A Little Weird » Forums » powers

A Little Weird

reality bizarres the standard

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

Page: Previous - 1, 2, 3 - Next

powers

Author | Message
--- | ---

Waldo

I've used the "I'm not here" shield before. Rather useful in the right situation. And fun to play with. =)
I've used the "I'm not here" shield before. Rather useful in the right situation. And fun to play with. =)

Posted 4 years, 6 months ago

INTENSE

what about psionically enhanced vision? i was just wondering how that would work/if it would work
what about psionically enhanced vision? i was just wondering how that would work/if it would work

Posted 4 years, 6 months ago

Anonymous Dark

Mmm, that sort of thing has been talked about before, and I've heard that it would be both impractical and very hard, and perhaps not even work at all.
Mmm, that sort of thing has been talked about before, and I've heard that it would be both impractical and very hard, and perhaps not even work at all.

Posted 4 years, 6 months ago

bd333

Hmm, what about this: If nobody can see you, you are invisible, but what if you trick other people's minds into not seeing you (instead of using the shield method, ect.); maybe thats one way to achieve invisibility?
--BD
Hmm, what about this: If nobody can see you, you are invisible, but what if you trick other people's minds into not seeing you (instead of using the shield method, ect.); maybe thats one way to achieve invisibility? --BD

Posted 4 years, 6 months ago

Anonymous Dark

@bd333 - That's basically what everyone's talking about, I think. Blending in with the crowd; making people not really pay attention to you. Light is still bouncing off of you and into their retinas, but you're just a grain of sand on a beach.
@bd333 - That's basically what everyone's talking about, I think. Blending in with the crowd; making people not really pay attention to you. Light is still bouncing off of you and into their retinas, but you're just a grain of sand on a beach.

Posted 4 years, 6 months ago

joke-lain

Yeah, that is basically what we've been talking about.
I have a weird question for everybody. If your mentally not there(off in space or in deep thought, not being aware of your surroundings), Could you theoretically physically not be seen and be unaware that you're "invisible"? Whether you're blending in with the crowd or actually subconsciously using psi power to turn invisible.
@ace_of_spades
Yeah, Most people are surprised about my interests.
Yeah, that is basically what we've been talking about. I have a weird question for everybody. If your mentally not there(off in space or in deep thought, not being aware of your surroundings), Could you theoretically physically not be seen and be unaware that you're "invisible"? Whether you're blending in with the crowd or actually subconsciously using psi power to turn invisible. @ace_of_spades Yeah, Most people are surprised about my interests.

Posted 4 years, 6 months ago

Akio

with pure intent, one can trick everyone else into thinking that they're gone. It's simple, if you understand the Idea behinfd it.
honestly, without using psi as a medium, all I have to do it putforth absolutely no intent to be noticed, and I am invisible. The reason why the intent of " I am invisible" doesn't or wouldn't work in this scenario is because saying a I'm invisible is drawing attention to yourself in some way. The beuty of this method is that it cannot be detected by another psion. With an "invisibility shield" you have all mediums covored except the fact that there is a shiel up for it.
I'm sorry, I'm rambling by now... it's pretty late.
anyway, your thoughts?
with pure intent, one can trick everyone else into thinking that they're gone. It's simple, if you understand the Idea behinfd it. honestly, without using psi as a medium, all I have to do it putforth absolutely no intent to be noticed, and I am invisible. The reason why the intent of " I am invisible" doesn't or wouldn't work in this scenario is because saying a I'm invisible is drawing attention to yourself in some way. The beuty of this method is that it cannot be detected by another psion. With an "invisibility shield" you have all mediums covored except the fact that there is a shiel up for it. I'm sorry, I'm rambling by now... it's pretty late. anyway, your thoughts?

Posted 4 years, 6 months ago

joke-lain

@akio
Have you ever done that around your friends?
Honestly, I can't stand crowds anyway. So hiding in them is quite hard for me because I always feel someone is watching me. So I usually leave when I want to be invisible.
@akio Have you ever done that around your friends? Honestly, I can't stand crowds anyway. So hiding in them is quite hard for me because I always feel someone is watching me. So I usually leave when I want to be invisible.

