Q vs? Umm? Can anything beat Q?

[Batman]

Brian, if I may?

Any device that can teleport large objects through apparently any distance,

As evidenced by what?

nearly instaneously,

As evidenced by what?

across any time period,

As evidenced by what?

and is small enough to carry around

As evidenced by what, fucktard?

and requires no input energy

As evidenced by what?

(Not to mention manipulating universal constants, altering matter/energy/time/space/etc. on a ridiculously advance level and instantly, etc.)

Which Q never did.

Apollo possessed so-called god-like abilities, and so did the Catwoman. They were not gods, and eventually after their technology was defeated they were vanquished.

Well this is significantly more "god-like." Might as well pit the Empire against the Culture and claim the Culture must lose because we have never seen them teleport stuff across SWtech shields.

Completely correct. Not about them losing (I don't know anything about the Culture so I couldn't comment) but UNLESS we have reason to assume Culture telportation can circumvent Wars shields yes, that is what we should assume. As Trek teleportation, which is generally defeated by shields, can occasionally work around them even for Fed tech, there's no reason to assume Q teleportation will work against Wars shields unless you have evidence of it actually doing so.

Lack of proof is not proof of absence, and given that transporters are how people reappear and disappear in Trek, the hypothesis that this is transporters is superior.

There are other teleportation technologies in ST other than transporters, so this argument is false.

Like what, exactly? Every kind of teleportation that ever was explained was explained as a kind of transporter. Oh, and I'd like evidence that Q teleportation isn't a transporter.

Who the fuck are you even debating or can you not even read at a grade school level? I never NOT claimed it was technology. It is, as I have claimed right from the beginning. And it is really, really advanced. Are they "transporters"? Who the fuck cares. It's ridiculously powerful and advanced and doesn't seem to have any of the limitations of "transporters," so why the fuck would frequency-less shields be able to stop it?

Because we never ever not once have seen them work against those.
EVIDENCE for them doing so Braga-brains.

Exactly, very upscaled, to the point where no one else could reproduce that in trek-verse.

Your thinking is unbelievably backwards. Transporter technology would a LOWER limit exactly as you describe, not the upper limit, which is exactly you're trying to claim. Seeing how it is far far more powerful than conventional transporters why would it bound by the same limitations?

Seeing as we NEVER see it do anything normal transporters CAN'T, if under special circumstances, why should we assume they AREN'T?
Seeing as we NEVER see them work against shield that aren't frequency.dependant and we ALSO never see them work against shields that are millions of times more powerful than Fed ones, why should we assume they CAN?

we're talking about transporting a single guy off a ship, something Q has done many many times, except now this guy is protected by "mythical" SWtech and can somehow stop Q. Yeah right.

He succeeded in doing so against Fed MT range frequency-dependent shields. He now is up against PT range non-frequency dependent ones. Weren't YOU the one who brought up the scale question earlier?

You have absolutely no reason to believe this, especially against a guy who can take you to the big bang one second and in the next shrink your ship to 6 inches long and put it on a christmas tree.

Pressuposing he ever did that in the first case. Not that those examples are in any way shape or form connected.

Because somehow, someway, you came to the ridiculously absurd and idiotic notion that this lower limit of yours is now the upper limit,

Why don't you quote the part where Brian stated that, because I can sure as hell not remember that.

based on no evidence at all, and that somehow SWtech is automagically above this lower limit, and that to think otherwise is the no-limit fallacy. I'd say something is wrong with your logic.

Bw.Bwa.Bwaha.Bwahahaha. YOU claim Q can transport through Wars shields which are not frequency dependant, YOU claim he can do so against shields that are millions of times more powerful than Fed ones, but Brian is the one who's logic is wrong. You're a riot.

Actually we have significant evidence, that they have transported people off of ships, heck whole ships themselves. The thing we don't have is evidence that SWTech will stop this tech which has nothing to do with proof of absense.

We have evidence that Wars shields are millions of times more powerful than Fed ones and that they are not frequency dependant. Evidency that that doesn't matter for Q transportation, please.

By "beam through Wars shields" you mean "beam whole ships"? Don't be a fool. You're whole arguments boils down to a very narrow way but totally unsubstanciated way that Palpatine may survive a very specific attack from Q. I'm pointing out that even this is absurd (ignoring all the other ways Palpy can be killed for the sake of argument).

Nom, his argument boils down to Q being able to beam people off Fed ships with MT range frequency dependant shielding not equalling Q being able to beam people of Wars ships with PT non-frequency dependant shielding.
Weren't you the one mentioning scale earlier?

[Nick Lancaster]

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
-- Clarke's Axiom


It's easy to upscale Q's abilities and distill them down to a single trick - he pulls items out of different quantum realities. Whether this requires enormous, room-sized instrumentation like Trelane's mirror (TOS: Squire of Gothos), or whether it could be a significantly smaller device is unknown.

The only hitch is Amanda Rogers, who did not seem to possess any instrumentation. (This does not, however, preclude Q from linking her to such a device - he's there as a safety valve.)

It is possible for such a device to enable everything from Picard's presence at the faliure of two molecules to bond (TNG: All Good Things) to the 'change the gravitational constant of the universe' - because there's a quantum reality where that gravitational constant is different.

