Psionic Elements

[SoulSplat]

Transfered From Suscitatio Forum
Posted By: WingedWolfPsion
On: February 04, 2008, 10:55:04 AM

Paradox, if you programmed it right, you should be able to keep the energy from decaying.  Core energy tends not to decay anyhow, so that would be even less of a problem.
The construct itself would use energy to maintain its integrity, so you should either supply it from outside, or be sure that its efficiency is high enough that it won't drain what you're trying to store--or that it will last long enough without recharging to serve your purpose, so that it doesn't need a supply.

[SoulSplat]

Transfered From Suscitatio Forum
Posted By: Tonic
On: February 07, 2008, 12:05:49 AM

I fail to see why such fuss is made over semantics.
How do you describe something so intangible as an unmeasurable energy form?
Oh first lets differentiate it from another unmeasurable energy form.
Shall we just call them UEF1 and UEF2
So the poor boy should have called them Ingredients? Components? Constituents, Aspects... I think Elements got the job done nicely.
The funny part of all of this is you all knew EXACTLY what he was talking about. Aint that funny.
I am not going to stoop to the websters many faceted definitions of the word element.
SO are we going to use a strict code of physics to describe the intangible?
That will make the discussion screech to a halt.
We may as well be sure to use thee and thou also while we are constraining ones ability to express things at the very edge of explanation.

Light and Dark are indeed elements of expression.
I am intrigued by the element "nether" could you help me into it, sounds intriguing?
T

[SoulSplat]

Transfered From Suscitatio Forum
Posted By: WingedWolfPsion
On: February 07, 2008, 02:22:46 AM

I fail to see why such fuss is made over semantics.
How do you describe something so intangible as an unmeasurable energy form?

It's a good idea to come up with a way that everyone can agree on, since we spend so much time discussing them.  Semantics CAN be important.

Oh first lets differentiate it from another unmeasurable energy form.
Shall we just call them UEF1 and UEF2
So the poor boy should have called them Ingredients? Components? Constituents, Aspects... I think Elements got the job done nicely.

They aren't really different forms.  They are only different patterns.

The funny part of all of this is you all knew EXACTLY what he was talking about. Aint that funny.

No, not really.  I don't actually know what it is he's calling elemental energy, I'm guessing based on his description.

I am not going to stoop to the websters many faceted definitions of the word element.
SO are we going to use a strict code of physics to describe the intangible?

Yes.

That will make the discussion screech to a halt.

Only if people are too badly educated to understand it.  In which case, they should probably go back to not trying to discuss the properties of unknown energy when they don't even understand the properties of KNOWN energies and matter.  They simply don't have the tools to speculate about it intelligently.  Using it, fine.  Explaining it--not without a reasonable education.  You can't make a stab without sounding foolish if you have no education in physics.  This is just a fact.  The people who DO have a physics education will laugh at you, because they'll know what's glaringly wrong with your proposal the moment they see it.  Which makes the work you put into it pointless.

But this isn't really about that.  It was about not using magickal terms to refer to psionics.  They aren't the same thing.

Light and Dark are indeed elements of expression.
I am intrigued by the element "nether" could you help me into it, sounds intriguing?
T

Probably meant 'ether'.
And I have no idea what an 'element of expression' is, that's a new one.  Dark is the absence of light, it's the lack of something, not a property of something.

[SoulSplat]

Transfered From Suscitatio Forum
Posted By: Garenzo
On: February 07, 2008, 10:52:03 AM

No, actually I DID mean "nether".

The element of nether is acquired by remaining completely emotionless, and completely thoughtless with the exception of concentration on the element itself.
... Needless to say, for the majority this would be an extremely hard element to control.

And I can see that nobody can seem to agree on one general idea:  The fact that any of these exist. I am locking the topic to prevent further misunderstandings and pointless arguments.

EDIT: I have unlocked this topic, due to the fact it would give the impression of me as one who is stubborn in their beliefs, "everybody is wrong, I am right" type thing - I am not this kind of person.

