when we experience something, we need to explain things differently so that anyone looking down upon the information can understand it from the scientific viewpoint simply because of the above fact. This is, of course, if the goal is to try and prove the existence of Psi and the possibility of Tk along with everything else.
If I were to give a guide for this type of explanation, I would say the following;
Try to explain things in a feeling sort of way, along with the objective physical effects that have gone on, the facts, without any mention of unknowns such as psi (because psi is a hypothesis in the scientific community and basing a hypothesis off of a hypothesis then you will lose any credibility one would hope to gain from the statement). Then, you need to state any other variables that could have had an effect on the situation.
Now... Some people already follow this example here, and I'm glad to see that, because it allows for good information that can be easily elaborated on. You are saying that Psi simplifies things? I think quite the opposite, but then again, it seems we're trying to reach different goals?
From the standpoint of a mentalist, I would say that your goal here is to try to keep the explanations simple for you so that you can further your progress in the field of psionics. i.e. You really want to achieve something like full out macro pk, and although you have achieved things such as energy manipulation and, from my guess, empathy at a small to medium degree, you feel that this really isn't enough for you and that you've hit a roadblock with pk.
I would also guess that you have made a little progress with a psi wheel (that was out in open air) and unverifiable effects with other objects where it looked a little like the objects moved but you really weren't sure, these objects were probably like paperclips, but I'm not sensing anything as big as a pencil...
Where as my goals are different, I wish not to improve my skills until I fully understand what's behind them. I mean, yes I do practice the effects, but for me, it's all hit and miss until I know the mechanics behind it.
In effect, we do have the same end goal. The only difference is I'm looking for the light switch and you're feeling around the room, we're both looking for the key to tk, but we're looking in different ways.
You see what I mean?
To be honest... I think that we should truly abandon psi either... I'm just saying that we need to stop using it so generally. I don't agree with the end statement in parenthesis just because of my thirst for knowledge. I think that we should keep the definition, but abandon it in explanation in order to further our knowledge of the subject. Granted, for teaching, sometimes having a master set is helpful. Needed? No, but helpful for the teacher. In reality, half the time we don't know what the fuck (excuse the language ^.^) we're actually experiencing, so we tend to describe it one of the two ways. 1.) We generalize the effect as Psi and move on, not taking any time to really examine what it is (excluding rooting out key issues such as wind and the like). 2.) We describe the feeling of it through your own body, the reactions, etc. In this we tend not to have any doubt in the experience (which leads to possible corruption of information), which allows us to elaborate, but at a risk of fallacious information. Both of these lead us to discreditably in the eyes of the scientific community, who, lets face it, control a good portion of the general public's opinion. I think that when we experience something, we need to explain things differently so that anyone looking down upon the information can understand it from the scientific viewpoint simply because of the above fact. This is, of course, if the goal is to try and prove the existence of Psi and the possibility of Tk along with everything else. If I were to give a guide for this type of explanation, I would say the following; Try to explain things in a feeling sort of way, along with the objective physical effects that have gone on, the facts, without any mention of unknowns such as psi (because psi is a hypothesis in the scientific community and basing a hypothesis off of a hypothesis then you will lose any credibility one would hope to gain from the statement). Then, you need to state any other variables that could have had an effect on the situation. Now... Some people already follow this example here, and I'm glad to see that, because it allows for good information that can be easily elaborated on. You are saying that Psi simplifies things? I think quite the opposite, but then again, it seems we're trying to reach different goals? From the standpoint of a mentalist, I would say that your goal here is to try to keep the explanations simple for you so that you can further your progress in the field of psionics. i.e. You really want to achieve something like full out macro pk, and although you have achieved things such as energy manipulation and, from my guess, empathy at a small to medium degree, you feel that this really isn't enough for you and that you've hit a roadblock with pk. I would also guess that you have made a little progress with a psi wheel (that was out in open air) and unverifiable effects with other objects where it looked a little like the objects moved but you really weren't sure, these objects were probably like paperclips, but I'm not sensing anything as big as a pencil... Where as my goals are different, I wish not to improve my skills until I fully understand what's behind them. I mean, yes I do practice the effects, but for me, it's all hit and miss until I know the mechanics behind it. In effect, we do have the same end goal. The only difference is I'm looking for the light switch and you're feeling around the room, we're both looking for the key to tk, but we're looking in different ways. You see what I mean?

