Is telekinesis real ?

Irrespective of what many scientists and stupid skeptics think, yes, telekinesis is quite real. It is just one of many related psi talents under the umbrella of psychokinesis. For some reason, if it's not real, the military and intelligence communities have been doing ongoing research programs for over fifty years now into something that doesn't exist. But even the Sony Corporation (and other companies) has had a ten year program going: they had concluded that psi was indeed real, but that there wasn't any commercial value to it.

While a few rare people can do it easily, the "problem" for most other people who may want to do it is that learning to do telekinesis is like learning how to lower the temperature of only two fingers on one hand-- it can be done, but it takes a lot of time and constant practice. For super telekineticist Nina Kulagina, it took her over a year of constant practice before she became psi-active. For some people it can take even longer, and for many people they will never learn to do it. Try spoon-bending, it's an easier form of telekinesis. In an Air Force study it was noted that sometimes even generals have gotten parties together to see who could been a spoon fastest.

Otherwise, learning telekinesis takes much meditation, biofeedback, or the quickest way-- hypnotherapy. The key is getting into a brainwave state known as theta, which is immensely difficult for most people to do when awake.

Telekinesis is not real, but it is possible lift up objects just by thinking about it, using some devices which would certainly be built in future, but it not exactly due to "the power of the mind"

It doesn't appear so.

In fact, it does not seem to be possible at all. Certainly our knowledge of physics and neurology does not predict that such an ability would exist. Ostensible demonstrations of psychokinesis (PK) have not risen above those that could equally well be reproduced by amateur magicians, so there is little reason to believe they are legitimate. Regardless, some researchers have tried to establish the existence of PK anyway by performing statistical experiments with random number generators (see the Rhine Institute, or Princeton's PEAR project). However, the results generated by these research teams are at best described as debatable, at worst described as pathological science.

One of those warning sings that you're dealing with more of a pseudoscience than anything else is the lack of theory based on and predicted by established science. A theory starts with a valid scientific hypothesis that is tested and confirmed by repeated experiments by independent research teams, and anything less is not a theory. However, parapsychologists have not even got this far. Because our present scientific knowledge does not predict the existence of PK, it's impossible to form a valid hypothesis for it other than the trivial "PK exists". But this is an orphaned superficial hypothesis completely separated from any sound foundation in known science. That's a great example of how science does NOT proceed. Science is a process which builds upon itself, and here is a good example where the results are being presumed first with no supporting theoretical foundation. As U of O psychology professor Ray Hyman said of remote viewing research, "you need a positive theory to guide you as to what needs to be controlled, and what can be ignored. Parapsychologists have not come close to this as yet."

Great highly documented essay on PK and other psi research:

http://www.skepdic.com/essays/psihistory%E2%80%A6

Information and links for the PEAR project:

http://www.skepdic.com/pear.html

Information on J.B. Rhine of the Rhine Institute

http://www.nndb.com/people/029/000049879/

What is pathological science?

http://skepdic.com/pathosc.html

No.

Here is a YouTube video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ej97geNCsk

NO!!!!