Posted 4 years, 6 months ago

Wandering Wolf

I think he's saying that, while he's not literally "invisible", he can blend in very well with a crowd
Hmmm, while I'm sure that that is the most likely explanation for this scenario, I do not completely doubt that true invisibility could be a possibility.
I spent quite some time debating with someone about how true invisibility would work back in the days of psipog. I no longer disagree with this person and have accepted it along with my own theory for how true invisibility may work.
The way I see it is that true invisibility might possibly be obtained in one of two ways:
1. The person changes the resonance of his/her atoms so that photons (light particles) are able to pass through his/her body. I very much doubt that changing one's atomic resonsance would even yield this result, but it's probably worth thinking about at least.
2. The person manipulates photons (preferably with a construct) so that they bend around, rather than hit and bounce off of, the person's body and bounce off of a (visible or invisible) "substance" located behind the person's body where they again bend around the person's body and enter the observer's eyes.
The latter may seem a little complicated without a visual representation for some, so here is a more simplified explanation:
The light rays simply "avoid" the person, go behind that person, bounce off of something, and "avoid" the person on the way back to the observer's eyes. The result is that the observer sees the imagery behind the person and not the actual person since the light does not touch him/her.
The theory just described definitely seems very possible to me, while the other theory probably has less than a 1% chance of yielding any positive results.
@ace_of_spades
ya seriously it's not that hard to tell she's a girl
How so? (I'm just curious, but if you don't want to mention how then don't reply to this) I wouldn't have been able to tell if I did not read her post in the "Introduce Yourself" thread.
Unless I have other information to go on, I almost always presuppose that a person with an unidentified gender could be a member of either gender. It is surprising to see how many people do not bother to think about the possibilities and include inclusive words, such as "he/she", "his or her", "him/her", etc.
I rarely see differences between members of the two genders online (except when you are dealing with people who use colloquialisms and other poor language habits often).
It goes to show you that there are not as many differences between the two genders as many would have us believe.
[quote] I think he's saying that, while he's not literally "invisible", he can blend in very well with a crowd [/quote] Hmmm, while I'm sure that that is the most likely explanation for this scenario, I do not completely doubt that true invisibility could be a possibility. I spent quite some time debating with someone about how true invisibility would work back in the days of psipog. I no longer disagree with this person and have accepted it along with my own theory for how true invisibility may work. The way I see it is that true invisibility might possibly be obtained in one of two ways: 1. The person changes the resonance of his/her atoms so that photons (light particles) are able to pass through his/her body. I very much doubt that changing one's atomic resonsance would even yield this result, but it's probably worth thinking about at least. 2. The person manipulates photons (preferably with a construct) so that they bend around, rather than hit and bounce off of, the person's body and bounce off of a (visible or invisible) "substance" located behind the person's body where they again bend around the person's body and enter the observer's eyes. The latter may seem a little complicated without a visual representation for some, so here is a more simplified explanation: The light rays simply "avoid" the person, go behind that person, bounce off of something, and "avoid" the person on the way back to the observer's eyes. The result is that the observer sees the imagery behind the person and not the actual person since the light does not touch him/her. The theory just described definitely seems very possible to me, while the other theory probably has less than a 1% chance of yielding any positive results. @ace_of_spades [quote] ya seriously it's not that hard to tell she's a girl [/quote] How so? (I'm just curious, but if you don't want to mention how then don't reply to this) I wouldn't have been able to tell if I did not read her post in the "Introduce Yourself" thread. Unless I have other information to go on, I almost always presuppose that a person with an unidentified gender could be a member of either gender. It is surprising to see how many people do not bother to think about the possibilities and include inclusive words, such as "he/she", "his or her", "him/her", etc. I rarely see differences between members of the two genders online (except when you are dealing with people who use colloquialisms and other poor language habits often). It goes to show you that there are not as many differences between the two genders as many would have us believe.

Posted 4 years, 6 months ago

Waldo

@Wandering Wolf:
"The light rays simply "avoid" the person, go behind that person, bounce off of something, and "avoid" the person on the way back to the observer's eyes. The result is that the observer sees the imagery behind the person and not the actual person since the light does not touch him/her."
... Doesn't this mean the person causing it to happen wouldn't be able to see anything? If all the light coming at him or her is bent around the construct, surely it would also prevent it from reaching the psion's eyes? This is just speculation, of course. You may correct me if I am wrong. =P I'm not sure my constructs are that advanced anyway. And if other people's are, I suppose they might be able to do something about that with programming. =P Just thought I would throw this out there.
@Wandering Wolf: "The light rays simply "avoid" the person, go behind that person, bounce off of something, and "avoid" the person on the way back to the observer's eyes. The result is that the observer sees the imagery behind the person and not the actual person since the light does not touch him/her." ... Doesn't this mean the person causing it to happen wouldn't be able to see anything? If all the light coming at him or her is bent around the construct, surely it would also prevent it from reaching the psion's eyes? This is just speculation, of course. You may correct me if I am wrong. =P I'm not sure my constructs are that advanced anyway. And if other people's are, I suppose they might be able to do something about that with programming. =P Just thought I would throw this out there.