====

As to this Q vs. <someone kick-ass powerful in the SWverse> question, if this is a question of someone who can sort through quantum realities, why would Q pick the one where he's going to get spanked?

If we match Q vs. Palpatine, would Palpatine be able to sense that Q's abilities are instrument-based? Is Q's instrumentation 'indestructible,' or does he bank on no one figuring out the magic trick?

[Assassin X]

<----Is enjoying this post very much!

<----Thinks this is way funner then the debate between friend and self.

<----Doesnt remember their being a Imperial transmission though.

You know couldnt the others in the continum kill Q?

[General Zod]

The only hitch is Amanda Rogers, who did not seem to possess any instrumentation. (This does not, however, preclude Q from linking her to such a device - he's there as a safety valve.)

one theory that was brought up earlier was that it could be all q have some type of nano machines in their bodies that remain dormant until a certain point where they 'tune in' to Q machinery so they can tap into their powers.

[18-Till-I-Die]

If he cant transport Palpy could he transport teh ship he was on, or the building he's in? If Q can move whoel ships, it's posisble he could just send Palpy's ship into a star or black hole or something.

I'm not taking sides here, i'm just suggesting a tactic he could use.

[Batman]

If he cant transport Palpy could he transport teh ship he was on, or the building he's in? If Q can move whoel ships, it's posisble he could just send Palpy's ship into a star or black hole or something.
I'm not taking sides here, i'm just suggesting a tactic he could use.

That's assuming he can transport through Wars shields, which is one of the points under contention.

[18-Till-I-Die]

If he cant transport Palpy could he transport teh ship he was on, or the building he's in? If Q can move whoel ships, it's posisble he could just send Palpy's ship into a star or black hole or something.
I'm not taking sides here, i'm just suggesting a tactic he could use.

That's assuming he can transport through Wars shields, which is one of the points under contention.

Ah i see. So the Wars shields, would they protect that much? I mean, again i'm just saying, but it seems like it's giving far too much faith to the Wars shields. Yeah i wouldnt think the Fed teleporters could pop them, but these are transporters way, way more advanced--maybe millions of years more advanced--and i just think it's exagerating Star Wars shields a bit. But on the other hand, the frequency weakness could be a deciding factor, if evidence does point to Q somehow pinpointing the modulations and transporting through them. But would it explain transporting whole ships?

This is really complicated. There is evidence for both sides, it would seem to me. I really dont know which side i would fall on

[General Zod]

Ah i see. So the Wars shields, would they protect that much? I mean, again i'm just saying, but it seems like it's giving far too much faith to the Wars shields. Yeah i wouldnt think the Fed teleporters could pop them, but these are transporters way, way more advanced--maybe millions of years more advanced--and i just think it's exagerating Star Wars shields a bit. But on the other hand, the frequency weakness could be a deciding factor, if evidence does point to Q somehow pinpointing the modulations and transporting through them. But would it explain transporting whole ships?

This is really complicated. There is evidence for both sides, it would seem to me. I really dont know which side i would fall on

wars shields aren't exactly frequency dependent. trek's are. it could simply be that when Q passes by trek shielding he analyzes the frequency and compensates for it, letting him pass through.

[Stark]

Until we see these powers work through SW 'style' high-power, no-frequency shielding, it'd be reckless to assume that they WILL. It's not about ubering SW - its about what we see, and no more.

To be honest, since we've had Frame of Mind, it's amusing that people are resistant to the idea that AGT took place entirely inside Picards mind.

But hey. The Q are so uber, so amazing, so able to teleport anything anywhere ever, that you can point a gun at them, squeeze the trigger, and kill them. Wow, thats amazing! What godlike power. You'd never get the drop on Palpatine like that.

[Batman]

I'm not taking sides here, i'm just suggesting a tactic he could use.

That's assuming he can transport through Wars shields, which is one of the points under contention.[/quote]
Ah i see. So the Wars shields, would they protect that much? I mean, again i'm just saying, but it seems like it's giving far too much faith to the Wars shields. Yeah i wouldnt think the Fed teleporters could pop them, but these are transporters way, way more advanced--maybe millions of years more advanced--and i just think it's exagerating Star Wars shields a bit.[/quote]
Um- they're millions of times more powerful and not frequency dependant.
Literally, and the 'millions' is using lower limits.

But on the other hand, the frequency weakness could be a deciding factor, if evidence does point to Q somehow pinpointing the modulations and transporting through them.

We know that's possible. Burden of proof is on the 'it's not transporters' crowd to proof that's NOT how they do it.

But would it explain transporting whole ships?

Why the hell not? It's merely a matter of scale. Unless there is an upper limit on transportable mass/volume that I'm unaware of, there's no reason why a more advanced transporter (and nobody's AFAIK debated that the Q are not filthily advanced) couldn't transport a starship.
When did the Q actually do so, while we're at it?

[brianeyci]

The arguments are not the same.

They are. Although you are not arguing that their abilities are innate, you might as well be. You are saying that because their abilities are undefined, we should not put limits on them. For example, you say that they use some sort of super-advanced teleportation device that is so god-like that we shouldn't put limits on them. The pro-innate crowd was arguing that they used innate abilities and therefore should not place limits on what Q is doing.

