second theory

Forums ► Misc Topics ► second theory

Re: second theory
By: / Knowledgeable
Post # 41
I should add that it's been ages since I've taken chemistry, so if I failed with any of those examples feel free to correct me.
Login or Signup to reply to this post.

Re: second theory
By:
Post # 42
i havent taken chemistry yet but i think joul is right
Login or Signup to reply to this post.

Re: second theory
By: / Knowledgeable
Post # 43
'fraid not. I was only saying that my example of how the alteration of the polarity of a molecule would alter that molecule might have been flawed.

Before you agree with someone you should learn why you agree with them.
Login or Signup to reply to this post.

Re: second theory
By:
Post # 44
i never said i agreed with them i just stated that i think its right
blessed be
Login or Signup to reply to this post.

Re: second theory
By:
Post # 45
Joulentropy, (just because nobody has answered you) enzymes trigger chemical reactions, but that involves molecules. Calcium is an element and (according to modern science) cannot be altered outside of a nuclear reactor, only combined with other elements into molecules. Enzymes can't explain where the calcium in crab shells actually comes from. One person thinks that crabs are able to "assemble" calcium from the basic energy that makes up all matter.

AwakeTooLong, you sound like my high school science teacher. Just your being on this site shows that you know about magic, therefore, you must know just how more there is to the way the universe works than just the laws of physics (or that there are a few more, depending on your perspective). Your notion that psychic energy (that's all I can think of to call it) has no mass is, quite simply, untrue. I mean no offense, of course, but scientists have actually proved the exact opposite of what your claiming (look up Noetic Science). Why, I once heard of an experiment where a man died (he donated his body to science) on a very sensitive scale (think billionths of grams) and, at the exact moment of his death, his body became lighter. It would appear that the scientist conducting the experiment weighed the soul. Do you have a better explanation (don't say something like excrement or breath, telling people they're wrong gets tedious)? Now, I should mention that the experiment was technically fictional, but it was described in incredible detail by an author (Dan Brown) who only uses factual information to craft his stories (within the Robert Langdon books, at least).
Login or Signup to reply to this post.

Re: second theory
By:
Post # 46
Psi If strong enough it can impact I practice It myself and I can push objects with it, although it is still weak to move an object for a long time/distance and it takes a lot of energy. Again it could always be something other than PSI.
Login or Signup to reply to this post.

Re: second theory
By: / Knowledgeable
Post # 47
This thread has been moved to Misc Topics from Welcome.
Login or Signup to reply to this post.

Re: second theory
By:
Post # 48
thank you for all the feedback ladies and gents
blessed be
Login or Signup to reply to this post.

Re: second theory
By: / Knowledgeable
Post # 49
I'll take it as a compliment that I remind you of your high school science teacher. I rather adored mine. We actually had many discussions concerning various theories about how will, prayer, and the energies involved within physics interact.

Anyway...

The body does lose weight when it dies. This has been documented outside of works of fiction, and this is unexplained. It's one of those little puzzles that intrigue me ceratinly, and I feel it is important not to leap to wild assumptions with this. I, for one, love the idea that it has something to do with a soul but the simple fact is that nobody knows for sure.

One of magic/life's little mysteries.

Certainly it could be something like the absence of psychic energy but it could also be accounted for by the lack of a wide range of activities within basic biological functions as well. What is the mass of an nerve impulse? How many millions of neurons stop firing upon death? So then could this account for the loss of mass? This is just one of hundreds (if not thousands) of processes that simply cease within the body upon death. We must not simply assume that the answer is psychic energy just because we wish it to be. That is poor science. That is poor logic. This is simply believing what we want to believe, and we must refrain from that or we become weak willed and blind.

However, this loss of mass also has nothing to do with the assumption that psychic energy possesses mass. My assertion that it does not possess it was based upon the prevalent theory that psychic energy is an operation with the subconscious. Its influence within the subconscious is what results in the perceived sensation that there is a ball of energy in one's hands when a "psi-ball" is created. This being only a theory, it is perhaps wrong of me to have asserted that it possesses no mass. However, if we are to assume that psychic energy does create a mass that results in the sensation of holding something, then by definition that mass must come from matter. The assertion is then that if psychic energy creates mass it then creates matter, and I am reasonably certain it is safe to say that psychic energy does not create matter. This is impossible. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, it only changes form.

I have not found any scientific documentation that otherwise explores the idea of psychic energy possessing mass either. Forgive me, but going through the entire website you directed us to is rather tedious (if I may borrow from your word choice). Noetic Science is, after all, a vast field. If you'd care to direct me to something specific that isn't a work of fiction I'm incredibly interested.

Further, even should psychic energy manage to break the law of mass conversion and somehow create matter/mass, then this would not by itself create levitation. The forces of gravity would still need to be overcome as I otherwise explained in previous posts.

I feel the need to reiterate that just because we don't know something, either in magic or science, we cannot assume that it is what we wish it to be. In making these arguments I play devil's advocate with simple facts that otherwise go ignored. Magic certainly explores facets of nature that are not defined by the basic laws of physics, but then so too does the exploration of quantum physics and other fields of theoretical physics (such as Noetic Science). Science, magic, and faith are trying to explain the same thing. It is simply foolish to say that magic is capable of this because magic hasn't explained it completely just as it is foolish to say that magic is false because science hasn't proved it to be true. Both of those debates are empty, and solve nothing. However the scientific method of observation and analysis can easily be applied to any situation to help you understand how things work, particularly when you combine the theory of both fields. Magic is not the escape from logic and reason. Nor does science have to be the death of magic's mystery.
Login or Signup to reply to this post.

Re: second theory
By:
Post # 50
Thank you for some very good points AwakeTooLong, I hadn't considered neural energy (though that could have some relation to psychic energy, no one knows). However, I would like to point out that quantum physicists have determined that matter and energy are one in the same, so magic generating matter does not defy the law of conservation of energy. They discovered that E=mc2 is not the formula for nuclear reactions (or something along matter to energy conversion), but is rather "a recipe for the amount of energy needed to simulate matter" (Lynne McTaggert's _The Field_).
Login or Signup to reply to this post.