But I do have a question:  Have any of you (specifically WingedWolfPsion) actually TRIED controlling one of these elements?  Until you further your knowledge with experience, I refuse to accept "They don't exist" as a valid argument.  (not that you are specifically saying that, but it sure does seem implied)

[SoulSplat]

Transfered From Suscitatio Forum
Posted By: Tonic
On: February 07, 2008, 03:42:35 PM

I fail to see why such fuss is made over semantics.
How do you describe something so intangible as an unmeasurable energy form?

It's a good idea to come up with a way that everyone can agree on, since we spend so much time discussing them.  Semantics CAN be important.

I await your clear concise method.
Especially the definition of energies that are defined by the lack of energy Like his "Dark", and "Nether"
Perhaps you don't understand what he is talking about, but I do. I have experienced them, I work them.
If you have done neither than perhaps it is you who is unqualified to comment about his "Path to Eden" as it were i had no problem following it.
We cannot use Dark energy, or Dark matter, or Black holes, we could discuss how one of them might be described by gravity which to all intensive purposes looks like negative energy. But that would only cover one of the two.
Any way anyone who has witnessed the speckle interference patterns produced by lazers has seen Dark as a form of energy.
The interference patterns wherin two photons hit the same surface out of phase and cancel out to nothing.
So what do you add to light to get dark, simple just light 180 degr. out of phase.
Do we really want to add the complexity of the wave/particle properties of all matter into his discussion.
That would make a simple statement into pages of stuff.
I like the simple statement.

Oh first lets differentiate it from another unmeasurable energy form.
Shall we just call them UEF1 and UEF2
So the poor boy should have called them Ingredients? Components? Constituents, Aspects... I think Elements got the job done nicely.

They aren't really different forms.  They are only different patterns.

Now you are defining something that he is trying to describe with language that you object to.
You claim his language is in-concise yet you act as though you know the insides of his brain, even better than he does.
Rather than criticize his terminology why didn't you ask him questions that would make things more clear to you?

The funny part of all of this is you all knew EXACTLY what he was talking about. Aint that funny.

No, not really.  I don't actually know what it is he's calling elemental energy, I'm guessing based on his description.

From the statement above it seemed like you did know what he was saying... Hmmm

I am not going to stoop to the websters many faceted definitions of the word element.
SO are we going to use a strict code of physics to describe the intangible?

Yes.

Where did I miss the definition on this forum that all observations need to pass the test of Rigor of a physicist.
I must of missed that part...

That will make the discussion screech to a halt.

Only if people are too badly educated to understand it.  In which case, they should probably go back to not trying to discuss the properties of unknown energy when they don't even understand the properties of KNOWN energies and matter.  They simply don't have the tools to speculate about it intelligently.  Using it, fine.  Explaining it--not without a reasonable education.  You can't make a stab without sounding foolish if you have no education in physics.  This is just a fact.  The people who DO have a physics education will laugh at you, because they'll know what's glaringly wrong with your proposal the moment they see it.  Which makes the work you put into it pointless.

But this isn't really about that.  It was about not using magickal terms to refer to psionics.  They aren't the same thing.

And you "OWN" the terms...  Perhaps you ought to put on the little "magickal thinking cap" and re-read what he is saying.
Maybe he doesn't know the definitions of the words he is using to "Psionics" and might inadvertently make the worst possible social blunder in psionics in his statement.
Is you mind versatile enough to accept that what he said is good enough for what he meant. To him, and To me?
And this is after all a discussion forum where we learn from each other.
Being critical of his choice of words, without trying to divine out what he meant is not a step in the process of learning from each other.

Light and Dark are indeed elements of expression.
I am intrigued by the element "nether" could you help me into it, sounds intriguing?
T

Probably meant 'ether'.
And I have no idea what an 'element of expression' is, that's a new one.  Dark is the absence of light, it's the lack of something, not a property of something.

I guess you have never had a light dinner, or a light day at the office.
and you have never had a dark feeling.
Those are elements of expression

And the funniest of all he didn't mean 'ether', and you never asked.
Point Taken.
T

[SoulSplat]

Transfered From Suscitatio Forum
Posted By: Garenzo
On: February 07, 2008, 05:44:44 PM

And correct me if I'm wrong, (I'm not going to look back to re-read it) but in WingedWolfPsion's first post in this thread... I do believe you mentioned something about "scientifically proven"... not proven, argh hold on gonna go look.