Posted 4 years, 5 months ago

ErikJDurwoodII

"Measuring Psi" is one of the great challenges we face in the scientific investigation of psionics.
One factor is that "Psi" is a blanket term that is used in various ways that are not always "quantitative." One person will talk about "needing more psi" while another will state that "it was psi that did it."
As was mentioned previously in this thread, how "psi" behaves is multi-faceted and is very difficult to standardize.
Personally, I regard "psi" in the same I regard "wind." There is no "wind" as a thing. It is moving air. We measure wind by how it affects another instrument or object. We can measure the speed, the pressure and the density of air and that gives us indicators to how waves on the ocean nad the patterns of weather and such behave.
From my research, I have reasons to believe that "psi" is simply the observed effect of another more fundamental system of energy making changes to the physical. I feel it's safe to say that "psi" is not a special energy all its own but as air in motion becomes wind, this energy put to action becomes what we call "psi."
Without going in to too much detail, research indicates that the energy at work here is potential energy stored in the environment (universe). Pressure on this energy (scalars) creates stress energy (potential) that can be programmed with information (thought) to do work.
I have secretly been working on a unit of measure for "psi." It's okay enough for my work but it definitely needs a lot more refinement to be useful to others. It's a unit of measure for "psi influence" on a measured quantity of material.
The point of reference is a sphere of platinum-iridium alloy suspended by a wire from an axis two feet from a table surface.
The material is very pure and consistent. If indeed my theories are true that PK is a passive effect that interacts with an object's material rather than an active force that "pushes" an object, the sphere will require a consistent amount of "influence" to move it a specific distance. A laser measures the degree of movement and that corresponds so the amount of "influence" "psi" has over the object. Thus far tests have been positive.
In my mind, "psi" as a “stuff” is only present with energy manipulation and psychokinesis. Telepathy, empathy and other thought-based skills work purely on an information level and are not related to "psi" as a substance; basically the distinction of Psi-Kappa and Psi-Gamma.
"Psi" as a classification encompasses it all, but it not measurable as such. It's just a classification.
My method for measurement seems to be consistent enough for PK measurement. It has an unchanging reference point and seems to be repeatable between testers. I have a tentative designation of "PKI" for "unit of psychokinetic influence." I used platinum-iridium alloy because it is directly related to the determination of the International Prototype Kilogram. Though material densities differ, with marginal accuracy I can weigh an object in kilograms, measure its dimensions, estimate its volume and know how many "PKI's of influence" are needed to move it before resistance.
The interesting component here is that a "field of influence" comes in to affect. Roughly calculated it takes 1pki of influence to get 180g of platinum-iridium to travel 1cm in one second; but only if you envelop the entire object with influence. If you are "tugging" on only a small portion of the object you will need much more influence to move it. The same goes the other way. If the object weighs the same but is larger in volume (is less dense) it will take far less total influence to move provided you can distribute the influence across the entire object.
It's very neat stuff.
I'm working with some colleagues to fix some of the broken math and hopefully have a usable standard by year's end.
Now this is all well and good for PK but what about energy manipulation? Well, at the moment, we can only measure what is interacting with physicality. Once energy interacts with the physical it has become psychokinesis.
I’m working on a way to measure how energy in energy manipulation behaves by creating physical fields that are modulated by the energy passing through them or around them but for obvious reasons that is much more difficult.
My goal with PKI is to give us a physically grounded way to measure PK influence in a reliable way. I think it achieves that. The next (big) step is to see how energy manipulation like constructs, shields and such can be “measured” using understood and reliable reference points. But we have to leave the physical to examine that.
While PKI gives us a reference of physical effect, it still doesn’t give us insight into the energy used to fuel PK as well as other skills and abilities. But we are getting there. ^__^
Heh. Wish me luck!
- Erik J. Durwood II
"Measuring Psi" is one of the great challenges we face in the scientific investigation of psionics. One factor is that "Psi" is a blanket term that is used in various ways that are not always "quantitative." One person will talk about "needing more psi" while another will state that "it was psi that did it." As was mentioned previously in this thread, how "psi" behaves is multi-faceted and is very difficult to standardize. Personally, I regard "psi" in the same I regard "wind." There is no "wind" as a thing. It is moving air. We measure wind by how it affects another instrument or object. We can measure the speed, the pressure and the density of air and that gives us indicators to how waves on the ocean nad the patterns of weather and such behave. From my research, I have reasons to believe that "psi" is simply the observed effect of another more fundamental system of energy making changes to the physical. I feel it's safe to say that "psi" is not a special energy all its own but as air in motion becomes wind, this energy put to action becomes what we call "psi." Without going in to too much detail, research indicates that the energy at work here is potential energy stored in the environment (universe). Pressure on this energy (scalars) creates stress energy (potential) that can be programmed with information (thought) to do work. I have secretly been working on a unit of measure for "psi." It's okay enough for my work but it definitely needs a lot more refinement to be useful to others. It's a unit of measure for "psi influence" on a measured quantity of material. The point of reference is a sphere of platinum-iridium alloy suspended by a wire from an axis two feet from a table surface. The material is very pure and consistent. If indeed my theories are true that PK is a passive effect that interacts with an object's material rather than an active force that "pushes" an object, the sphere will require a consistent amount of "influence" to move it a specific distance. A laser measures the degree of movement and that corresponds so the amount of "influence" "psi" has over the object. Thus far tests have been positive. In my mind, "psi" as a “stuff” is only present with energy manipulation and psychokinesis. Telepathy, empathy and other thought-based skills work purely on an information level and are not related to "psi" as a substance; basically the distinction of Psi-Kappa and Psi-Gamma. "Psi" as a classification encompasses it all, but it not measurable as such. It's just a classification. My method for measurement seems to be consistent enough for PK measurement. It has an unchanging reference point and seems to be repeatable between testers. I have a tentative designation of "PKI" for "unit of psychokinetic influence." I used platinum-iridium alloy because it is directly related to the determination of the International Prototype Kilogram. Though material densities differ, with marginal accuracy I can weigh an object in kilograms, measure its dimensions, estimate its volume and know how many "PKI's of influence" are needed to move it before resistance. The interesting component here is that a "field of influence" comes in to affect. Roughly calculated it takes 1pki of influence to get 180g of platinum-iridium to travel 1cm in one second; but only if you envelop the entire object with influence. If you are "tugging" on only a small portion of the object you will need much more influence to move it. The same goes the other way. If the object weighs the same but is larger in volume (is less dense) it will take far less total influence to move provided you can distribute the influence across the entire object. It's very neat stuff. I'm working with some colleagues to fix some of the broken math and hopefully have a usable standard by year's end. Now this is all well and good for PK but what about energy manipulation? Well, at the moment, we can only measure what is interacting with physicality. Once energy interacts with the physical it has become psychokinesis. I’m working on a way to measure how energy in energy manipulation behaves by creating physical fields that are modulated by the energy passing through them or around them but for obvious reasons that is much more difficult. My goal with PKI is to give us a physically grounded way to measure PK influence in a reliable way. I think it achieves that. The next (big) step is to see how energy manipulation like constructs, shields and such can be “measured” using understood and reliable reference points. But we have to leave the physical to examine that. While PKI gives us a reference of physical effect, it still doesn’t give us insight into the energy used to fuel PK as well as other skills and abilities. But we are getting there. ^__^ Heh. Wish me luck! - Erik J. Durwood II