You are unwilling to take the lower limit to debate, at least with your previous posts. You say that we should appeal to some sort of undefined upper limit when we have a handy explaination for a lower limit and how Q can transport through Federation shields with a documented weakness.

Point being? This is exactly I was saying. You either didn't read what I wrote or you're just blowing smoke.

The point being, is that I never said that Q was god-like. Q may have god-like powers but that does not mean he is omnipotent. Therefore, we can place limits.

This is a strawman. The example's point was that it is absurd to think that just because something doesn't have to be nearly magically in its tech to work it must be something very low tech. This is ridiculous. Any device that can teleport large objects through apparently any distance, nearly instaneously, across any time period, and is small enough to carry around and requires no input energy or whatever would be wanktech level technology, i.e. "god-like." (Not to mention manipulating universal constants, altering matter/energy/time/space/etc. on a ridiculously advance level and instantly, etc.)

We debate with lower limits of effectiveness of Q technology. Because they are able to beam or teleport aboard Federation ships does not mean they are able to beam aboard Wars ships with a totally different shielding system. In addition, we know that the spirit of Trek is to show that technology can solve all problems. Whether you agree with it or not is moot. Given that frequency is a documented problem in Trek, transporters are common in Trek, and the history of so-called god-like beings in Trek, it is reasonable to assume what Q used has the lower limit of a transporter.

Well this is significantly more "god-like." Might as well pit the Empire against the Culture and claim the Culture must lose because we have never seen them teleport stuff across SWtech shields.

Federation shields have a documented weakness to allow transportation through them as evidenced by dialogue of O'Brien. This, combined with the prevalence of transporters in Trek and the rest of Trek portraying so-called god-like beings as technology kings, shows that whatever way you choose to analyze it, the literary method or the scientific method, we can place lower limits on Q.

There are other teleportation technologies in ST other than transporters, so this argument is false.

Whether or not there are other teleportation technologies in Trek is irrelevant. Q transported onto a Federation vessel with a documented weakness. To take the lower limit, we assume he exploited that weakness.

Who the fuck are you even debating or can you not even read at a grade school level? I never NOT claimed it was technology. It is, as I have claimed right from the beginning. And it is really, really advanced. Are they "transporters"? Who the fuck cares. It's ridiculously powerful and advanced and doesn't seem to have any of the limitations of "transporters," so why the fuck would frequency-less shields be able to stop it?

The reason why I assumed that you said that Q's abilities are innate is because you did not want to put limits on what Q could do. How is your argument any different than what the innate crowd was arguing, that the ability should not be considered to be technological and therefore it was irrelevant to place a lower limit? You are arguing that the ability is technological, but the upper limit is undefined, therefore we should assume that Wars shields can be penetrated by Trek when all Federation ships have a documented weakness as stated by O'Brien because we should use the upper limit.

Ridiculously powerful does not mean we cannot place a lower limit on his abilities and debate with it.

Exactly, very upscaled, to the point where no one else could reproduce that in trek-verse.

The former is correct, the latter is not. Do you not see the irony? You say I don't accept things unless I see them, but unless you see a Q transporter yourself you don't accept the idea that Q uses technology. Ridiculous.

Feel like arguing against a tape recorder, though it does now appear that your strawmen appears to stem from your inability to read.

If you are not arguing that the abilities are innate and have no limits, but you are arguing that the abilities are technological but have some undefined limit and therefore we do not need to put a lower limit on his teleportation ability as being equivalent to transporter technology, then you are committing the same mistake the innate crowd did.

Read above. Goddamn this is unbelievable...

It's unbelievable that you don't want to place a lower limit on what the Q can do, but rather appeal to some undefined upper limit and therefore use a no-limits fallacy to say they can beam into a Wars ship and snatch Palpatine. How is your appeal to some undefined upper limit any different than say RSA's appeal to some undefined mechanism that destroys a planet? You cannot use undefined quantities or mechanisms to make an argument.

Your thinking is unbelievably backwards. Transporter technology would a LOWER limit exactly as you describe, not the upper limit,

Debating ettiquette tells us to debate with lower limits, unless it's explicitly mentioned that we are debating with upper limits. Also I never said that was the upper limit, so that is a strawman. It is obvious that I am trying to quantify and use a lower limit which is proper practise.

which is exactly you're trying to claim.

Try and see where I say that. I just said that you could find a limit, and since lower limits are the norm in debating, it should have been obvious to you that I was finding a lower limit.

Seeing how it is far far more powerful than conventional transporters why would it bound by the same limitations?

Whether or not they are is irrelevant. We debate with lower limits, and my hypothesis creates an absolute lower limit for Q's teleportation ability.

And we're not talking something ridiculous like transporting the whole multiverse or something that could actually come close to breaking the no limit fallacy,

You either break the no limit fallacy or you do not. There's no in between. By saying that you can beam onto a Federation ship with a totally different shielding system and therefore say you can transport onto any ship is a no-limits fallacy.

we're talking about transporting a single guy off a ship, something Q has done many many times, except now this guy is protected by "mythical" SWtech and can somehow stop Q. Yeah right.