Okay, in your second post:
'
Psionics is generally a more bare-bones and scientific approach to psychic abilities use.
'

Wait a second, who said that there was a scientific and specific approach to psionics in the first place?  Just because I say "psionic fire" doesn't mean that its a construct made to look like fire... perhaps I am referring to the Astral, from where I am summoning the fire?

Yes, I should've mentioned that earlier, but this puts a twist on things, does it not?  What if all these elements - Fire water dark light electric earth air nether, those are actual "elements" I summoned that make up the Astral?  Or some shit like that?
Blah, excuse me if that didn't make sense, I'm hungry and need sleep.  I only wish to fix my hunger problem at the moment, BRB!

[SoulSplat]

Transfered From Suscitatio Forum
Posted By: WingedWolfPsion
On: February 07, 2008, 10:31:04 PM

Being strict about what I would call psionics, pulling weird energy from other places isn't it.  That's energy-working, but not psionics.
So either way, it's nothing to do with psionics.

My entire point was that psionics doesn't use magickal terminology.  It would be more productive to label energy types by their origin.  'nether', by the way, means 'below', which when you're dealing with the planet, means underground, or underneath, and when you're dealing with someplace with no up or down, means nothing.  One could argue it to relate to lower frequencies, but then, 'low frequency' gets the point across so much more clearly...
And energies don't come in specific frequencies.  You can alter the frequency of any base energy types to raise or lower it.

[SoulSplat]

Transfered From Suscitatio Forum
Posted By: Tonic
On: February 07, 2008, 11:46:59 PM

Being strict about what I would call psionics, pulling weird energy from other places isn't it.  That's energy-working, but not psionics.
So either way, it's nothing to do with psionics.

My entire point was that psionics doesn't use magickal terminology.  It would be more productive to label energy types by their origin.  'nether', by the way, means 'below', which when you're dealing with the planet, means underground, or underneath, and when you're dealing with someplace with no up or down, means nothing.  One could argue it to relate to lower frequencies, but then, 'low frequency' gets the point across so much more clearly...
And energies don't come in specific frequencies.  You can alter the frequency of any base energy types to raise or lower it.

We start to agree,
I think the concept of frequency to describe energy is overused to the point of utter nausea.
Frequency is a scalar, energy is multidimensional.
But is the focused energy of a dark magician higher or lower frequency than that of the focused energy of the light magician.
But your previous statements would preclude me from using dark and light to describe types of magicians, so the question is utter nonsense.
However many would understand its intent.

So physics fails us on all fronts. Its models are altogether inadequate to describe the simple things in the metaphysical realm.
How many people do you hear talking about "phase locking" energies.
How many times do you hear of an attribute of a person as a wave function.
And if so what plane or space does their wave function exist in?
And what of the two individuals whose multidimensional wave functions simply don't share enough dimensions to interconnect, what would you describe that as? How do you interpolate dimensions, if they are truly orthogonal?
You talk of energy as if it were light that is only monochromatic and of a single intensity wherein the chromicity is the frequency but the intensity is left un-described.
No physics is not the medium to discuss this sort of thing.
Energy isn't monochromatic, it has an infinite number of frequencies, phases, characteristic impedance's, polarizations, and directions.
Yet I hear of people talking of raising the frequency of someones energy.
How do you raise the frequency of white light?
It contains all frequencies?
Oh you could raise the temperature of the source but that doesn't change the frequency of the light it just changes the shape of the curve of amplitude versus frequency.
No being a physicist does indeed make me laugh at those who know just enough to make themselves look silly.
But I try to understand what someone is saying without poking at their misuse of the precepts of physics.
I urge you to do the same.
T

[SoulSplat]

Transfered From Suscitatio Forum
Posted By: Syko Dragon
On: February 08, 2008, 05:43:11 AM

I'm not going to reply with what I'd like to because there's just too much to say...but I will say these 2 things:

(1) As we move from page 2 to page 3, I thought the premise was to move "away" from semantics...Yea, go figure...But hey, a jack in the field of mechanics is different than a jack in the field of electronics...

