Superpeople lifting extremely large things

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-02-05 11:45am

Gil Hamilton wrote:
The durability would only come into play when he lifted something. After all, if it was on all the time, superstrength would be unable to harm things by hitting them.
Then he should shoot straight into the ground when he tries to lift anything. After all, the force from lifting the object also pushes him with that much force into the ground.

Then how does he lift things without TK? And for that matter, does Jean Grey's/Phoenix's brain explode out the back of her head when she stops something with TK? No, it doesn't.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-02-05 03:26pm

SirNitram wrote:Then how does he lift things without TK? And for that matter, does Jean Grey's/Phoenix's brain explode out the back of her head when she stops something with TK? No, it doesn't.

So telekinesis is exempt from the laws of physics? Every action much have an equal an opposite action. I thought the point of this thread was to rationalize super-strength feats with the laws of physics, and now you want to say "Hey, screw the laws of physics, we don't need to make the force books balance!"

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-02-05 03:30pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:
SirNitram wrote:Then how does he lift things without TK? And for that matter, does Jean Grey's/Phoenix's brain explode out the back of her head when she stops something with TK? No, it doesn't.
So telekinesis is exempt from the laws of physics? Every action much have an equal an opposite action. I thought the point of this thread was to rationalize super-strength feats with the laws of physics, and now you want to say "Hey, screw the laws of physics, we don't need to make the force books balance!"

No, I want to maintain consistancy within the observed events. Does normal TK cause people's brains or bodies to suddenly accelerate in the other direction? No? Then a form of TK which allows superstrength won't do it either.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-02-05 03:33pm

SirNitram wrote:No, I want to maintain consistancy within the observed events. Does normal TK cause people's brains or bodies to suddenly accelerate in the other direction? No? Then a form of TK which allows superstrength won't do it either.

That's a problem then, because then the books don't balance when the forces are added up. If telekinesis doesn't have a reactive force, then we can't rationalize it with the laws of physics and we might as well give up on this thread right now.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-02-05 07:01pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:
SirNitram wrote:No, I want to maintain consistancy within the observed events. Does normal TK cause people's brains or bodies to suddenly accelerate in the other direction? No? Then a form of TK which allows superstrength won't do it either.
That's a problem then, because then the books don't balance when the forces are added up. If telekinesis doesn't have a reactive force, then we can't rationalize it with the laws of physics and we might as well give up on this thread right now.

No, we simply assume that tactile TK works on the same, unknown, rules as normal TK. We don't whine that it doesn't work and sulk like a child.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-02-05 08:34pm

SirNitram wrote:No, we simply assume that tactile TK works on the same, unknown, rules as normal TK.

But the point of this thread is to rationalize it with real physics. Telekinesis is applying force at a distance (lit. telekinesis == movement at a distance). If telekinesis is applying force even at a distance, then it must have a reactive force. Basic law of physics there. It's not even some unknown physics, like hyderdrives or phasers, but an actual complete violation of a known physical law of nature. Connor MacLeod said it best in the other thread "In order for us to be able to analyze it, we must treat it as if real-life physics can be applied to said fictional setting"

We don't whine that it doesn't work and sulk like a child.

Huh.

*reads through thread again, finds no whining but actually suprisingly civil conversation save for the bit with Smiling Bandit*

What whining and sulking are you refering to? Or is it that you get your jollies flaming people at random rather than trying to be civil? We are all adults here, Nitram, so let's act like it.

Dark Hellion · Post by **Dark Hellion** » 2004-02-05 08:41pm

Gil, I think the point is that we rationalize the canon with real physics. The canon is that there is no reaction force, or that something neutralizes this reaction force. Knowing this, we have to rationalize this with physics.
This can get very tricky with things like comics or anime, that often throw physics out the window for style. But, we mustn't pull a SB (not spacebattle, a bigger mass of idiocy) and claim that we cannot use suspension of disbelief. This leads to either very odd physic explainations, or my preference, generate the numbers from canon, and unless the operating principle is actually important, don't worry about it, just apply the canon abilties and don't extrapolate. This is simplified, but works for most of the rather one sided VS. you will see with comic characters.

Sriad · Post by **Sriad** » 2004-02-05 09:49pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:Being spread out along the ground wouldn't be an equal and opposite reaction. Beside, we've seen all of the super strong lift huge heavy stuff without making an enormous crater under them from the reactive force being passed on to the ground.

Sure it would, in the same way that, for example, the pyramids spread a great deal of weight over a wide area. The reaction force would travel object-->tk field on object-->hero-->wide tk field on ground.

It doesn't always work that way because comic book writers are dumb and inconsistent.

Sorry, sorry, suspension of disbelief. Soooo... it doesn't always works that way because 5-D imps are little shits.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-02-05 10:11pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:
SirNitram wrote:No, we simply assume that tactile TK works on the same, unknown, rules as normal TK.
But the point of this thread is to rationalize it with real physics. Telekinesis is applying force at a distance (lit. telekinesis == movement at a distance). If telekinesis is applying force even at a distance, then it must have a reactive force. Basic law of physics there. It's not even some unknown physics, like hyderdrives or phasers, but an actual complete violation of a known physical law of nature. Connor MacLeod said it best in the other thread "In order for us to be able to analyze it, we must treat it as if real-life physics can be applied to said fictional setting"

Wow, what a stupid statement. TK is shown to work, yet not have directly observable reaction forces. I love how you claim that it's not 'unknown physics like a hyperdrive' .. 'but actual complete violation of a known physical law of nature'. You really show your ignorance there(Here's the watchword for you: Causality, it's a known physical law of nature). So, Gil. You now declare all observed telekinetics is bullshit? I rather doubt that. You're just being a petulant child.

We don't whine that it doesn't work and sulk like a child.
Huh.

*reads through thread again, finds no whining but actually suprisingly civil conversation save for the bit with Smiling Bandit*

What whining and sulking are you refering to? Or is it that you get your jollies flaming people at random rather than trying to be civil? We are all adults here, Nitram, so let's act like it.

You're an adult? Could have surprised me. Between your laughable thoughts on what is 'different physics' and your deceptive nonsense, I would have pegged you at about twelve.