We debate with lower limits, and Federation shields is what Q has transported through so that is what Q can do. Since Federation shields have a documented frequency weakness, Q takes advantage of this frequency. Sure it is possible, which is why I used the word may, that Q can transport through Wars shields. But possibilities aren't what we talk about. The lower limit is that Q can transport through Federation shields. Federation shields have a documented weakness. Therefore the absolute lower limit is Q can beam through shields with frequency. It's the same as using the 200 GT firepower for blasters. This is actually the figure for a light turbolaser if I am correct.

You have absolutely no reason to believe this, especially against a guy who can take you to the big bang one second and in the next shrink your ship to 6 inches long and put it on a christmas tree.

Both of these arguments were dealt with in the threads you say you have read. You can still place limits on both. Shrinking was achieved in the DS9 episode with the tiny shuttle (I will find the episode if you want). Time travel is possible. It is only a question of scale. And so what, Q can travel back through time and Q can shrink. That does not mean Q can automatically teleport, or that we shouldn't place a lower limit on his abilities.

Because somehow, someway, you came to the ridiculously absurd and idiotic notion that this lower limit of yours is now the upper limit,

Find the sentence when I said that. It is general practise to use lower limits, at least for all the time I've been on this board. Why do you think 1 KT/s starfighter guns are used for Wars? 100 KT torpedoes?

based on no evidence at all, and that somehow SWtech is automagically above this lower limit, and that to think otherwise is the no-limit fallacy. I'd say something is wrong with your logic.

You are misrepresenting what I am saying by saying I said that was the lower limit of his abilities. Obviously his upper limit is undefined, any dutz knows that, which is why it is so difficult to debate Q. Morons keep trying to appeal to some undefined upper limit. Why not take the lower limit, Q transporting through Federation shields, and argue with that?

The same strawman again. WTF? You use these arguments like buzzwords without consideration of their accuracy. Actually we have significant evidence, that they have transported people off of ships, heck whole ships themselves. The thing we don't have is evidence that SWTech will stop this tech which has nothing to do with proof of absense.

We take the lower limit of Q's ability, which is the ability to transport through Federation shields with a documented weakness to transporters.

By "beam through Wars shields" you mean "beam whole ships"? Don't be a fool. You're whole arguments boils down to a very narrow way but totally unsubstanciated way that Palpatine may survive a very specific attack from Q. I'm pointing out that even this is absurd (ignoring all the other ways Palpy can be killed for the sake of argument).

No, my argument boils down to taking a lower limit of Q's ability and comparing it with Wars shielding which does not suffer from the same weakness as Federation shields.

Brian

[brianeyci]

Why the hell not? It's merely a matter of scale. Unless there is an upper limit on transportable mass/volume that I'm unaware of, there's no reason why a more advanced transporter (and nobody's AFAIK debated that the Q are not filthily advanced) couldn't transport a starship. When did the Q actually do so, while we're at it?

Even with the "transport a ship" idea, we can put a lower limit. Voth transporters transported an Intrepid class ship. If the Q have the most advanced transporters seen in Trek, then a lower limit would be that they can transport through a frequency dependent shielded vessel with the mass of an Intrepid class ship. Wars doesn't have frequency dependency, and Wars ships mass thousands of times more than Trek.

Even with the "Q can throw a ship shitloads of lightyears", we can place a lower limit. We can assume Q can only do so to one ship at a time, and this is not fatal to Wars like Trek because Wars already has hyperspace meaning if Q's fling ships around they can get back to where they want to go, it will just take a day or so and not 80 years.

Brian

[Batman]

Why the hell not? It's merely a matter of scale. Unless there is an upper limit on transportable mass/volume that I'm unaware of, there's no reason why a more advanced transporter (and nobody's AFAIK debated that the Q are not filthily advanced) couldn't transport a starship. When did the Q actually do so, while we're at it?

Even with the "transport a ship" idea, we can put a lower limit. Voth transporters transported an Intrepid class ship. If the Q have the most advanced transporters seen in Trek, then a lower limit would be that they can transport through a frequency dependent shielded vessel with the mass of an Intrepid class ship. Wars doesn't have frequency dependency, and Wars ships mass thousands of times more than Trek.
Even with the "Q can throw a ship shitloads of lightyears", we can place a lower limit. We can assume Q can only do so to one ship at a time, and this is not fatal to Wars like Trek because Wars already has hyperspace meaning if Q's fling ships around they can get back to where they want to go, it will just take a day or so and not 80 years.
Brian

Nicely done, Brian.
What I was getting at, as it was the Voth who transported VOY, was that the ability to move a starship a couple thousand LY in a short time does not equal teleportation of a starship over said distance.
We've seen it done, to a lesser degree, elsewhere-that abysmal Soliton wave episode comes to mind, as does 'Tin Man'.

[HyperionX]

Brian, if I may?

Any device that can teleport large objects through apparently any distance,

As evidenced by what?

nearly instaneously,

As evidenced by what?

across any time period,

As evidenced by what?

and is small enough to carry around

As evidenced by what, fucktard?

and requires no input energy

As evidenced by what?

(Not to mention manipulating universal constants, altering matter/energy/time/space/etc. on a ridiculously advance level and instantly, etc.)

Which Q never did.

