What is the force?

Gisteron wrote:

Uzima Moto wrote: can you describe exactly how what we know was discarded with what I presented?..

Yes, I can. And to an extent, I did in that thread. I'm not going to flood this one with it, too. Feel free to go back to it and re-read it. Feel free to inquire for clarification there, too, I'm sure I haven't addressed everything nor address all I did in all of the detail that might have been called for either.

I'm only asking because you didn't make an actual rebuttal the last time. You explained how radiowaves work in different ways. None of which really refuted what I presented. Unless you want to continue to use my original thesis instead of my later conclusions. Both of which I did mention and explain..

If natural mediums can interfere with a radio signal, why not "non-material" mediums? Is there an actual, scientific reason as to why it's impossible as you say?

No clue. Can't recall anyone making that claim. In fact, pretty sure if I said anything on the matter (no pun intended) it would've been the opposite, seeing as radio waves themselves are an example of something non-material that cannot help but interact with both themselves and with matter.

"Material" in this sense is being used as an adjective denoting a belonging to the material world as opposes to the "Supernatural". So radiowaves would count as material, and more importantly, photons can be used to create photonic structures (materials)..

So, my thesis stands. The non-material aspects of two different objects can interact causing a reaction down to the material level. The non-material aspects DO NOT directly affect or interact with the material aspect of a foreign object..

I also explained how this is possibly seen in other phenomena like "ghost attacks".. lol since you brought up ghosts last time. I still don't know why lol.. but essentially a non-material entity doesn't directly touch your cells. It scars your etheric body, which transmits as damage onto your physical body..

Overall though, I think people have the wrong idea of the ease of such things. This isn't simply "thought power", nothing is moved by thought alone. Thought, and the focus of it, moves the energy that can touch other energy bodies and influence objects without direct physical contact. These other (Ethereal) bodies have a sort of weight of their own that correlates with the elements of their material bodies..

So essentially it takes the same work to lift a car's etheric body by unnatural means, as it would its physical body by natural means. The difference being your etheric body can generate exponentially more power than can your physical body.. allowing what's physically impossible to be achievable..

Edit: As a matter of fact, I wouldn't even call it telekinesis. That implies that the mind is the motor that does the work, but that's not correct. The Mind is the driver, but your energy seems to be the motor that does the work.. it's more like Astral-kinesis lol

As I said

Gisteron wrote:

Uzima Moto wrote: can you describe exactly how what we know was discarded with what I presented?..

Yes, I can. And to an extent, I did in that thread. I'm not going to flood this one with it, too. Feel free to go back to it and re-read it. Feel free to inquire for clarification there, too, I'm sure I haven't addressed everything nor address all I did in all of the detail that might have been called for either.

Take it up in the thread it belongs if you find I should elaborate more on anything I said in it. No need to hijack this one to have basically the same discussion all over again.


In the mean time, since you would contest my assertion that you were proposing things that are in conflict with what we know about how the universe works (compare to formulation from post #342415) or the physically impossible (see also formulation from post #342686), I'll just point at you saying that

Uzima Moto wrote: The difference being your etheric body can generate exponentially more [sic] power than can your physical body.. allowing what's physically impossible to be achievable..

and rest my case.

I'mi more of a "physically improbable" kind of guy.

Gisteron wrote: As I said

Gisteron wrote: Yes, I can. And to an extent, I did in that thread. I'm not going to flood this one with it, too. Feel free to go back to it and re-read it. Feel free to inquire for clarification there, too, I'm sure I haven't addressed everything nor address all I did in all of the detail that might have been called for either.

Take it up in the thread it belongs if you find I should elaborate more on anything I said in it. No need to hijack this one to have basically the same discussion all over again.

Well, I did.. but besides that, psychic phenomena was brought up in the OP and if anyone is highjacking it's you and your baiting with continued unfounded assertions that psychic phenomena is non-existent nonsense.

In the mean time, since you would contest my assertion that you were proposing things that are in conflict with what we know about how the universe works (compare to formulation from post #342415) or the physically impossible (see also formulation from post #342686), I'll just point at you saying that

Uzima Moto wrote: The difference being your etheric body can generate exponentially more [sic] power than can your physical body.. allowing what's physically impossible to be achievable..

and rest my case.

Well, you're resting your case on the wrong pov of that statement. Which is exactly WHY I made it bold.. because what I suggested, influencing an object without physical stimuli, was ONLY "physically" impossible. Not entirely impossible..

Also, your main, and seemingly only rebuttal was against the notion that a radiowave can't stop and still be a wave. Which I agreed was correct from a certain point of view.. However, my claim was that I froze a portion of the energy itself. Which can be done with a supercooled medium, as you agreed. However, what can be done with a supercooled material medium can apparently be done with an "ethereal" medium.. as my results showed.. the whole point of testing psychic Phenomena is using it in the first place. If I were using natural means to achieve those results it wouldn't be psychic.. so to say that using non-material energy to test the effects of non-material energy on material bodies is the same as discarding all knowledge of material bodies is false equivalence.. to say that I suggested as much is a COMPLETE misrepresentation of my argument..

Uzima Moto wrote:

In the mean time, since you would contest my assertion that you were proposing things that are in conflict with what we know about how the universe works (compare to formulation from post #342415) or the physically impossible (see also formulation from post #342686), I'll just point at you saying that

Uzima Moto wrote: The difference being your etheric body can generate exponentially more [sic] power than can your physical body.. allowing what's physically impossible to be achievable..

and rest my case.

Well, you're resting your case on the wrong pov of that statement. Which is exactly WHY I made it bold.. because what I suggested, influencing an object without physical stimuli, was ONLY "physically" impossible. Not entirely impossible..

