Psi: second-to-last letter of the Greek alphabet, used as a variable to denote an unknown mechanism involved in telepathy and psychokinesis, in American research in the early-mid 20th century. By extension, it is also used to refer to the "stuff" used to accomplish pk and telepathy, and --by further extension-- other effects...and sometimes those who produce such effects.

Psions: from "psionics", unofficial. Denotes both people who use psionics, and a hypothetical particle which might be connected to the mechanism by which psionics is accomplished.

Psionics: Americanism coined in parallel with "electronics", "nucleonics", etc. Refers to deliberate use of the "mind" to affect physical reality. Both the set of skills, and the use thereof. By extension, it has come to include the perceptive "psychic" abilities, as well.

Psionic: adjectival derivative of "psionics"

No problem

There are enough "Questionable" parts of his paper to make the whole thing practically worthless. His formula, as presented, is without meaning. The sleep-deprivation bit is nonsense. Iron was based on a single subject; _far_ too small a sample. Zero Point Emotion was insufficiently defined.

My research has been on blood-sugar. The Soviets investigated rather more thoroughly. There are significant changes in the chemical balance of the blood, yes.

From what I've read, nicotine has no noticeable short-term effect on PK. Alcohol in any appreciable amount tends to mess up PK attempts; most tested depressants do, so it isn't overly surprising. It is "from what I've read", though. It is not impossible that some results of drug-tests may have been reported inaccurately, or simply that more than one variable was involved.

1 of 1 person found this question helpful

It's a folded piece of paper balanced on a verticle pin, so that the paper can spin around. The idea is to cause it to spin using pk. Further information can be found in the "Kinesis" section of "Articles".

It isn't unheard-of. Some people are better with macro than micro, rather than the other way around. If you can do either, it would imply that you are at least slightly "talented" with pk, yes.

Obviously, I'm not Peebrain, but I'll answer anyway....

TK can be performed in front of skeptics, even in front of pseudo-skeptic debunker types. There is a certain amount of "performance anxiety" that can interfere with your concentration, of course...same reason people sometimes forget easy stuff on exams.

All else being equal, levitation is probably the hardest, because you need to support the entire weight of the object. Anecdotal evidence also leads in the direction of "levitation is harder than sliding" based on the relative frequency of occurances. Of course, for statistical purposes, anecdotal evidence poses a few problems.

The difficulty of sliding varies with the amount of friction between the object and whatever it is sliding on.

Rolling is easiest.

Both.

1 of 1 person found this question helpful

"Absorbing energy" from the flame would not be pyroPK, no. Presuming that you're not referring to the heat or light produced, but rather to a method of "gathering" psi-stuff, the "absorbing" is only a convention, not literal. If you are in the habit of using the elemental-magic approach, there is no reason that you can't use the flame as your focal point. However, you will find it rather limiting: it's fine if you're playing with a flame that is already lit, but how will your sub-conscious react when you try to light a flame. "Hey! You always had me gather psi-stuff with the flame to do this....there is no flame to gather from. What do you think you are doing _this_ time?"

3 of 3 people found this question helpful

Usually, I push them. Sometimes, I pull. Easiest approach is to swat them with a psi-tendril.