Posted 4 years, 6 months ago

Wandering Wolf

@Waldo
Doesn't this mean the person causing it to happen wouldn't be able to see anything?
Yes. I believe that you are completely correct. I hadn't thought of that before. Thank you for pointing that out. That said, true invisibility would only be useful if used while stationary.
However, one could probably program the construct so that a very small amount of light could hit a very minute section of his or her eyes. Of course, if it wasn't made small enough, you would see two two-dimensional floating black dots XD.
A similar technique could probably be done with the other invisibility technique as well. Based on your answer, I'm assuming that you do not think that a change in atomic resonsance would result in invisibility. I'd like to hear your argument against it so that I can see the possible flaw(s) in my logic.
@Waldo [quote] Doesn't this mean the person causing it to happen wouldn't be able to see anything? [/quote] Yes. I believe that you are completely correct. I hadn't thought of that before. Thank you for pointing that out. That said, true invisibility would only be useful if used while stationary. However, one could probably program the construct so that a very small amount of light could hit a very minute section of his or her eyes. Of course, if it wasn't made small enough, you would see two two-dimensional floating black dots XD. A similar technique could probably be done with the other invisibility technique as well. Based on your answer, I'm assuming that you do not think that a change in atomic resonsance would result in invisibility. I'd like to hear your argument against it so that I can see the possible flaw(s) in my logic.

Posted 4 years, 6 months ago

Falcon

Well, I don't know if I'm correct, but from my opinion the solution doesn't seem extremely hard.
I mean, your construct shouldn't let the INCOMING light go arround your body, it's fine that the light touches your body, this way you can see anything.
However, if you want to be invisible, you should program your construct to let light from behind you (OUTCOMING) bend arround you and go to the other, and not letting the light that touches you bounce back.
I don't know if I made myself completely clear, my English isn't that good,
but I hope you understand me ;)
F.
*EDIT: I uploaded a picture of what I meant, the arrows indicate light.
Well, I don't know if I'm correct, but from my opinion the solution doesn't seem extremely hard. I mean, your construct shouldn't let the INCOMING light go arround your body, it's fine that the light touches your body, this way you can see anything. However, if you want to be invisible, you should program your construct to let light from behind you (OUTCOMING) bend arround you and go to the other, and not letting the light that touches you bounce back. I don't know if I made myself completely clear, my English isn't that good, but I hope you understand me ;) F. *EDIT: I uploaded a picture of what I meant, the arrows indicate light. [URL=http://img174.imageshack.us/my.php?image=invisibilitymp0.jpg][IMG]http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/7249/invisibilitymp0.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

Last edited by Falcon, 4 years, 6 months ago
Posted 4 years, 6 months ago

Waldo

@Wandering Wolf:
It's not that I'm unsure that changing one's atomic resonance wouldn't produce the desired result; it's more that I cannot even conceive how much skill that would take to do. And how dangerous it might be. Bending light is one thing, but changing the way your own particles are... strikes me as a little foolish. On par with trying to induce phasing, in fact. Still, if people are crazy enough to want to try, I won't stop them. In my experience, if you can deflect people's attention from you then you don't *need* to be invisible. =)
@Wandering Wolf: It's not that I'm unsure that changing one's atomic resonance wouldn't produce the desired result; it's more that I cannot even conceive how much skill that would take to do. And how dangerous it might be. Bending light is one thing, but changing the way your own particles are... strikes me as a little foolish. On par with trying to induce phasing, in fact. Still, if people are crazy enough to want to try, I won't stop them. In my experience, if you can deflect people's attention from you then you don't *need* to be invisible. =)

Posted 4 years, 6 months ago

Ghost

@Waldo, Darth Revan?
Although the science behind psi is important, perhapes the: you have to bend light around etc etc. is just over analising? what i mean we dont need to be aware of the chemical energy converting into kinetic energy in order to move, we simply walk.
Perhapes all we need to become invisible is the desire to become invisible. Though this is proberly just a reflection on my willpower aproach to psionics.
And as for inventing new powers (i agree bout whats been said how you cant invent etc..) I did 'delete' part of my personality, a good idea and a very bad one, as far as im aware i cant hate anymore and im a bit more detached then i used to be.
@Waldo, Darth Revan? Although the science behind psi is important, perhapes the: you have to bend light around etc etc. is just over analising? what i mean we dont need to be aware of the chemical energy converting into kinetic energy in order to move, we simply walk. Perhapes all we need to become invisible is the desire to become invisible. Though this is proberly just a reflection on my willpower aproach to psionics. And as for inventing new powers (i agree bout whats been said how you cant invent etc..) I did 'delete' part of my personality, a good idea and a very bad one, as far as im aware i cant hate anymore and im a bit more detached then i used to be.