Posted 4 years, 5 months ago

chillpill

Erik J. Durwood II: You definately seem to live up to your reputation.
Erik J. Durwood II: You definately seem to live up to your reputation.

Posted 4 years, 5 months ago

Akio

No kidding ^_^, you always give a great answer Erik J. Durwood II.
Would it be safe to say that Pk has a field similar to that of a magnet, in the sense that you are aligning psi (if psi is indeed something similar to energy) in a field created by thought in any particular location which then causes the objects atoms to align itself to the source of the field (and therefore move?)
Which is to say that Pk in itself doesn't require work, but the actual creation of the field does?
I'm really not sure, but am I touching on the basic Idea you have here? Either way I think this has Merit. The only hard part is figuring out how to get that original alignment of energy, and proving that the effects you have recorded are acctually caused by other effects. Which I'm assuming you are trying to do by using a larger object not affected by many other forces.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to your results.
No kidding ^_^, you always give a great answer Erik J. Durwood II. Would it be safe to say that Pk has a field similar to that of a magnet, in the sense that you are aligning psi (if psi is indeed something similar to energy) in a field created by thought in any particular location which then causes the objects atoms to align itself to the source of the field (and therefore move?) Which is to say that Pk in itself doesn't require work, but the actual creation of the field does? I'm really not sure, but am I touching on the basic Idea you have here? Either way I think this has Merit. The only hard part is figuring out how to get that original alignment of energy, and proving that the effects you have recorded are acctually caused by other effects. Which I'm assuming you are trying to do by using a larger object not affected by many other forces. Anyway, I'm looking forward to your results.

