Can you measure the [effect of the] Force in newtons?

[SirNitram]

What's the matter, Eframe? No rebuttal, no evidence?

[Eframepilot]

Efuckedupprimate, you do not acheive victory by strawmanning your opponent's arguments into circular logic, claiming that someone is unreasonable for the most retarded weight estimate I've seen lately(Hello, retard, the Joint Strike Fighter is still over ten tons. Try and get it in the right order of magnitude), and never offering up a single shred of evidence(Ooops! I forgot, you can't, because there is no evidence in your favor!).

SirNitram, I don't really care how much some imaginary starship that managed to stay buoyant in some swamp for a few weeks before sinking masses. It's an obscure fact and not directly relevant to the debate. So why do you fucking care so much? If you wanted to debate, you could try actually refuting my arguments instead of shouting about how stupid you think they are. I did notice you disputed my subjective interpretation of Yoda's quotes in favor of your own subjective interpretation; good job! But we've moved on from that. I expect Darth Wong will reject my last attempt to defend my interpretation of Yoda, and that will be the end of it. Do you think it's reasonable to propose the law I mentioned above, and if you think it's a strawman, what law would you propose? We need some sort of mathematical law if we want to make any quantitative predictions, wouldn't you agree?

[Soontir C'boath]

That is precisely what I have been trying to argue this entire thread. Writing such a law as the one I proposed is unreasonable. If someone thinks it is a strawman, please write your own better one.

No, you have been arguing that we couldn't extrapulate the amount of force observe being used when a Jedi uses the force because it gives "a great variety of physical results" which might I add you haven't provided the variety and state that we can't make the predictions. Are you trying to take us for fools and forget what your platform was?

This is your original statement in one of your posts.

Do you have any evidence to assume the Jedi's use of the Force is governed by external physical considerations and not internal mental considerations, besides wishful thinking?Do you have any specific reasons to ignore my evidence?The use of the Force is a mental phenomenon that produces a great variety of physical results. It is not unscientific to acknowledge that there are processes which we do not (yet) have enough information to make accurate predictions.

No where do I see mass being mentioned.

You are assuming that there would be a difference in lifting/throwing a living being and a nonliving object, which is what I have been arguing for. We seem to be in agreement.

ROFL, no you have not been arguing for it and plus it's a red herring. It has no tie with what you are arguing for at all.

Cyaround,
Jason

[SirNitram]

Efuckedupprimate, you do not acheive victory by strawmanning your opponent's arguments into circular logic, claiming that someone is unreasonable for the most retarded weight estimate I've seen lately(Hello, retard, the Joint Strike Fighter is still over ten tons. Try and get it in the right order of magnitude), and never offering up a single shred of evidence(Ooops! I forgot, you can't, because there is no evidence in your favor!).

SirNitram, I don't really care how much some imaginary starship that managed to stay buoyant in some swamp for a few weeks before sinking masses. It's an obscure fact and not directly relevant to the debate. So why do you fucking care so much?

You're the one who brought it back up, trying to slander me.

If you wanted to debate, you could try actually refuting my arguments instead of shouting about how stupid you think they are. I did notice you disputed my subjective interpretation of Yoda's quotes in favor of your own subjective interpretation; good job! But we've moved on from that.

Into the realm of total unsupported bullshit, where you always have been.

I expect Darth Wong will reject my last attempt to defend my interpretation of Yoda, and that will be the end of it. Do you think it's reasonable to propose the law I mentioned above, and if you think it's a strawman, what law would you propose? We need some sort of mathematical law if we want to make any quantitative predictions, wouldn't you agree?

Yea it's called: They can apply the forces we see them apply. You simply whine they can't because you don't like the results. Present some evidence or fuck off.

[Soontir C'boath]

SirNitram, I don't really care how much some imaginary starship that managed to stay buoyant in some swamp for a few weeks before sinking masses. It's an obscure fact and not directly relevant to the debate. So why do you fucking care so much? If you wanted to debate, you could try actually refuting my arguments instead of shouting about how stupid you think they are. I did notice you disputed my subjective interpretation of Yoda's quotes in favor of your own subjective interpretation; good job! But we've moved on from that. I expect Darth Wong will reject my last attempt to defend my interpretation of Yoda, and that will be the end of it. Do you think it's reasonable to propose the law I mentioned above, and if you think it's a strawman, what law would you propose? We need some sort of mathematical law if we want to make any quantitative predictions, wouldn't you agree?

