Buraks metaphysical rant

   For those that claim that metaphysical energies don't exist because they have failed to prove their existence trough experimentation; the simple fact that an experiment being subject to the modern tools and receptive apparatus' is enough reason to conclude that these energies simply can't be perceived using our technology or that the traditional science doesn't include an experiment that would bring out the conclusive evidence.

  A primitive experiment the said skeptic puts into action is a simple object being put on the table in front of a said practitioner of telekinesis\energy working and ask him to move the object using these energies at his disposal. The practitioner focuses on the object and the object doesn't move, proving the skeptic right.

  Now the proof here is only self declared because of the fact that by comparison we can all experiment that there is almost no physical energy that can move, lets say, a wooden object either. Take electricity for example. How much would it move if you connected 2 cables of several volts into a wooden object? None. Even if you decorated the wooden object with serious measurement tools of electricity, there would still be almost no output since the wooden object is not conductive.

  So how smart is it to directly apply direct telekinetic notions from a single doubting mind towards an object that is not know with its ability to receive or react to these energies, let alone being able to determine this reaction by having the right tools to do so? Is this the right way of measuring metaphysical energy, since its not even the right way to measure a very definitive energy like electricity?

  Many things are not conductive, making it impossible to witness direct current by using only these objects. Many objects are conductive which made it possible for us to discover the energy of electricity. Some objects are semi conductive which causes electricity to show a different effect on different matters that are observably effected by it.

  The effectiveness of an energy on a single type of object using a single type of method or energy can't be a definitive experiment. Some objects could be totally immune to it. Hell the fact that almost every object being immune to react or show these energies in a direct manner might be the core reason for being unable to perceive these energies on the daily life to begin with, like many organic objects being semi-conductors having resulted in the discovery of direct current to take several thousand years.

  Does heat have the same effect on every object that it comes,in contact with? Different kinds of objects have different conduction or radiation of heat levels, some not doing it at all if the heat is not enough. Cold is the absence of heat and it can't be measured without having a certain amount of heat in the measurement tools or the environment. Should we declare cold an energy too, since its observable?

  Or should we discard static energy because we cant measure it without implementing kinetic force on it? What if we didn't know about kinetic energy, would that mean static energy didn't exist as well?

  What if for example we haven't yet discovered the technology to forge the materials that happen to be conductive? We would have never discovered electricity. What happens when you implement a high degree of heat in a very short time to a cube of ice? Nothing. Can that be used to prove or disprove the existence of heat energy?

  So just the fact that we are trying to directly use the metaphysical energies on matters doesn't mean that these energies don't exist. And the amount of the observable output (telekinetic energy has been measured by using very delicate tools but the amount is so small that it is counted as insignificant) being too small doesn't mean that it doesn't have any effect. After all if you can lit a candle and apply it on a piece of rock it wont do anything, whereas it would burn a wooden object.

  But I wont deny the fact that large amounts of any energy mostly have an effect on almost everything. For example you cant move a wooden object with a bit of electricity but you can turn it into crisp or even blow it up with a larger amount. I only say that we having less ability to transmit huge amounts of telekinetic energy doesn't mean that it wouldn't have *any* effect. Or doesn't mean that these things don't exist to begin with.

  Also we can make an electronic motor and attach wheels on a wooden object and *move* the wooden object using the electric energy. But directly applying it can't be compared to this. This also shows that we simply don't know the right method to apply, the same example, kinetic energy on an object to make it move.

  So its all a matter of finding the right method to apply it and the right tools to put it into effect. Actually energy workers already claim that they have the right tools to observe these energies, just not all of them are able to be converted into telekinetic energy.

  So yeah, experimentation goes as far as the technology to do so. Before that point only exists philosophy and that's what we use anyway. Don't let skeptics and realists confuse you! Reality only goes as far as invention! If you told a man from 500 years ago that his body is made up of countless tiny animals that are producing acid, he would laugh at your face too.