(2) If everybody understood exactly what was meant (which I had stated I didn't in my initial post), then there wouldn't necessarily have been such a fuss to begin with.  There is no perfect communication here, and various viewpoints often initiate multiple misunderstandings and alternative viewpoints to arise.  Oh well, that's why we're here, right- TO DISCUSS!!!  This is a forum, if I'm not mistaken...

[Stiles Mornay]

Psionic elements, eh? Jesus.. my former master really REALLY went overboard with them. He'd experiment with them and eventually discover new elements which he would dub them as "sub-elements" since he claimed they were either offshoots from the basic elements or they weren't frequently used.

But in any case, in my experience, elements exist both in psionic and magickal forms. Pretty cool stuff.

[Removed]

I'm no science geek, I am a book worm, looking at this purely from a literary perspective, regardless of how I may or may not be "college educated" enough for some to deem worthy of response; I do not care.

My point is thusly;

el·e·ment  (l-mnt)
n.
1. A fundamental, essential, or irreducible constituent of a composite entity.
2. elements The basic assumptions or principles of a subject.
3. Mathematics
a. A member of a set.
b. A point, line, or plane.
c. A part of a geometric configuration, such as an angle in a triangle.
d. The generatrix of a geometric figure.
e. Any of the terms in the rectangular array of terms that constitute a matrix or determinant.
4. Chemistry & Physics A substance composed of atoms having an identical number of protons in each nucleus. Elements cannot be reduced to simpler substances by normal chemical means.
5. One of four substances, earth, air, fire, or water, formerly regarded as a fundamental constituent of the universe.
6. Electricity The resistance wire in an electrical appliance such as a heater or an oven.
7. elements The forces that constitute the weather, especially severe or inclement weather: outside paint that had been damaged by the elements.
8. An environment naturally suited to or associated with an individual: He is in his element when traveling. The business world is her element.
9. A distinct group within a larger community: the dissident element on campus.
10. A part of a military force, especially:
a. A ground unit in an air force comparable to a platoon.
b. A unit of an air force equal to two or three aircraft.
11. elements The bread and wine of the Eucharist.

1. A fundamental, essential, or irreducible constituent of a composite entity.
2. elements The basic assumptions or principles of a subject.

com·pos·ite  (km-pzt)
adj.
1. Made up of distinct components; compound.
2. Mathematics Having factors; factorable.
3. Botany Of, belonging to, or characteristic of the composite family.

and now

a. A member of a set.

A substance composed of atoms having an identical number of protons in each nucleus. Elements cannot be reduced to simpler substances by normal chemical means.

and finally

An environment naturally suited to or associated with an individual: He is in his element when traveling. The business world is her element.

Energy is not an "element".

Iron is an element.
"Energy" is not an element.
"Something" is not defined with a factor simply because you say it does. You are not a God regardless of what you may think you are.


Since we are "Debating" and "Discussing" things, I think it would be proper to discuss them in terms of reality and not fantasy. It might stroke your ego but there is no place for such things in an educated society. That's how crap like this happens, and You and I are both perfectly aware of that.

[Stiles Mornay]

All righty. I'm willing to offer the list of Psionic elements my former master compiled, just because I've been feeling that this topic should, and rightfully should, have such a list of Psionic elements. This list I have is a Notepad file, so I'll have to mod it to make it "forum-friendly."

So do ya dudes want a list of elements in here or not? My former master actually went pretty far to describe them and stuff. But yeah, let me know. Thanks.

[WingedWolfPsion]

Absolutely, you can make a 'battery' out of many different materials, but metals are probably going to give a better result.  Putting energy into a crystal makes the crystal radiate a lot of energy...but it doesn't store it quite as efficiently as a metal.  I recommend using one of the less conductive, but more magnetically reactive metals that contain iron, rather than something like gold or silver.

The other risk with using crystals to store energy is that they can be overcharged, and react in unexpected ways.   Such as developing flaws.  Or exploding in a minor but startling way. <lol>