Last edited by Ghost, 4 years, 6 months ago
Posted 4 years, 6 months ago

Waldo

@Ghost: Yes. Yes it is. Revan ftw. =)
I can actually see where you are going with that approach. I don't actually *know* the process that makes me able to perform PK, yet I manage to do it anyway, simply by willing it to happen. So yes, it is possible that by simply willing it to happen it may do it by itself. But I do believe that if I were to try this, my mind would simply interpret it as trying to deflect attention, and act accordingly.
Also, you "deleted" a part of your personality? That's quite something. How on earth did you do it? Being unable to hate sounds like quite a good thing in my opinion, there's far too much of it going around anyway, and it's never useful. And if you're more detached... well, I consider that a good thing. My emotions don't get in the way of what my head tells me. =)
@Ghost: Yes. Yes it is. Revan ftw. =) I can actually see where you are going with that approach. I don't actually *know* the process that makes me able to perform PK, yet I manage to do it anyway, simply by willing it to happen. So yes, it is possible that by simply willing it to happen it may do it by itself. But I do believe that if I were to try this, my mind would simply interpret it as trying to deflect attention, and act accordingly. Also, you "deleted" a part of your personality? That's quite something. How on earth did you do it? Being unable to hate sounds like quite a good thing in my opinion, there's far too much of it going around anyway, and it's never useful. And if you're more detached... well, I consider that a good thing. My emotions don't get in the way of what my head tells me. =)

Posted 4 years, 6 months ago

Ghost

well i saw my hate as a seperate part of me and i overcame that part of me
To be honest im not sure exactly how i did it but i will try and explain:
you know how ur trying to empty ur mind but one thoughts stuck in ur head and u keep trying to remove and and refuse to give up. well thats sort of what i did to this part of me except it was like every aspect of me was screaming no (no being the best word i could put to the thought) and i simply refused to give up.
I dont have that burning passion/hate anymore,(and ive tryed many times to hate what i used to hate but i cant) my emotions are more like a a sheet blowing in the wind or flowing water.
i would not recommend it as hate is useful as a quick and powerful emotion, and for scapegoating
well i saw my hate as a seperate part of me and i overcame that part of me To be honest im not sure exactly how i did it but i will try and explain: you know how ur trying to empty ur mind but one thoughts stuck in ur head and u keep trying to remove and and refuse to give up. well thats sort of what i did to this part of me except it was like every aspect of me was screaming no (no being the best word i could put to the thought) and i simply refused to give up. I dont have that burning passion/hate anymore,(and ive tryed many times to hate what i used to hate but i cant) my emotions are more like a a sheet blowing in the wind or flowing water. i would not recommend it as hate is useful as a quick and powerful emotion, and for scapegoating

Last edited by Ghost, 4 years, 6 months ago
Posted 4 years, 6 months ago

Falcon

If you would say hate is an emotion, I would say it's extreme anger.
And, to be honest, yes, extreme anger is useful, you don't want to be unable to feel extreme anger anymore.
I mean, if you can't be angry when someone just slapped you.. xD
F.
If you would say hate is an emotion, I would say it's extreme anger. And, to be honest, yes, extreme anger is useful, you don't want to be unable to feel extreme anger anymore. I mean, if you can't be angry when someone just slapped you.. xD F.

Posted 4 years, 6 months ago

Waldo

... then you won't have to deal with the repercussions of getting in a fight without thinking about it. Anger can blind people far too easily. I can and do feel anger frequently... I just never let it take me over. I can when I need to, but if there's no reason to... then I just decide not to get angry and that is that. It's generally better in the long run. =)
... then you won't have to deal with the repercussions of getting in a fight without thinking about it. Anger can blind people far too easily. I can and do feel anger frequently... I just never let it take me over. I can when I need to, but if there's no reason to... then I just decide not to get angry and that is that. It's generally better in the long run. =)

Posted 4 years, 6 months ago

Falcon

Okay, that's correct, but it's not good if you can't be angry, it's just good for you to be angry sometimes.
However, that doesn't mean you must let the anger control you, you must keep control over yourself, but there's nothing wrong with being angry.
F.
Okay, that's correct, but it's not good if you can't be angry, it's just good for you to be angry sometimes. However, that doesn't mean you must let the anger control you, you must keep control over yourself, but there's nothing wrong with being angry. F.

Posted 4 years, 6 months ago

Ghost

@Falcon
Hate is different to anger. Anger would be intense frustration, in comparision hate isnt angry, hate is cold and calculating, and doesnt come in a rush then leave again.
I still get anoyed/frustrated at people but i dont the influence of hate against them (ie i wont continue to want bad things to happen to them (lol) after the moment of anger has passed.)
@Falcon Hate is different to anger. Anger would be intense frustration, in comparision hate isnt angry, hate is cold and calculating, and doesnt come in a rush then leave again. I still get anoyed/frustrated at people but i dont the influence of hate against them (ie i wont continue to want bad things to happen to them (lol) after the moment of anger has passed.)

Posted 4 years, 6 months ago

Page: Previous - 1, 2, 3 - Next

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).