|
|
Post by levinthross on Feb 4, 2008 4:51:05 GMT -5
ok people have constantly been referring to hydro/pyrokinesis as simply using telekinesis on water or telekinesis on fire but it cant be as simple as that because to create a flame you need to heat something to the point at which it breaks down and releases heat and light energy but who has ever heard of normal tk causing temperature variances and hydrokinesis. water has a slight electrical charge psi energy interferes and manipulates electrical and electromagnrtic fields i could see were someone could say using tk on water is the same as hydrokinesis but water has its own specific properties that would make it much more difficult to move than a solid object like would
|
|
palimpsest
Psion
Back to the drawing board...
Posts: 33 
|
Post by palimpsest on Feb 4, 2008 6:30:33 GMT -5
Maybe it's fluffcabulary, but I've heard of people referring to the creation of fire psionically as a completely different skill from moving it: pyrogenesis, not pyrokinesis.
If you want to analyze it with ordinary physics, then maybe pyrogenesis is essentially aerokinesis (moving air particles so fast that they combust,) or even thermokinesis (this I've heard of, psionically moving heat energy from one place to another; maybe even psychokinesis of any particle to make it move faster, in order to heat up.) So in the case of -genesis, it's probably better to just use psychokinesis... but like you said some substances have their own specific properties, which is why I vouch for certain fancier -kineses as non-fluff terms.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowind on Feb 4, 2008 18:03:02 GMT -5
Fire can be done using TK, by moving particles really fast until the energy becomes fire... The same with Cryo, if you slow down the particles the temperature will drop.
That's why it's considered fluffy, but Pyro and Cryo are usually okay, others like Umbrakinesis and Photokinesis, Ferrokinesis, etc are the ones fluffy.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Adfeng on Feb 4, 2008 18:16:33 GMT -5
Yeah, JK said that Pyrokinesis and such is okay, but others aren't because they can be real fluffy.
|
|
|
|
Post by JediKaren on Feb 4, 2008 20:49:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by furmen on Feb 5, 2008 8:20:47 GMT -5
I haven't successfully done "pyro" nor "cryo" but these two I personally consider "Fluffy" not just because of the terminology. I don't doubt that it's possible to light fires or create ice with TK, but it's something I have yet to witness myself aside from movies such as Carrie and Firestarter.
Until I see a flame burst on a candle from nowhere or someone turn water or air (Dry Ice) into ice, I'll be extremely skeptical. Reasoning behind this? Say you were to stick a thermometer in a small glass of water, we'll go with a shot glass, who's to say the individual performing TK isn't actually just messing with the thermometer rather than the water?
|
|
Ness
Amateur Psion
Posts: 55
|
Post by Ness on Feb 6, 2008 4:04:57 GMT -5
Pyrokinesis and cryokinesis do not include making fire or ice.
For example, lighting a piece of paper on fire: you move the particles faster and faster, causing friction, heat and eventually, fire. However, you did not move any fire, did you? You simply moved the particles of the paper. That would make this psychokinesis or telekinesis, whichever you'd like, but NOT pyrokinesis.
A true example of pyrokinesis would be making the flame of a candle move.
|
|
|
|
Post by watergod367 on Feb 6, 2008 15:14:14 GMT -5
I am not sure but i thing that moving water is a bit more difficult from moving a normal object.
That's because the hard object already has a form but water is very "flexible"and doesn't have a particular form(but you already know that).Doesn't this make it a little different from normal TK?
And if it does =>"hydrokinesis"is not so fluffy after all.
|
|
|
|
Post by furmen on Feb 6, 2008 19:28:17 GMT -5
There's nothing much different as to moving water and ice as there is scooting pencils around.
|
|