They did all of the above as seen in various ST episodes in TNG and Voy, with the exception of the manipulating the gravity constant which he only claimed but never proved he could.

Well this is significantly more "god-like." Might as well pit the Empire against the Culture and claim the Culture must lose because we have never seen them teleport stuff across SWtech shields.

Completely correct. Not about them losing (I don't know anything about the Culture so I couldn't comment) but UNLESS we have reason to assume Culture telportation can circumvent Wars shields yes, that is what we should assume. As Trek teleportation, which is generally defeated by shields, can occasionally work around them even for Fed tech, there's no reason to assume Q teleportation will work against Wars shields unless you have evidence of it actually doing so.

ROTFL!!! Unlike Brian, who just acts, you're actually funny. By default, you'd automatically assume that Wars shields > everything. Go to OSF and read about the Culture to find out how hilarious you are. And oh yeah, Q teleportation never failed, not even once, from on-screen evidence. There's my evidence, and the burden of proof is on you, so take it and run.

There are other teleportation technologies in ST other than transporters, so this argument is false.

Like what, exactly? Every kind of teleportation that ever was explained was explained as a kind of transporter. Oh, and I'd like evidence that Q teleportation isn't a transporter.

There was one race in ST:Voy with a space-folding transporter. There goes this argument. And yes, the burden of proof is on you, prove to me that Q teleportation is a transporter.

Who the fuck are you even debating or can you not even read at a grade school level? I never NOT claimed it was technology. It is, as I have claimed right from the beginning. And it is really, really advanced. Are they "transporters"? Who the fuck cares. It's ridiculously powerful and advanced and doesn't seem to have any of the limitations of "transporters," so why the fuck would frequency-less shields be able to stop it?

Because we never ever not once have seen them work against those.
EVIDENCE for them doing so Braga-brains.

Yeah, that right, GL will so write a STvsSW crossover. You're fucking hilarious you know that? I just told Brian that this is a logical fallacy, and here you are, doing just that. So until you agree that you're making a logical fallacy here, I'll proclaim that SW turbolasers are just lasers, and ST shields are totally invunerable, and the Borg, once adapted, will resist even a death star blast. Since we have never seen anything to the contrary, this is totally undeniable under your logic.

Your thinking is unbelievably backwards. Transporter technology would a LOWER limit exactly as you describe, not the upper limit, which is exactly you're trying to claim. Seeing how it is far far more powerful than conventional transporters why would it bound by the same limitations?

Seeing as we NEVER see it do anything normal transporters CAN'T, if under special circumstances, why should we assume they AREN'T?

We have. They go right through shields of any kind where normal transporters can't and go through time with ease, and yes, they never fail whereas transporters fail all the time.

Seeing as we NEVER see them work against shield that aren't frequency.dependant and we ALSO never see them work against shields that are millions of times more powerful than Fed ones, why should we assume they CAN?

Burden of proof is on you. They went through shield they tried to go through. So now, all of a sudden, they don't work without frequency dependent shields? Very funny you are.

we're talking about transporting a single guy off a ship, something Q has done many many times, except now this guy is protected by "mythical" SWtech and can somehow stop Q. Yeah right.

He succeeded in doing so against Fed MT range frequency-dependent shields. He now is up against PT range non-frequency dependent ones. Weren't YOU the one who brought up the scale question earlier?

Only PT scale shields? Against a race that can blow up stars with only collateral damage. You get funnier by the minute.

You have absolutely no reason to believe this, especially against a guy who can take you to the big bang one second and in the next shrink your ship to 6 inches long and put it on a christmas tree.

Pressuposing he ever did that in the first case. Not that those examples are in any way shape or form connected.

You'd think such a race that can do that is extremely advanced but I guess not to you.

Because somehow, someway, you came to the ridiculously absurd and idiotic notion that this lower limit of yours is now the upper limit,

Why don't you quote the part where Brian stated that, because I can sure as hell not remember that.

As with Brian, you don't appear to have great reading skills either. That is exactly what Brian implied, that the lower limit of a Transporter is now the upper limit of a Q.

based on no evidence at all, and that somehow SWtech is automagically above this lower limit, and that to think otherwise is the no-limit fallacy. I'd say something is wrong with your logic.

Bw.Bwa.Bwaha.Bwahahaha. YOU claim Q can transport through Wars shields which are not frequency dependant, YOU claim he can do so against shields that are millions of times more powerful than Fed ones, but Brian is the one who's logic is wrong. You're a riot.

In that case, next time you find yourself in close proximity to a H-bomb blast, make sure you upgrade from Rice Paper Armor™ to 12-inch Stain-less Steel Armor™. Because steel armor is millions of times stronger than rice paper and is water proof, you'll live, right, right, RIGHT?!

Actually we have significant evidence, that they have transported people off of ships, heck whole ships themselves. The thing we don't have is evidence that SWTech will stop this tech which has nothing to do with proof of absense.

We have evidence that Wars shields are millions of times more powerful than Fed ones and that they are not frequency dependant. Evidency that that doesn't matter for Q transportation, please.

If you can figure why you won't live in the above scenario, you'll find your evidence.