Last edited by Akio, 4 years, 5 months ago
Posted 4 years, 5 months ago

ErikJDurwoodII

Akio:
You pretty much get it though alignment of the atoms may not be the cause of the motion. If you put a boat in a flowing river it will be pulled or pushed in the direction the water is flowing. Think of this like you are catching material in a flowing stream of energy and you control where the energy flows. You could liken this to magnetic fields in the way that the field of influence permeates the object and pulls or pushes it around. The difference here is that this field works with all materials regardless of their magnetic susceptibility. Tests have shown that PK influence on a magnet gave no perceivable benefit or detriment to an ingot of metal of the same dimensions and density.
One stem of this project is looking at diamagnetism as a possible means of control. All materials exhibit diamagnetism so it could be that we are interacting with objects on that level. The theory of Nucleonic Energy also poses some possible avenues of control.
Levitating non-magnetic objects has been achieved with specially-created electromagnetic fields leveraging diamagnetism to an extreme. This was done at the Radboud University in Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
http://www.hfml.ru.nl/froglev.html
Linking this to PK is a task, but there are clues all round the scientific community that suggest with enough energy and control of the fields, stuff like this is possible.
Now we examine how WE do it with PK and EM.
Akio: You pretty much get it though alignment of the atoms may not be the cause of the motion. If you put a boat in a flowing river it will be pulled or pushed in the direction the water is flowing. Think of this like you are catching material in a flowing stream of energy and you control where the energy flows. You could liken this to magnetic fields in the way that the field of influence permeates the object and pulls or pushes it around. The difference here is that this field works with all materials regardless of their magnetic susceptibility. Tests have shown that PK influence on a magnet gave no perceivable benefit or detriment to an ingot of metal of the same dimensions and density. One stem of this project is looking at diamagnetism as a possible means of control. All materials exhibit diamagnetism so it could be that we are interacting with objects on that level. The theory of Nucleonic Energy also poses some possible avenues of control. Levitating non-magnetic objects has been achieved with specially-created electromagnetic fields leveraging diamagnetism to an extreme. This was done at the Radboud University in Nijmegen, The Netherlands. http://www.hfml.ru.nl/froglev.html Linking this to PK is a task, but there are clues all round the scientific community that suggest with enough energy and control of the fields, stuff like this is possible. Now we examine how WE do it with PK and EM.

Posted 4 years, 5 months ago

Akio

Hmmmm, Very interesting...
Hmmmm, Very interesting...

Posted 4 years, 5 months ago

Antisankari

But is the creature called human being capable of producing "enough energy" to cause the effects?
After all, levitation is nothing special. Human being performing it is.
But is the creature called human being capable of producing "enough energy" to cause the effects? After all, levitation is nothing special. Human being performing it is.

Posted 4 years, 5 months ago

ErikJDurwoodII

There is evidence that suggests so. Understand, the Nijmegen magnet basically bombards from the outside in to counteract the effects of gravity. If we can change the how gravity affects the object, we basically have the energy we need, we just have to control it. And of course the less efficient the process the more energy is wasted.
^__^
"Fall that way"
There is evidence that suggests so. Understand, the Nijmegen magnet basically bombards from the outside in to counteract the effects of gravity. If we can change the how gravity affects the object, we basically have the energy we need, we just have to control it. And of course the less efficient the process the more energy is wasted. ^__^ "Fall that way"

Posted 4 years, 5 months ago

Antisankari

Lets have a hypothetic experience.
We are flying on an airplane that is carrying a heavy ball in its cargo hold. The ball is interacting with the earths gravity field. This is manifested as the perceived weight of the object.
If our airplane took a steep and sudden descent, for a moment we would experience a state of artificial zero gravity. The formerly heavy ball would still have its mass, but due to our current state, zero weight.
The gravity has been pulling the ball down towards the earth the whole time. Our sudden nose dive has just created an illusion of weightless environment. However the gravity is still affecting the object just as strongly as it was before our dive.
Now, if in this state we were to push the ball down towards the earth by psychic means, we would not be able to do so.
If the objects "force vector" is already pointing towards earth, there should be no way of moving it by manipulating the direction gravity affects the object.
We could reverse the gravitational effect, and cause the object to go sky high at the acceleration of 9.82 m/s². However, we could not make the object to move towards the direction its already been pulled by the gravity.
Claiming that would mean that we can actually increase the effect gravity has on objects. As this would seem to violate the energy conservation priciple.
Im not sure if I explained this well, or even remotely coherently.
If I undrestood what you were saying above, this would be an interesting test case.
If the test results followed my description, it would prove the tie between psychokinesis and gravitational manipulation.
Lets have a hypothetic experience. We are flying on an airplane that is carrying a heavy ball in its cargo hold. The ball is interacting with the earths gravity field. This is manifested as the perceived weight of the object. If our airplane took a steep and sudden descent, for a moment we would experience a state of artificial zero gravity. The formerly heavy ball would still have its mass, but due to our current state, zero weight. The gravity has been pulling the ball down towards the earth the whole time. Our sudden nose dive has just created an illusion of weightless environment. However the gravity is still affecting the object just as strongly as it was before our dive. Now, if in this state we were to push the ball down towards the earth by psychic means, we would not be able to do so. If the objects "force vector" is already pointing towards earth, there should be no way of moving it by manipulating the direction gravity affects the object. We could reverse the gravitational effect, and cause the object to go sky high at the acceleration of 9.82 m/s². However, we could not make the object to move towards the direction its already been pulled by the gravity. Claiming that would mean that we can actually increase the effect gravity has on objects. As this would seem to violate the energy conservation priciple. Im not sure if I explained this well, or even remotely coherently. If I undrestood what you were saying above, this would be an interesting test case. If the test results followed my description, it would prove the tie between psychokinesis and gravitational manipulation.

