(Created page with "<div class="quote">DarkDragonMedeus wrote:<br />It doesn't sound like you read the next part of the argument. About them telekinetically slowing down the atoms and molecules i...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Why is the first more reasonable than the second? They are '''equally''' probable and due to occam's razor we choose the interpretation that has the least implications (the second). |
Why is the first more reasonable than the second? They are '''equally''' probable and due to occam's razor we choose the interpretation that has the least implications (the second). |
||
| + | |||
| + | @Dargoo Faust You changed your mind on cooling feats? Or do you think they don't scale but are still able to be listed as AP? Because I agree with that. |
||
Latest revision as of 22:03, 13 January 2020
DarkDragonMedeus wrote:
It doesn't sound like you read the next part of the argument. About them telekinetically slowing down the atoms and molecules in the object by forcing them to slow down. Even Dargoo finally conceded with separating heat Vs cooling. I also explained the scientific details so I don't need to repeat that part.
It doesn't sound like you read the next part of the argument. About them telekinetically slowing down the atoms and molecules in the object by forcing them to slow down. Even Dargoo finally conceded with separating heat Vs cooling. I also explained the scientific details so I don't need to repeat that part.
So there are two interpretations for cooling:
They are telekinetically slowing each particle
They are using "energy telekinesis" to move the energy itself (and yes, energy is a thing that moves, take photons for an example).
Why is the first more reasonable than the second? They are equally probable and due to occam's razor we choose the interpretation that has the least implications (the second).
@Dargoo Faust You changed your mind on cooling feats? Or do you think they don't scale but are still able to be listed as AP? Because I agree with that.