This entire post is bullshit. We are asking you to get your ass up and provide evidence. Not scenarios and semantics.

You can beat around the bush all you want but you got shit.

Edit:
Everytime a Jedi uses the force to lift objects, any objects and moves tis and that we can observe the amount of force used to move said objects. You keep thinking mentality will somehow won't allow us to observe the results but as Wong or Nitram already said it would only serve AS A LIMITER to what you can do with the force but not a prevention to extrapulate.

Cyaround,
Jason

[Eframepilot]

That is precisely what I have been trying to argue this entire thread. Writing such a law as the one I proposed is unreasonable. If someone thinks it is a strawman, please write your own better one.

No, you have been arguing that we couldn't extrapulate the amount of force observe being used when a Jedi uses the force because it gives "a great variety of physical results" which might I add you haven't provided the variety and state that we can't make the predictions. Are you trying to take us for fools and forget what your platform was?

I'm sorry. I never wanted to imply that we couldn't extrapolate the amount of force being applied in an observed feat. That is a matter of measurement. I wanted to argue that we couldn't then assume that the same measured amount of force could be applied by the Jedi to another object of a significantly different nature (much less massive, for instance) to accelerate it to a much greater speed. Such extrapolation requires a mathematical law and knowledge of mass. We have not been communicating well in this thread, and the fault may be mine.

This is your original statement in one of your posts.

Do you have any evidence to assume the Jedi's use of the Force is governed by external physical considerations and not internal mental considerations, besides wishful thinking?Do you have any specific reasons to ignore my evidence?The use of the Force is a mental phenomenon that produces a great variety of physical results. It is not unscientific to acknowledge that there are processes which we do not (yet) have enough information to make accurate predictions.

No where do I see mass being mentioned.

By saying that I was arguing against the establishment of a mathematical law like the one I suggested.

You are assuming that there would be a difference in lifting/throwing a living being and a nonliving object, which is what I have been arguing for. We seem to be in agreement.

ROFL, no you have not been arguing for it and plus it's a red herring. It has no tie with what you are arguing for at all.

True, I haven't mentioned it, but it is in line with my general position. If it matters whether or not something is alive to the Force, we certainly can't establish a single mathematical law that relates the action of the Force on all objects.

[Soontir C'boath]

I wanted to argue that we couldn't then assume that the same measured amount of force could be applied by the Jedi to another object of a significantly different nature (much less massive, for instance) to accelerate it to a much greater speed. Such extrapolation requires a mathematical law and knowledge of mass. We have not been communicating well in this thread, and the fault may be mine.

This is if a Jedi decided to apply the same amount of force. Where F=F.

You can observe accelleration by monitering it when the force is applied to said object.
F=m1*a1 F=m2*a2

F/a1=m1 F/a2=m2
Have the force divided by observed accelleration and you will have said mass.

Cyaround,
Jason

[Eframepilot]

Yea it's called: They can apply the forces we see them apply. You simply whine they can't because you don't like the results. Present some evidence or fuck off.

You are assuming that the amount of force they trigger the Force to apply is not dependent on the object they apply it to. In other words, you claim that if we observe a Jedi cause X newtons to be applied to an object with a certain mental effort, the Jedi can apply X newtons to ANY object with the same mental effort. Why is this a viable assumption?

[Soontir C'boath]

Yea it's called: They can apply the forces we see them apply. You simply whine they can't because you don't like the results. Present some evidence or fuck off.

You are assuming that the amount of force they trigger the Force to apply is not dependent on the object they apply it to. In other words, you claim that if we observe a Jedi cause X newtons to be applied to an object with a certain mental effort, the Jedi can apply X newtons to ANY object with the same mental effort. Why is this a viable assumption?

Because you are the one proposing the scenario and you want a damn answer of it.

Edit:If you do apply the same amount of force with the same amount of mental effort you will get your results no matter what the object is. How hard is that to comprehend?