By "beam through Wars shields" you mean "beam whole ships"? Don't be a fool. You're whole arguments boils down to a very narrow way but totally unsubstanciated way that Palpatine may survive a very specific attack from Q. I'm pointing out that even this is absurd (ignoring all the other ways Palpy can be killed for the sake of argument).

Nom, his argument boils down to Q being able to beam people off Fed ships with MT range frequency dependant shielding not equalling Q being able to beam people of Wars ships with PT non-frequency dependant shielding.
Weren't you the one mentioning scale earlier?

I'd say your scale thing is off, just a tad.

[brianeyci]

Let's say we do decide to debate Q using his upper limits of ability.

One small problem, Q has never said he wanted to do something and not been able to do it. The only exception is when Q is restricted by other Q. Therefore Q's upper limit is undefined. Because his upper limit is undefined, does that mean Q has no upper limit? No of course not.

It is obvious that my transporter hypothesis was finding a lower limit for Q's ability. I don't know why it isn't obvious to you HyperionX, especially given that debating practise is to always use lower limits unless explicitly stated that it is not.

Brian

[Shinova]

So eventually this whole debate sums up to, "because conventional Trek tech can be used to replicate some of the effects Q has show on a smaller scale, therefore Q must use similar technology, only on a grander scale."

Forgive me if I think this is more than just a little far-fetched.

[brianeyci]

So eventually this whole debate sums up to, "because conventional Trek tech can be used to replicate some of the effects Q has show on a smaller scale, therefore Q must use similar technology, only on a grander scale."

Forgive me if I think this is more than just a little far-fetched.

It obviously is, but when you debate you have to quantify, and since Q's have never had an upper limit with their abilities it is impossible to use an upper limit or even a reasonable limit. Therefore we must use lower limit.

It is not so far fetched if you read my opening post and realize that writer's intent, supposed to argue that Q is a god because the writer's want him to be, actually argues the complete opposite. Other examples of Trek so-called gods have them using technology, and the message of Trek is that technology solves all problems (whether or not you agree with this message is moot). Therefore even if try to use literary analysis and say that the writers intended Q to be a god with no limits to his powers, with the message of the rest of Trek, Q would probably use technology to stay consistent with the idea that technology somehow one day "ascends" beings to be so-called god-like.

Brian

[HyperionX]

The arguments are not the same.

They are. Although you are not arguing that their abilities are innate, you might as well be. You are saying that because their abilities are undefined, we should not put limits on them. For example, you say that they use some sort of super-advanced teleportation device that is so god-like that we shouldn't put limits on them. The pro-innate crowd was arguing that they used innate abilities and therefore should not place limits on what Q is doing.

You are unwilling to take the lower limit to debate, at least with your previous posts. You say that we should appeal to some sort of undefined upper limit when we have a handy explaination for a lower limit and how Q can transport through Federation shields with a documented weakness.

Even if you take the lower limit, you have an undetermined situation in which case you don't know if it'll work. The upper limit, however, we don't know since we have never seen them fail. That's right, Q technology has never failed, so we may never know if they won't work. You're "we don't know the upper limit, so it must be the lower limit" is as stupid as your "if I don't see it then it can't argument." Retardation to the next level...

Point being? This is exactly I was saying. You either didn't read what I wrote or you're just blowing smoke.

The point being, is that I never said that Q was god-like. Q may have god-like powers but that does not mean he is omnipotent. Therefore, we can place limits.

So you admit it, your reading comprehension is at a grade school level. Read it AGAIN to find out what I actually said.

This is a strawman. The example's point was that it is absurd to think that just because something doesn't have to be nearly magically in its tech to work it must be something very low tech. This is ridiculous. Any device that can teleport large objects through apparently any distance, nearly instaneously, across any time period, and is small enough to carry around and requires no input energy or whatever would be wanktech level technology, i.e. "god-like." (Not to mention manipulating universal constants, altering matter/energy/time/space/etc. on a ridiculously advance level and instantly, etc.)

We debate with lower limits of effectiveness of Q technology. Because they are able to beam or teleport aboard Federation ships does not mean they are able to beam aboard Wars ships with a totally different shielding system. In addition, we know that the spirit of Trek is to show that technology can solve all problems. Whether you agree with it or not is moot. Given that frequency is a documented problem in Trek, transporters are common in Trek, and the history of so-called god-like beings in Trek, it is reasonable to assume what Q used has the lower limit of a transporter.

Yet Q technology has never failed, ever, in any scenario outside of deal with other Q.

Well this is significantly more "god-like." Might as well pit the Empire against the Culture and claim the Culture must lose because we have never seen them teleport stuff across SWtech shields.

Federation shields have a documented weakness to allow transportation through them as evidenced by dialogue of O'Brien. This, combined with the prevalence of transporters in Trek and the rest of Trek portraying so-called god-like beings as technology kings, shows that whatever way you choose to analyze it, the literary method or the scientific method, we can place lower limits on Q.

Read below

There are other teleportation technologies in ST other than transporters, so this argument is false.

Whether or not there are other teleportation technologies in Trek is irrelevant. Q transported onto a Federation vessel with a documented weakness. To take the lower limit, we assume he exploited that weakness.

Read below

Who the fuck are you even debating or can you not even read at a grade school level? I never NOT claimed it was technology. It is, as I have claimed right from the beginning. And it is really, really advanced. Are they "transporters"? Who the fuck cares. It's ridiculously powerful and advanced and doesn't seem to have any of the limitations of "transporters," so why the fuck would frequency-less shields be able to stop it?

The reason why I assumed that you said that Q's abilities are innate is because you did not want to put limits on what Q could do. How is your argument any different than what the innate crowd was arguing, that the ability should not be considered to be technological and therefore it was irrelevant to place a lower limit? You are arguing that the ability is technological, but the upper limit is undefined, therefore we should assume that Wars shields can be penetrated by Trek when all Federation ships have a documented weakness as stated by O'Brien because we should use the upper limit.

You do realize that Q has transported thing to where transporter can't reach, like across time?

Ridiculously powerful does not mean we cannot place a lower limit on his abilities and debate with it.

You can set the lower limit of many things to absolute zero, but those are realistic. Do you honestly think that Q, as technologically advanced as they are, couldn't defeat non-frequency dependent shields?

Feel like arguing against a tape recorder, though it does now appear that your strawmen appears to stem from your inability to read.

If you are not arguing that the abilities are innate and have no limits, but you are arguing that the abilities are technological but have some undefined limit and therefore we do not need to put a lower limit on his teleportation ability as being equivalent to transporter technology, then you are committing the same mistake the innate crowd did.

Let's say have a number you know is greater than 1 but not infinite. Thus, it is one, because you don't know what the upper limit is. This is the argument you are making, and it's absurd. Stick the burden of proof on yourself about what they can or can't do.

Read above. Goddamn this is unbelievable...

It's unbelievable that you don't want to place a lower limit on what the Q can do, but rather appeal to some undefined upper limit and therefore use a no-limits fallacy to say they can beam into a Wars ship and snatch Palpatine. How is your appeal to some undefined upper limit any different than say RSA's appeal to some undefined mechanism that destroys a planet? You cannot use undefined quantities or mechanisms to make an argument.

Your thinking is unbelievably backwards. Transporter technology would a LOWER limit exactly as you describe, not the upper limit,

Debating ettiquette tells us to debate with lower limits, unless it's explicitly mentioned that we are debating with upper limits. Also I never said that was the upper limit, so that is a strawman. It is obvious that I am trying to quantify and use a lower limit which is proper practise.

blah blah blah, debating with is extremely exhausting and repetitive, but more or less you're saying that, we must debate at lower limits (because you say so), which leaves us with an undeterminate scenario. Is that right?

*MASSIVE SNIP*

Ok, so the rest of your argument is EXACTLY the same (holy shit). Anyways, who said we must debate at the lower limit? Only your and a few other SW fanboys have said that. No one has meaningfully explain. Until then, this whole point is moot, because you refuse to stick with realism.

[Jaepheth]

in the episode of Voyager where Janeway mediates between Q and Quinn... didn't Quinn say something to the effect of "Q aren't gods... sufficiently advanced technology has the appearance of magic... etc."?

That would give dialogue that implies the Q use tech

I may be remembering incorrectly though.

[HyperionX]

So eventually this whole debate sums up to, "because conventional Trek tech can be used to replicate some of the effects Q has show on a smaller scale, therefore Q must use similar technology, only on a grander scale."

Forgive me if I think this is more than just a little far-fetched.

That's exactly what their stupidifly idiotic argument boils down too (holy, how do they maintain that kind of repetitive energy?!). They use absolutely no evidence for what they claim whatsoever, other then "we MUST use the lower limit possible." That is not a reason but a quantifier. If that's there argument, then I'll use Occam razor; it's not exploiting a "weakness" but can simply bypass shields altogether. A lot fewer assumptions here.

[Batman]

Brian, if I may?

Any device that can teleport large objects through apparently any distance,

As evidenced by what?

nearly instaneously,

As evidenced by what?

across any time period,

As evidenced by what?

and is small enough to carry around

As evidenced by what, fucktard?

and requires no input energy

As evidenced by what?

(Not to mention manipulating universal constants, altering matter/energy/time/space/etc. on a ridiculously advance level and instantly, etc.)

Which Q never did.

They did all of the above as seen in various ST episodes in TNG and Voy, with the exception of the manipulating the gravity constant which he only claimed but never proved he could.

Let's see-we never see them teleport large objects any distance-all we see Q do is move Ent-D some 7,000 ly definitely not-instantaniously, thus it's not teleportation, (that should cover Both initial accounts (and I like it how <ou refuse to counter singular points- afraid people would notice that you can't?)
the claim that they can move large objects across any time period would require literally infinite amounts of evidence in and of itself leaving alone that we have no evidence that the Q have ever transported anyone across any time span anwhere,
and why pray tell does the Q tech have to be small enough to carry around? Does everybody ever beamed up to a starsip carry a miniature transporter? The Q don't have to carry the tech on their body to be able to use it.
Evidence that said tech located who knows where doesn't use significant amounts of energy, please.

They did all of the above as seen in various ST episodes in TNG and Voy, with the exception of the manipulating the gravity constant which he only

Blatant lie, as shown above.

Go to OSF and read about the Culture to find out how hilarious you are.

