~Telekinesis Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
tele·ki·ne·sis | \ ˌte-li-kə-ˈnē-səs , -kī-
the production of motion in objects (as by a spiritualistic medium) without contact or other physical means
I’ll leave it to Bifrost or someone else to explain how all the above examples fit the definition of telekinesis. I obviously can’t help you and you won’t listen to me anyway.
I can’t swear, we are not in my cool place, we are in this Christian/PRC place where bad words are a big no-no.
And that thin veil has already been notably stretched.
Ultimately… if all three definitions that have been stated were put into a Venn diagram they would have shared most of their area.
Lycan just had the broadest definition, Gradius the most specific one and I had something in the middle.
…
Anyway,
this whole thing started because he was whining about the premise of SC: Evolution.
This is how this started.
…
This absolute BS discussion is ultimately based on the question whether Templars can do telekinesis outside of self-levitation.
Which they do because this
This also addresses the whole issue Gradius has. Protoss don’t need a Terran because they can’t do telekinesis, but because Terrans do it differently.
…
So… funnily enough. If Gradius is wrong about something… it’s the premise of the book and the premise of this discussion.
Other than that… yeah he’s mostly right in the important stuff.
Wait, you think his interpretation of that web’s definition is corrected? Or you just left that out because it’s not important stuff?
I don’t really care about your (as in “of you three”) exact definitions. It doesn’t change that the answer was already given by Sub.
The majority of this discussion is pointless because Gradius’ gripe with the book being based on Protoss seeming lack of telekinetic skill isn’t based on reality, because Terran’s telekinesis is just different, not unique to them.
How does the Venn diagram comment not answer your question?
Spirit wants to know if Sub’s definition is consistent with mine (the dictionary definition).
True, but I still think it’s a dumb premise. The implication behind it is that Terran telekinetics can retrieve an object after it was thrown whereas Protoss telekinetics can’t, because of some vague “characteristic”. It’s kind of arbitrary and they should have just stuck with the “we’re sending a Protoss for diplomacy” excuse.
Actually there is no contradiction with what I have said and the dictionary definition, which Gradius already cited, just specify that thekinesis is acting at all the scales beyond that are defined obvious objects (the molecules too are objects).
Since moving the particles , air particle for example, can be movethem require to create a thermal reaction and these teelkinetic acts generate the movement indirectly of other objects more defined(solids in general), is tekinesis even if it is the wind, an explosive or generated electrical energy by the friction of the air, every atome moved with teelkinetic.
All are acts of teelkinesis that is not directed directly to move something like a chair but to manipulate the environment by moving particles, it is thus because of Tanya’s pyrokinesis work she is moving oxygen to generate fire
Ah, right. He clearly disagreed. My bad.
In my defense, there are two definitions that ‘belong’ to you; personal and dictionary.
No, I’m not. Subsourian might be knowledgeable at lore, but he isn’t Grammar Naz1 like Brother Bifrost.
I see, so that’s what you thought. I’ll need some time to analyze your word. If you will be so kind, please try and improve this post to make it easier to read than usual.
Hey lycan do you have Discord?
I have made my attempt to structure that better
I have an account but I have not used it
Yet throughout the debate I’ve only used one. That’s why it’s silly when you guys say I don’t “believe in” the dictionary definition.
I wanted us to agree on a broad definition before we got into a more specific one.
So on the Evolution bit, this is kinda how I interpreted it, and to stress this is 100% not the actual canon answer, just how I read it:
I think the idea was terran telekenitics are able to be more “precise” than protoss. So in the case of the warp disk, a protoss could push/pull it around (just not Ulavu since he wasn’t really specialized in more outward psionics), but he points to the fact a telekinetic terran could navigate it mid-flight to hit multiple targets. This would also help cover up another thing in how we’ve seen telekinetics in the past in terrans vs protoss, where we see Nova utilize telekinesis for very surgical and precise assassinations like shifting a bone in a target’s neck so they choke to death, but we never see the protoss do anything like that in spite of your everyday high templar being much more psionically powerful. I’ve heard fan theories that they just opt for more upfront psionics that attack a target’s mind (which being fair is the preferred HT attack) or “that’s not their warrior way” (which wouldn’t explain why the Nerazim don’t do that), but I’ve never bought those as explanations.
It’s not a perfect answer mind you, but one that works with how we’ve seen protoss telekinesis before, even with Alarak’s. But terran psionics have always gone to a weird place since the Ghost Academy comics really started to add some strange abilities, so setting up that some psionics manifest differently in different species never bugged me too much.
Protoss strong, Terrans precise. Pretty good and understandable fanon imho.
The only thing you’d have to eliminate is the example with Gruu, since that seems pretty precise to me.
If you want you can join our Discord.
Okay, but if we’re going that far, then it’s going to be extremely precise. So precise that even Terran can’t. And if you agree with Subsourian, then the Protoss can’t do anything we’re about to discuss.
More importantly, we’re now in a quantum realm where Physics is so, so bizarre. I can discard most of your argument base on that fact alone, but I can’t expect anybody to understand that. So for the purpose of this discussion, we’re going to assume that Molecules behave classically.
If by this you mean via friction, then no you can’t. The molecule of air is too far apart to create any friction. And even if you manage to create some heat, it will disperse faster than you can use (natural movement of air prohibited it). You won’t be able to heat anything for even a degree Celsius.
Two problems
You can’t create Energy Blast this way. Secondly, it may seem like you can create Shock Wave with it, but movement alone is not enough; you need pressure as well. So all of Gradius example where it’s either of this two can’t be Telekinesis.
You are effectively blowing wind at stuff to move it. This is highly inefficient method. If you are capable of moving air Molecules (or whatever in the environment), then why don’t you just create movement in the object that you want to move?
No, you can’t create explosive with movement. There are heat and pressure that must be presented.
You can’t. Only specific material can create Static Electricity. You need Molecules of ice and water in some domain of concentration (I don’t know the exact mechanics)
Anyway, if you can move Molecules, then just move electron around.
You can’t. For one thing, how are you going to differentiate between Oxygen and Nitrogen? Even if you can and move them around to create pure Oxygen ‘air’, it won’t generate fire; you still need a spark. The only thing higher concentration of Oxygen does is making it easier to burn. You might be able to burn some inflammable material, but you still need fuel. Oxygen is not fuel.
Sadly, by your more comprehensible definition nothing the Protoss does is Telekinesis. You definitely can’t creat Energy Blast. You can’t create Shockwave. You can’t create explosion. You can create Electricity, but you can’t(?) create fire.
I’ll have to check the Book, maybe Zamara use your Telekinesis, but I doubt that she move Dahl indirectly via movement in the environment. Zamara probably just move Dahl.
Yep, it still silly how far you misinterpret the definition that you brought up yourself.
Yeah, it’s so broad that even Brother Bifrost think it’s the most specific one.
Relatively specific. Still broad. Don’t misinterpret my butt.
Yeah, you think it’s the most specific one of the three. Is my wording incorrect? However, Gradius think that this definition is so board that even having Mind Control is Telekinesis. Do you agree with his interpretation?
Am I wrong in saying that you don’t agree with his interpretation? Because I remember clearly you’re the first one to call some of the thing indirect Telekinesis.
No.
Some more definitions. Gradius actually said almost the same thing as me. I didn’t read this until now.