It's like saying if I apply say 50 newtons to a candy bar I can do the same to my headset etc. understand?~Jason

[Eframepilot]

I wanted to argue that we couldn't then assume that the same measured amount of force could be applied by the Jedi to another object of a significantly different nature (much less massive, for instance) to accelerate it to a much greater speed. Such extrapolation requires a mathematical law and knowledge of mass. We have not been communicating well in this thread, and the fault may be mine.

This is if a Jedi decided to apply the same amount of force. Where F=F.

Does the Jedi really decide to apply specific amounts of force, though? For instance, what if Obi-Wan applied the same mental Force shove to a gnat that he used on battle droids? Would this cause the gnat to fly backwards at a far faster velocity than the droids, or would it move at roughly the same speed as the droids? It is possible that a Force shove of a certain mental strength causes the target to go backwards at a certain velocity irregardless of the target's mass (up to some upper limit of course).

[SirNitram]

I wanted to argue that we couldn't then assume that the same measured amount of force could be applied by the Jedi to another object of a significantly different nature (much less massive, for instance) to accelerate it to a much greater speed. Such extrapolation requires a mathematical law and knowledge of mass. We have not been communicating well in this thread, and the fault may be mine.

This is if a Jedi decided to apply the same amount of force. Where F=F.

Does the Jedi really decide to apply specific amounts of force, though? For instance, what if Obi-Wan applied the same mental Force shove to a gnat that he used on battle droids? Would this cause the gnat to fly backwards at a far faster velocity than the droids, or would it move at roughly the same speed as the droids? It is possible that a Force shove of a certain mental strength causes the target to go backwards at a certain velocity irregardless of the target's mass (up to some upper limit of course).

If you have proof of this ramble, show it. Or shut the fuck up. It's a simple premise.

[Soontir C'boath]

Does the Jedi really decide to apply specific amounts of force, though?

You are arguing for this and you are now asking if they can?

For instance, what if Obi-Wan applied the same mental Force shove to a gnat that he used on battle droids? Would this cause the gnat to fly backwards at a far faster velocity than the droids, or would it move at roughly the same speed as the droids? It is possible that a Force shove of a certain mental strength causes the target to go backwards at a certain velocity irregardless of the target's mass (up to some upper limit of course).

First of all, you are thinking that Jedi has a certain thought of how many newtons they want to apply. It's not as if they just decidely use an amount. They want to move it they will move it but how far and how long is the capper to their mental capability. The only objective way of measuring their "mental" or force powers is to observe what they do with their use of the force and that is that. The limits of the Jedi's use of the force can be observe and place as lower/upper limits.

You are also thinking that by having it "mental" it somehow effects the amount of force observed and change things like the velocity in some unrealistic way to move an object in a certain position that meets the Jedi requirement in a drastic feet.

F=ma will not be affected by mental capabilities except as a limiter to how much you can do.

I also believe we covered this a long time ago.

Cyaround,
Jason

[Eframepilot]

Yea it's called: They can apply the forces we see them apply. You simply whine they can't because you don't like the results. Present some evidence or fuck off.

You are assuming that the amount of force they trigger the Force to apply is not dependent on the object they apply it to. In other words, you claim that if we observe a Jedi cause X newtons to be applied to an object with a certain mental effort, the Jedi can apply X newtons to ANY object with the same mental effort. Why is this a viable assumption?

Because you are the one proposing the scenario and you want a damn answer of it.

Edit:If you do apply the same amount of force with the same amount of mental effort you will get your results no matter what the object is. How hard is that to comprehend?

It's like saying if I apply say 50 newtons to a candy bar I can do the same to my headset etc. understand?~Jason

Okay. But if your brain tells your arm to pick up the candy bar and to pick up the headset, your brain is using the same amount of mental effort for each but your arm is doing a different amount of work on each (assuming they're of different masses). Likewise if the Jedi Force shoves a battle droid and a styrofoam cup to equal velocities, the Force is applying different impulses to each but the Jedi used equal mental effort to apply the two Force shoves.

[Soontir C'boath]

Okay.

You are making scenario after scenario. You said ok and that's that. If it hasn't come through your skull yet I don't think there's hope for you~Jason

Edit: I'll take a look at it.

