Pages: [1]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Acceptable -kinesis Terms  (Read 1072 times)
Apollo
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 252


I'm the code monkey


View Profile WWW
« on: July 12, 2009, 11:59:41 PM »

Definition of "Psychokinesis":

Quote from: Dictionary.com
The movement of physical objects by the mind without use of physical means


This definition is pretty straightforward: Moving matter with the mind (commonly known as "Mind over matter").

So, why not other terms?  There are many reasons.

  • Many other terms have closer relations to science fiction books, movies, and you will be discredited faster if you use them
  • Almost all of the alternate terms are redundant and can easily be translated into acceptable terminology
  • Its against the rules to use other terms


Here are examples of how to translate what you are saying so it is acceptable:

Incorrect: I did geokinesis
Correct: I performed psychokinesis on a rock

Incorrect: How do I do aerokinesis?
Correct: How do I manipulate wind using psychokinesis?

Incorrect: I just used cryokinesis on my phone
Correct: I just made my phone colder using psychokinesis.


There are specific terms that we do allow, however.  I will go through and give an explanation for each.

Pyrokinesis - This is the ability to manipulate the temperature of physical items using only mental means.  Even though this is still psychokinesis (making molecules vibrate faster is still moving matter), we allow a separate word for it to conform to modern terminology.

Telekinesis - While this is acceptable, I would prefer you to get into the habit of using the more accepted term of "psychokinesis".  Psychokinesis and telekinesis are synonyms, so it should be easy to simply use a different word.

Chronokinesis - This is the ability to manipulate time (arguably, one's perception of time).  Even though this word ends with -kinesis, it is not classified as psychokinesis.  Obviously, time (or its perception) is not matter, and thus cannot be simplified into the proposed format.  Therefore, all talk relating to "chronokinesis" should be directed to either General Psionics, Empathy/Telepathy, or any other related topic.  This is not a term that is valid.  Simply saying "altered [my] perception of time" is acceptable.



Infractions of this rule will be dealt with on an individual basis.  If you break this rule after two warnings have been issued, more severe disciplinary action will be taken.


Any questions regarding this rule should be directed towards me (Apollo).



Recap:

Acceptable terms:

  • Psychokinesis (abbreviated PK)
    • Micro-Psychokinesis (abbreviated Micro-PK)
    • Macro-Psychokinesis (abbreviated Macro-PK)
  • Telekinesis (abbreviated TK)
  • Pyrokinesis (abbreviated Pyro-PK)




Special thanks to stolide for pointing out inaccuracies in the original post.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2009, 12:47:36 PM by Apollo » Logged

Seth
Full Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 132



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: July 13, 2009, 02:15:52 AM »

Hmm, under that definition shouldn't Electrokinesis be an acceptable term, considering electricity is not matter.
Logged


With a childlike innocence, your mind can be stretched further then you could ever dream of.
Notagh
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,330


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: July 13, 2009, 02:57:17 AM »

Hmm, under that definition shouldn't Electrokinesis be an acceptable term, considering electricity is not matter.
It has mass, don't it?
Electricity is made of electrons is mass. Electrokinesis is not an acceptable term.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2009, 03:23:48 PM by Notagh » Logged

Seth
Full Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 132



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: July 13, 2009, 03:04:43 AM »

Well, a flame has mass, does it not. It is a burning gas, that has mass.
Logged


With a childlike innocence, your mind can be stretched further then you could ever dream of.
Notagh
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,330


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: July 13, 2009, 05:50:55 AM »

Well, a flame has mass, does it not. It is a burning gas, that has mass.
You know, I'm pretty sure the term pyrokinesis is more supposed to mean the manipulation of any mass to increase it's temperature, since there hasn't been any claims of actually lighting stuff on fire with your mind outside of asia that I'm aware of.
Logged

SecondComing
Guest
« Reply #5 on: July 13, 2009, 10:03:02 AM »

I'm down with this, I'm just happy pyrokinesis is an accepted term. Though as other have pointed out about electricity ect, I think it's fine like this.
Logged
Apollo
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 252


I'm the code monkey


View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 13, 2009, 10:46:03 AM »

JediKaren and I talked about "electrokinesis" and decided that it should not be acceptable.  It is moving matter on a subatomic level (electrons and such), so it is wrapped under micro-psychokinesis.



Again, thanks to stolide for pointing out inaccuracies.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2009, 12:48:46 PM by Apollo » Logged

mech
Guest
« Reply #7 on: July 13, 2009, 10:02:40 PM »

electrons have such a negligible mass anyways, gravity doesn't even affect them. Plus it would be moving charges.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2009, 10:03:48 PM by mech » Logged
Nervous
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 752


Indifferent


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: July 13, 2009, 11:16:43 PM »

Electricity is made of electrons is mass. Electrokinesis is not an acceptable term.
Electricity is made of atoms that are moving really really really really really really really really fast. Everything has electrons.
Logged


There is nothing you can do that I have not already done to myself. (Seriously, nothing... Tongue)
Notagh
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,330


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: July 14, 2009, 03:37:11 AM »

Electricity is made of electrons is mass. Electrokinesis is not an acceptable term.
Electricity is made of atoms that are moving really really really really really really really really fast. Everything has electrons.
Yeeahh.. no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity
And of course everything has electrons..
Logged

stolide
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,102



View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: July 14, 2009, 04:38:15 AM »

Not everything has electrons... Ever hear of hydrogen ions? And that's just the most obvious...
Logged

Ego sum bardo. Tu es bardas. Stulta solus reputat non.

Notagh
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,330


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: July 14, 2009, 07:09:42 AM »

Not everything has electrons... Ever hear of hydrogen ions? And that's just the most obvious...
\
Maybe I should rephrase. Every atom has electrons. And by atoms I mean the normal kind, which bars your ionic bonds and all that I hope.

Oh great. Come to think of it this topic is now a nitpicking contest. Apologies to all involved.
Logged

stolide
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,102



View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: July 14, 2009, 09:10:31 AM »

Not everything has electrons... Ever hear of hydrogen ions? And that's just the most obvious...
\
Maybe I should rephrase. Every atom has electrons. And by atoms I mean the normal kind, which bars your ionic bonds and all that I hope.

Oh great. Come to think of it this topic is now a nitpicking contest. Apologies to all involved.

...

Meh.
Logged

Ego sum bardo. Tu es bardas. Stulta solus reputat non.

mech
Guest
« Reply #13 on: July 14, 2009, 11:02:49 AM »

From my first year Electronics Textbook...

The electron is thought to be a quantum mechanical pattern rather than a little solid ball of matter.
However for the ease of understanding, we will refer to it as a particle of energy.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
Print
Jump to: