If telekinesis was possible, how many laws of physics would that break? 3? 5? 8? 13? 21?
without some kind of telekinesis field this would definitely violate fund theor of thermodynamics
>>7926641
Not really that many to be honest, telekinesis is possible with strong enough em forces
>>7926641
Is arminposting the new gorillaposting? Stop trying to force these memes.
>>7926653
Thats not telekinesis. Telekinesis is control objects with your mind from a distance with no wires attached to you and shit
>>7926673
If you had enough neurons and electrolytes but no common sense you could generate the required electrostatic forces
It would probably just be attract everything and repel everything though
>>7926676
What about Newton's third.
>>7926695
They'd stay the same, and the expected consequences (moving to something bigger, something smaller moving to you) would stay the same
>>7926695
use your fucking imagination holy fucking shit. use the same imagination that led you to ask about myths
>>7926699
I didn't ask about myths.
>>7926699
Check'd
Check'd again
>>7926699
>imagination
>science
>think about moving my hand
>it moves
Is this telekinesis? If not, why not?
>>7927013
Telekinesis implies you don't have a hard connection to the thing your moving
>>7926641
if telekinesis was possible, it wouldn't be breaking any law of physics.
>>7927058
>what is inverse square law
stupid faggot
>>7927040
>build bluetooth headset that activates robot hand
>think about moving robot hand
>it moves
So this is telekinesis then, right?
>>7929539
I know this is shitposting, but I can't help it.
Bluetooth means you're not moving it with your mind, but with the Bluetooth device. You'd have to do it without any direct connection other than your mind for it to be telekenesis.
As for OPs original point, as long as you're drawing the energy from somewhere I don't see why it would violate any physical laws (assuming it still obeys newtons laws of motion, etc).