But if your brain tells your arm to pick up the candy bar and to pick up the headset, your brain is using the same amount of mental effort for each

Did you just dive into my brain and somehow figured they use the same effort?

but your arm is doing a different amount of work on each (assuming they're of different masses). Likewise if the Jedi Force shoves a battle droid and a styrofoam cup to equal velocities, the Force is applying different impulses to each but the Jedi used equal mental effort to apply the two Force shoves.

Provide evidence that you can measure "mental effort." Othwerise, it's a big pile of shit.

Edit #2: You are trying to make scenarios that suits you. They are not.

Edit #3: Provide evidence for what you would "like."

Edit #4: I believe #3 has been mentioned many times in this thread.

Cyaround,
Jason

[Eframepilot]

Does the Jedi really decide to apply specific amounts of force, though? For instance, what if Obi-Wan applied the same mental Force shove to a gnat that he used on battle droids? Would this cause the gnat to fly backwards at a far faster velocity than the droids, or would it move at roughly the same speed as the droids? It is possible that a Force shove of a certain mental strength causes the target to go backwards at a certain velocity irregardless of the target's mass (up to some upper limit of course).

If you have proof of this ramble, show it. Or shut the fuck up. It's a simple premise.[/quote]

Fair enough. In the spirit of StarDestroyer.Net, I shall analyze the physical situation and create a model of the Force shove. The existing model (the one you support) seems to be that if we see the Jedi apply a force through a Force shove on some object, they can apply the same Force shove to any other object and produce the same amount of force on that other object. Unfortunately, this model leads to absurdities like Jedi tossing baseballs into orbit and raises questions like, "If Jedi can Force-shove heavy objects like battle-droids and boulders easily, then why don't we observe, say, Darth Maul casually smashing all of his opponents in his Shadow Hunter novel into walls at over 100 mph, or doing the same to Obi-Wan when he caught him off-guard in TPM?"

I propose that the Force shove takes roughly uniform "mental effort" and accelerates the target object to a certain maximum velocity of about what we saw Obi-Wan apply to the battle-droids. There will be other limiters, such as mass, but this velocity is about what we can expect for all roughly humanoid-massed objects. It may be possible for Jedi to accelerate objects to much greater velocities, but not with the simple Force shove technique seen applied in battle.

This model is better than the old model because not only does it describe the observed evidence, it also explains why the Jedi and Sith are not seen using extreme acceleration of their enemies as a weapon. They can't do it. Otherwise we would have to come up with another explanation for each failure of the Jedi or Sith to use such a turbo-powered Force shove.

[SirNitram]

So your total proof for this alternate theory is zero, the practical use of it hovers around zero with no useful predictions, and it exists solely because you're a whiny bitch who can't accept he's wrong. This makes it far inferior to the existing model. Ergo, I reject it.

[Darth Wong]

Luke cannot move them with the same effort because he doesn't believe, according to Yoda. Luke is not a good example.

You are still assuming that Yoda's statement is totally literal. In fact, you are using that assumption in order to justify a particular interpretation of a scene which you use as evidence that Yoda's statement is totally literal. You do know that "logic" and "circular" are words that should not be seen together, right?

Here your reasoning is circular.

I am not arguing anything; I am pointing out that your argument is circular. How can a statement which does not actually propose anything be a circular logic argument, dumb-ass? You're just switching to the "Tu Quoque" fallacy, and hoping I won't notice.

You brought up the example of Luke's failure as evidence on your side. You want to assume Yoda's statement is not literal in order to use Luke's failure as evidence that Yoda's statement is not literal.

Nice strawman fallacy, dumb-ass. Anyone can look at my previous post and see that I was talking about Yoda, not Luke. Since he claims not to suffer from the same psychological problem that Luke does, his own limitations neatly refute any such absurd claims about literalism (which are quite frankly absurd in the first place; dialogue is always subjective; it is an indication of the speaker's intent, and if it is not highly precise and unequivocal which none of Yoda's statements ever are, then it is not particularly valuable).

Ha! Good point, and one I considered myself, though I didn't think you'd make this argument after SirNitram complained that an X-Wing is far more massive than a metric ton earlier in this thread. I agree with you, though; a lighter X-Wing explains why it stayed buoyant in the swamp for several weeks. Conceeded.