Irrelevant. I said it was in conflict with what we know how the universe works, not with how it actually does - to the extent that there is one and it works anyhow, that is. I also said that you were reporing of the "only physically impossible", not any kind of "entirely impossible". Positions I didn't voice I feel no obligation to defend, and with what I did say, evidently, you agree. That's why I can rest my case, whether you find that I defended a different case well or poorly.

And, again, as for the specific claims you made in the other thread, I'll be happy to go back to it with you, if you find that I wasn't being clear enough there.

Gisteron wrote: my assertion that you were proposing things that are in conflict with what we know about how the universe works (compare to formulation from post #342415) or the physically impossible (see also formulation from post #342686)

You're saying this though as if they're mutually inclusive. In this situation, they are not. What I propose may be "physically" impossible

influencing an object without physical stimuli

but not inherently at odds with any of the known laws of the universe.

Well, you're resting your case on the wrong pov of that statement. Which is exactly WHY I made it bold.. because what I suggested, influencing an object without physical stimuli, was ONLY "physically" impossible. Not entirely impossible..

Irrelevant. I said it was in conflict with what we know how the universe works, not with how it actually does - to the extent that there is one and it works anyhow, that is. I also said that you were reporing of the "only physically impossible", not any kind of "entirely impossible". Positions I didn't voice I feel no obligation to defend, and with what I did say, evidently, you agree. That's why I can rest my case, whether you find that I defended a different case well or poorly.

And, again, as for the specific claims you made in the other thread, I'll be happy to go back to it with you, if you find that I wasn't being clear enough there.

It's only in conflict with your bias towards psychic phenomena. Not with any of the known laws of the universe. Which, in the way you've argued up until now, seems to preclude that it is entirely impossible.. but that would only be true for my original thesis.

What I mean by physical impossibilities being achievable is, "A lone human person cannot lift a car 10 feet off the ground without aid, unless..." I'm not saying my thesis is physically impossible in and of itself, as if it destroys everything we know or is a

literal suspension of how all of the universe works in just the right way as to confirm someone's personal biases

if that's what you're arguing.. it just allows for things to be done that necessarily couldn't be done conventionally. Because a man can indeed lift a car 10 feet in the air. Just not without outside aid of some kind, like a crane..

If you made a pie chart of all the possible attainable knowledge in the Universe, so far our species, while certainly clever (but not wise!) in the ways of manipulation of matter and energy itself, we have only yet carved out a slice from this pie chart, thinner than an atom.
The tiniest possible sliver.
This is just an analogy of course, but you see what I am getting at?
We have barely broken the surface of reality, our knowledge is woefully limited!
But do not despair!
For we do know for certain, that we know nothing for certain.
And we humans have an insatiable curiosity, so our species fortunately becomes more learned everyday.
Albeit slowly, but surely!
I am of the perspective, that reality is much greater, much more complex, than we are physically capable of perceiving.
So a complete understanding of the Universe will not be easy to come by!
Especially considering that we are a species evolved to survive on Earth, therefore our senses and perceptive capabilities are physically and cognitively limited; we are naturally equipped with the bare essentials for survival on Earth, and being rather weak and squishy compared to most animals, we compensated with our ability to problem-solve, an ability that allows us to manipulate matter and energy, something we are very good at now.
However, the majority of happenings in this Universe lay outside our natural framework, hence the development of things such as math, which allows us to comprehend that which would otherwise be incomprehensible.
Another thing (besides our innate ignorance) is for certain however.
Something philosophers and religious folk have guessed at, something science has proven.
It has been called many things, and viewed under many different lights, from many varied perspectives, but I believe, underlying this all, is the same phenomenon.
And this is the principle of balance.
The laws that govern the Universe, and its structure, are improbably, but perfectly balanced.
Our planet's existence, and our own for that matter, was only possible because of a series of perfectly balanced accidents.
I dare not digress any further for fear of doing myself and others a disservice, for my knowledge of science is only on a basic theoretical level.
But from what I have seen, learning about this and that, balance exists everywhere, in every aspect of reality, if you only look for it.
Maybe that is the Force?
That infinite property that binds everything together, allowing reality to exist perfectly, in union with itself?

If you made a pie chart of all the possible attainable knowledge in the Universe, so far our species, while certainly clever (but not wise!) in the ways of manipulation of matter and energy itself, we have only yet carved out a slice from this pie chart, thinner than an atom.
The tiniest possible sliver.

How can you be sure? Perhaps we have covered a decent chunk of the pie, and we know quite a bit, enough at least to declare some phenomena as reasonably improbable.

I see this argument used as evidence of there being more things “out there”, but it is not evidence, it is conjecture.

You're kidding, right?
Yes, we know quite a bit relative to our past, but you obviously forget how vast the Universe is.
ALL POSSIBLE ATTAINABLE KNOWLEDGE
Do you not understand that statement?
I am not just talking about physics and mathematics, I literally mean everything.
And ask any scientist, what we know is vastly outweighed by what we do not know.
The matter that you and me interact with, are made out of, visible matter, only makes up 11% of the known universe. The rest is dark matter and energy, which we know nothing about, besides that it exists. So right there, evidence of "other things" out there.
Oh, and let's not forget the other dimensions, which we also know very little of besides their existence.
So more "other things".
The inner workings of the quantum realm, still bewilder even the brightest of us!
Or how about what happens on the other side of a black hole? Is there an other side? It's unknown, but i would dare to also classify this as an "other thing".
Hell, the majority of our own damn ocean is unexplored!
How many "other things", unknown things, do you propose exist there? I bet there is a crap ton!
I could go on and on, seriously, there is plenty of evidence for my statement.
I LOVE YOU!

I love a good debate, so thank you by the way.