Last edited by Antisankari, 4 years, 5 months ago
Posted 4 years, 5 months ago

ErikJDurwoodII

In zero gravity an object's mass describes its inertial property. An object has "weight" when gravity pulls on it. Gravity is an external force that affects the mass of an object. We still need to overcome the inertia of an object even when there is no gravity. When an object is pulled by gravity but is obstructed by, say, the floor or a table, that energy is stored in the object as potential energy. That energy can in theory be redirected or re-utilized at will.
The infamous "Hutchison Effect" and Mel Winfields "theory of nucleonic energy" Supposedly give ways of achieving this.
But it's all still very hypothetical. Some tests have been done and some say they are positive but we are walking on the "fringe" with everything here. ^__^
Also Spatial/temporal distortions supposedly affect physical constants locally. The same physical constants that lay the foundation of physics. You mess with them and everything in that area will go haywire.
hmmmmm.
- Erik
In zero gravity an object's mass describes its inertial property. An object has "weight" when gravity pulls on it. Gravity is an external force that affects the mass of an object. We still need to overcome the inertia of an object even when there is no gravity. When an object is pulled by gravity but is obstructed by, say, the floor or a table, that energy is stored in the object as potential energy. That energy can in theory be redirected or re-utilized at will. The infamous "Hutchison Effect" and Mel Winfields "theory of nucleonic energy" Supposedly give ways of achieving this. But it's all still very hypothetical. Some tests have been done and some say they are positive but we are walking on the "fringe" with everything here. ^__^ Also Spatial/temporal distortions supposedly affect physical constants locally. The same physical constants that lay the foundation of physics. You mess with them and everything in that area will go haywire. hmmmmm. - Erik

Last edited by ErikJDurwoodII, 4 years, 5 months ago
Posted 4 years, 5 months ago

Antisankari

posted by ErikJDurwoodII:
That energy can in theory be redirected or re-utilized at will.
This could be proved in a simplified version of the test I described above.
Take a sensitive scale and put an apple on it. The pull of gravity causes the apple to have potential energy, that we could theoretically redirect.
I think this is the keyword here: "Redirect".
If the gravitational force is already pulling the object downwards as strong as it can, there should be no way of "pushing" the apple down, as that is the direction gravity is pulling it already. Pushing the apple against the scale would require increase in its already present potential energy.
Wow... I haven't seen a thread like this in ages. Here we are actually having something to base our assumptions on.
[quote][i]posted by ErikJDurwoodII:[/i] That energy can in theory be redirected or re-utilized at will. [/quote] This could be proved in a simplified version of the test I described above. Take a sensitive scale and put an apple on it. The pull of gravity causes the apple to have potential energy, that we could theoretically redirect. I think this is the keyword here: "Redirect". If the gravitational force is already pulling the object downwards as strong as it can, there should be no way of "pushing" the apple down, as that is the direction gravity is pulling it already. Pushing the apple against the scale would require increase in its already present potential energy. Wow... I haven't seen a thread like this in ages. Here we are actually having something to base our assumptions on.

Posted 4 years, 5 months ago

Page: Previous - 1, 2

Add Reply

You are not allowed to post. Please login (or join for free).

All Content, Images, Video, Text, and Software is © Copyright 2007-2009 Sean Connelly and their respective authors. All Rights Reserved.
Best viewed with Firefox, with minimum resolution of 1024 x 768. Microsoft can suck my balls.
A Little Weird is proudly powered by WordPress - Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).