Actually, there is no contradictiopn there. An X-wing could easily weigh more than one metric ton and yet remain buoyant in the swamp. And do you really think that support pillar only weighed one ton? Do you have any grasp of the density of metals?

I disagree that Yoda's line of dialogue should be dismissed so easily.

You obviously do not know what constitutes "evidence" to a rational person.

If it were a respected SW physicist discussing principles of hyperspace physics, we would attempt to reconcile the scientist's statements with observation of hyperspace phenomena before discarding it, and I think Yoda's statements on the Force should be given similar merit. But I suspect we will have to agree to disagree on this.

No, I will continue to employ the accepted rationalist method while you will insist that subjectivist bullshit is equally valid. Get the facts straight, dumb-ass. One of many possible interpretations of equivocal dialogue is NOT evidence. Simply by showing that there is another valid way to interpret that line, I have already nullified it as evidence for your position. I do not need to prove that this alternate interpretation is correct; I only need to prove that your interpretation is not the only possible one. Once that is done, we must recognize the limited value of the statement and switch to direct observation of physical events, which you refuse to do. Your attempts to dismiss Yoda's vastly lower effort to lift walking sticks and lightsabres are pathetic, and indeed, you quietly dropped them in this post.

I'll rephrase this entire discussion. Can we correctly propose a law, "The amount of mental effort necessary to cause the Force to move an object at any acceleration is directly proportional to the object's mass and to the magnitude of acceleration," from our observations?

We can propose that the Force can manifest itself as physical forces and even electromagnetic energy. We can propose that it is reasonable to surmise that those manifestations are subject to the same kinds of limits which affect other type of forces. For example, a hydraulic cylinder can apply X newtons of force, but it also has limits on velocity and energy. The fact that a hydraulic cylinder can lift a 50 ton object at 1 metres per second does not necessarily mean that it can lift a 1 gram object at 50 million m/s. We can note that the Force must supply energy for its various acts, and that while we do not know the source of this energy, it is unlikely that one can extract 50 times as much energy from this wellspring with no extra effort. We can also observe that it takes more effort to act on large objects than on small ones, even for an accomplished Jedi Master. Therefore, there is probably some kind of proportionality, although we do not know whether it is linear, exponential, etc.

Note that this law would not hold if it were physical strength being talked about; there is no significant mental difference in lifting a 5-pound weight and a 10-pound weight, but at the limit of physical strength, forcing one's muscles to lift an additional 5 pounds is much harder.

You don't seem to understand the difference between "insignificant at small magnitudes" and "no proportionality at all".

Well. Here's one similar to proposals by Connor MacLeod. Anakin Skywalker can easily throw huge boulders around to crush entire Tusken Raider huts, therefore he can just as easily throw ordinary human bodies far, far harder.

Unless there is some particular aspect of living bodies which makes it difficult to grab them with the Force, this seems reasonable.

Assume a boulder is 1000 kg, and Anakin can accelerate it to 10 m/s in a second. Then applying the same impulse to a 100 kg person, Anakin will accelerate him to 100 m/s which will prove fatal in any environment not covered in padding. Can Anakin do this?

It depends on whether there is a velocity limit to a man's application of the Force, much as there would be for the hydraulic cylinder I mentioned earlier (and which neatly disproves your moronic "if this were true, then ..." scenario about hurling tiny objects at relativistic speed). Since Obi-Wan could accelerate himself at an absurd rate (some 60-100 Gs), it is hardly implausible for him to do so to another person, if he were so inclined. Anakin in berserker mode seems to be fairly unrestricted in his use of the Force against sentients.

[Eframepilot]

Nice strawman fallacy, dumb-ass. Anyone can look at my previous post and see that I was talking about Yoda, not Luke. Since he claims not to suffer from the same psychological problem that Luke does, his own limitations neatly refute any such absurd claims about literalism (which are quite frankly absurd in the first place; dialogue is always subjective; it is an indication of the speaker's intent, and if it is not highly precise and unequivocal which none of Yoda's statements ever are, then it is not particularly valuable).

My bad. I honestly misread your argument and thought you were using Luke as an additional example. Conceeded.

No, I will continue to employ the accepted rationalist method while you will insist that subjectivist bullshit is equally valid. Get the facts straight, dumb-ass. One of many possible interpretations of equivocal dialogue is NOT evidence. Simply by showing that there is another valid way to interpret that line, I have already nullified it as evidence for your position. I do not need to prove that this alternate interpretation is correct; I only need to prove that your interpretation is not the only possible one. Once that is done, we must recognize the limited value of the statement and switch to direct observation of physical events, which you refuse to do. Your attempts to dismiss Yoda's vastly lower effort to lift walking sticks and lightsabres are pathetic, and indeed, you quietly dropped them in this post.

A couple problem with the above. Isn't there more than one possible interpretation of direct observations of physical events, and can't we use the testimony of experts to guide our interpretations in the absence of directly contradicting evidence? I'll conceed that Yoda and my interpretation of his statements is too shaky to use as evidence, but the questions remain.

We can propose that the Force can manifest itself as physical forces and even electromagnetic energy. We can propose that it is reasonable to surmise that those manifestations are subject to the same kinds of limits which affect other type of forces. For example, a hydraulic cylinder can apply X newtons of force, but it also has limits on velocity and energy. The fact that a hydraulic cylinder can lift a 50 ton object at 1 metres per second does not necessarily mean that it can lift a 1 gram object at 50 million m/s. We can note that the Force must supply energy for its various acts, and that while we do not know the source of this energy, it is unlikely that one can extract 50 times as much energy from this wellspring with no extra effort. We can also observe that it takes more effort to act on large objects than on small ones, even for an accomplished Jedi Master. Therefore, there is probably some kind of proportionality, although we do not know whether it is linear, exponential, etc.

Agreed. Won't this forbid mathematical predictions in situations we have not observed? We can still extrapolate what the Jedi should be able to do by what seems reasonable.

You don't seem to understand the difference between "insignificant at small magnitudes" and "no proportionality at all".

I actually do understand, but I was too lazy to say, "very weakly proportional for small weights but rising asymptotically as the limit of physical lifting strength is approached," or something.

It depends on whether there is a velocity limit to a man's application of the Force, much as there would be for the hydraulic cylinder I mentioned earlier (and which neatly disproves your moronic "if this were true, then ..." scenario about hurling tiny objects at relativistic speed). Since Obi-Wan could accelerate himself at an absurd rate (some 60-100 Gs), it is hardly implausible for him to do so to another person, if he were so inclined. Anakin in berserker mode seems to be fairly unrestricted in his use of the Force against sentients.

I've actually written a physical model with a velocity limit for Force shoves in an earlier post, which you may have replied to by now. It probably sucks of course. On Jedi acceleration, I would hesitate to assume Jedi can duplicate Force speed on others. The power appeared to speed up the Jedi a la the Flash; they literally ran down the hall with their legs in superspeed (and went semi-invisible as well).

[Darth Wong]

My bad. I honestly misread your argument and thought you were using Luke as an additional example. Conceeded.

OK.

A couple problem with the above. Isn't there more than one possible interpretation of direct observations of physical events, and can't we use the testimony of experts to guide our interpretations in the absence of directly contradicting evidence? I'll conceed that Yoda and my interpretation of his statements is too shaky to use as evidence, but the questions remain.

We do not "interpret" physical observations in the same sense that we "interpret" dialogue. Dialogue is "interpreted" as an indicator to the speaker's intent, based on semantic rules. Physical observations are "interpreted" by taking them at face value and trying to develop theories. The scientific method is constructed in such a manner as to permit rational analysis and comparison of competing theories. There is no such corresponding method to perform rational analysis and comparison of different subjective interpretations of dialogue.

Agreed. Won't this forbid mathematical predictions in situations we have not observed? We can still extrapolate what the Jedi should be able to do by what seems reasonable.

Our observations are of an extremely imprecise nature. Therefore, extrapolation beyond what we have seen is not really possible. However, interpolation between observations is reasonable, even if it is not precise. And there are quite a few canon and official observations of the abilities of Force users which are routinely ignored by those who attempt to minimize Jedi user capabilities.

In other words, we know what Yoda can do to a lightweight walking stick and we know what he can do to a huge multi-ton structural column. It would be pretty dicey to extrapolate what he could do to, say, a skyscraper. But if we're talking about an object whose mass is somewhere between that of the walking stick and the structural column, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that he should be able to move it around, even if our estimates of the resulting speed will be extremely imprecise.

I've actually written a physical model with a velocity limit for Force shoves in an earlier post, which you may have replied to by now. It probably sucks of course.

Your model simply asserts an arbitrary maximum velocity, which you basically pluck out of the air by assuming that the speed at which Obi-Wan shoved the battledroids must be the maximum. That is not a model; it is nothing more than idle speculation based on a single piece of information. Since Anakin was able to throw Tusken Raiders more than 30 metres through the air with a single Force wall shove, he can obviously hurl people and objects are much greater speeds than Obi-Wan's force shove against battledroids.

On Jedi acceleration, I would hesitate to assume Jedi can duplicate Force speed on others. The power appeared to speed up the Jedi a la the Flash; they literally ran down the hall with their legs in superspeed (and went semi-invisible as well).

You can't simply run at superspeed; your feet can't generate that kind of traction on the floor. A push was necessary.

[Eframepilot]

So your total proof for this alternate theory is zero,

The proof for this alternate model is the same as for the existing model, plus it describes why we don't see certain applications of the Force by Jedi and excludes the relativistic pebble absurdity.

the practical use of it hovers around zero with no useful predictions,

Models are not created for their practical use or their number of useful predictions; those are happy bonuses. Models are created to accurately describe reality. This one does, plus explains why we don't see unobserved behavior.

and it exists solely because you're a whiny bitch who can't accept he's wrong.

You've got me there. But this isn't really a flaw in the model...

This makes it far inferior to the existing model. Ergo, I reject it.

You can't just reject it, you have to either show that it fails to describe what it claims to in some way or come up with a better model yourself.
And the existing model? The one that allows relativistic pebbles? Certainly you can do better than that.

[Darth Wong]

And the existing model? The one that allows relativistic pebbles? Certainly you can do better than that.

There is no existing model which allows relativistic pebbles. That is simply your strawman. The statement that I can apply X newtons of force to an object does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that I can accelerate it to relativistic speed, you idiot. If it did, then hydraulic cylinders would be able to produce relativistic pebbles!

[Eframepilot]

We do not "interpret" physical observations in the same sense that we "interpret" dialogue. Dialogue is "interpreted" as an indicator to the speaker's intent, based on semantic rules. Physical observations are "interpreted" by taking them at face value and trying to develop theories. The scientific method is constructed in such a manner as to permit rational analysis and comparison of competing theories. There is no such corresponding method to perform rational analysis and comparison of different subjective interpretations of dialogue.

That makes sense. All other things being equal, could dialogue be used to choose one purely physical theory over a competing but equally valid theory? (In this sort of debate of course, not real life.)

Our observations are of an extremely imprecise nature. Therefore, extrapolation beyond what we have seen is not really possible. However, interpolation between observations is reasonable, even if it is not precise. And there are quite a few canon and official observations of the abilities of Force users which are routinely ignored by those who attempt to minimize Jedi user capabilities.

In other words, we know what Yoda can do to a lightweight walking stick and we know what he can do to a huge multi-ton structural column. It would be pretty dicey to extrapolate what he could do to, say, a skyscraper. But if we're talking about an object whose mass is somewhere between that of the walking stick and the structural column, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that he should be able to move it around, even if our estimates of the resulting speed will be extremely imprecise.

I agree completely. This is pretty much what I wanted to say when I created this thread. My own biases towards lower Jedi powers and focus on the unobservable mental mechanisms of the Force poisoned the debate.

Your model simply asserts an arbitrary maximum velocity, which you basically pluck out of the air by assuming that the speed at which Obi-Wan shoved the battledroids must be the maximum. That is not a model; it is nothing more than idle speculation based on a single piece of information. Since Anakin was able to throw Tusken Raiders more than 30 metres through the air with a single Force wall shove, he can obviously hurl people and objects are much greater speeds than Obi-Wan's force shove against battledroids.

Yep. I didn't know or forgot about the Tusken Raider toss. Junk the "model", then.

You can't simply run at superspeed; your feet can't generate that kind of traction on the floor. A push was necessary.

If they Force-enhanced their grip on the floor then... never mind. A push of some sort was probably involved.

[Darth Wong]

We do not "interpret" physical observations in the same sense that we "interpret" dialogue. Dialogue is "interpreted" as an indicator to the speaker's intent, based on semantic rules. Physical observations are "interpreted" by taking them at face value and trying to develop theories. The scientific method is constructed in such a manner as to permit rational analysis and comparison of competing theories. There is no such corresponding method to perform rational analysis and comparison of different subjective interpretations of dialogue.

That makes sense. All other things being equal, could dialogue be used to choose one purely physical theory over a competing but equally valid theory? (In this sort of debate of course, not real life.)

It would depend on the nature of the dialogue. If it's something like "the exhaust port is 2 metres wide", that's rather precise. But if it's something like "the pen is mightier than the sword", well, be reasonable; it's crap. Besides, Occam's Razor is your first method of differentiating between competing theories of apparently equal accuracy.

I agree completely. This is pretty much what I wanted to say when I created this thread. My own biases towards lower Jedi powers and focus on the unobservable mental mechanisms of the Force poisoned the debate.

OK, then. As long as we've cleared that up.

[SirNitram]

So your total proof for this alternate theory is zero,

The proof for this alternate model is the same as for the existing model, plus it describes why we don't see certain applications of the Force by Jedi and excludes the relativistic pebble absurdity.

What relativistic pebble? The one you pulled from the infinite depths of your own ass then claimed the normal model supports? Strawman fallacy. Please fuck off.

the practical use of it hovers around zero with no useful predictions,

Models are not created for their practical use or their number of useful predictions; those are happy bonuses. Models are created to accurately describe reality. This one does, plus explains why we don't see unobserved behavior.

Yet has nothing supporting it's existance besides your strawman and non-existant proof.

and it exists solely because you're a whiny bitch who can't accept he's wrong.

You've got me there. But this isn't really a flaw in the model...

Yes, the utter lack of supporting evidence of any kind whatsoever is enough of a flaw.

This makes it far inferior to the existing model. Ergo, I reject it.

You can't just reject it, you have to either show that it fails to describe what it claims to in some way or come up with a better model yourself.
And the existing model? The one that allows relativistic pebbles? Certainly you can do better than that.

'Relativistic pebbles! RELATIVISTIC PEBBLES! I DO NOT LIKE THIS SIR, I SHALL REPEAT THIS STRAWMAN UNTIL YOU ALL SURRENDER!'

Fuck off, troll. Present evidence for your theory or go away. I'm sure everyone here is tired of repeating this demand.

[Eframepilot]

So your total proof for this alternate theory is zero,

The proof for this alternate model is the same as for the existing model, plus it describes why we don't see certain applications of the Force by Jedi and excludes the relativistic pebble absurdity.

What relativistic pebble? The one you pulled from the infinite depths of your own ass then claimed the normal model supports? Strawman fallacy. Please fuck off.

The "normal model" was very poorly defined before this discussion. According to at least one debator, it did indeed demand freakishly fast pebbles:

First off, the pebble is going to be moving 10,000,000 meters per second. That's maybe 3 percent of c. Secondly, yes, I do believe they can do that, because Yoda has demonstrated the ability to generate teh required amount of force to do so. Again, this is something basic science tells us, even if zips completely past your head.

You are moderator of the Fantasy forum and took part in the thread where Connor posted the above argument. As you made no attempt to correct him, it could be said you implictly approved the "normal model" allowing very very fast pebbles. Clearly the previous model's blanket statement that the Jedi can apply the forces we see them apply needed some modifications so that relativistic pebbles would not be unavoidable consequences. I admit that MY model was crap, but some better model that does not assume Jedi can apply the forces we have observed equally to any object is necessary. Such a model will not be able to make precise quantitative predictions for the action of the Force on all objects since we do not know the mathematical laws and proportionalities that govern the Force. (The quantitative measurements themselves are perfectly valid, and we can still use them to estimate the Jedi's capabilities and limits for objects of different mass.) Establishing this was my purpose in creating this thread.