There's hilariousity all right but it isn't on my part. If there is evidence to show that Culture teleportation will defeat Wars shielding then that is so.
I already admitted I don't know wether or not that is that is the case. I notice you completely fail to provide evidence that, yes, it IS the case.

And oh yeah, Q teleportation never failed, not even once, from on-screen evidence.

Against AQ and equivalent shielding, which is frequency dependant and a million times less powerful than Wars shielding.

There's my evidence, and the burden of proof is on you, so take it and run.

See above.

There are other teleportation technologies in ST other than transporters, so this argument is false.

Like what, exactly? Every kind of teleportation that ever was explained was explained as a kind of transporter. Oh, and I'd like evidence that Q teleportation isn't a transporter.

There was one race in ST:Voy with a space-folding transporter. There goes this argument. And yes, the burden of proof is on you, prove to me that Q teleportation is a transporter.

See the bolded. Evidence that those get to ignore the limitations of Fed transporters, please?
No limits fallacy.
YOU claim they can defeat non-frequency dependant shields (which we never see) shields millions if not billions of times more powerful than Trek ones (which we SERIOUSLY never see), please.

ever ever not once have seen them work against those[/i].
EVIDENCE for them doing so Braga-brains.

SNIPPY because I know heaps of Bantha droppings that are smarter than you*
It's been said about a trillion times by just about every member of this board but since you seem to have about the intelligence of a carbon atom I'll say it once more:
NOT because it's from another universe.
BECAUSE IT'S AT THE BARE BONES MINIMUM A MILLION TIMES MORE POWERFUL.

Seeing as we NEVER see it do anything normal transporters CAN'T, if under special circumstances, why should we assume they AREN'T?

We have. They go right through shields of any kind

BLATANT LIE!!!
They went through any kind of MT level frequency dependant shield.

where normal transporters can't and go through time with ease, and yes, they never fail whereas transporters fail all the time.

-And another lie, as there are numerous examples of Fed transportes beaming through shields.

Seeing as we NEVER see them work against shield that aren't frequency.dependant and we ALSO never see them work against shields that are millions of times more powerful than Fed ones, why should we assume they CAN?

Burden of proof is on you. They went through shield they tried to go through.

Being MT and frequency dependant. NOT PT and not. Burden of proof is on you, fuckface.

So now, all of a sudden, they don't work without frequency dependent shields? Very funny you are.

I take it you have evidence of them doing so, then.

Only PT scale shields? Against a race that can blow up stars with only collateral damage. You get funnier by the minute.

Which has what exactly with their alleged ability to blow up stars, exactly?

OH, I agree they're extremely advanced. I merely doubt they ever did it in the first place. As Brian stated where? Would you like me to explain the quote function to you? Evidence that
a) transporters are a DET event, and
b) the power differential between AQ and Q transporters is higher than that between AQ and Wars shields, please? You know, if you're conceeding a point it is considered polite to say so. Because that's the only way your statement makes sense.

As evidenced by what, exactly? PT vs MT. No-frequency dependant vs frequency dependent. Prove me wrong fuckface.

[brianeyci]

Even if you take the lower limit, you have an undetermined situation in which case you don't know if it'll work. The upper limit, however, we don't know since we have never seen them fail. That's right, Q technology has never failed, so we may never know if they won't work. You're "we don't know the upper limit, so it must be the lower limit" is as stupid as your "if I don't see it then it can't argument." Retardation to the next level...

I know Q technology has never failed. I said that we don't know the upper limit, therfore we cannot debate with it and must use the lower limit.

Science lets us leave variables undefined. So what if we know that Q has never failed except when being restricted by other Q? That is the whole essence of the argument, that you cannot use some undefined upper limit to make a point.

Oh, and we know Q has an upper limit. Q weapons proves this. Also since Q is not omnipotent, there has to be an upper limit. We just don't know what it is. So you cannot appeal to it.

So you admit it, your reading comprehension is at a grade school level. Read it AGAIN to find out what I actually said.

Let's see what you said.

This is one of the most retarded things I ever read. Is Q "God?" No, but is he so ridiculously advanced that he possess god-like powers? Yes.

These two sentences are connected. I intepret you as saying "I read that Q is not God, yet I read that Q is God-like so that is ridiculous"

You obviously didn't read the whole thing. Where the fuck did I said that Q possessed god-like abilities?

So you admit it, your reading comprehension is at a grade school level. Read it AGAIN to find out what I actually said.

In other words, you move goalposts by first saying you are claiming that I said that Q had god-like powers, when I meant that Q's powers can be defined unlike a god, despite the other so-called god-like beings. Then when I point out the obvious fact that I never said Q had god-like powers, you move the goalposts.

Yet Q technology has never failed, ever, in any scenario outside of deal with other Q.

That does not mean we do not place a lower limit and debate with that. The Q can just be highly efficient in their use of technology, very aware of their own abilities. Also that an upper limit exists is proved by the existence of Q weapons. We cannot debate with an upper limit because it is so vaguely defined for that very reason.

You do realize that Q has transported thing to where transporter can't reach, like across time?

You obviously haven't watched VOY Relativity, where a temporal transporter used by 29th Century Federation can transport across space and time.

You can set the lower limit of many things to absolute zero, but those are realistic. Do you honestly think that Q, as technologically advanced as they are, couldn't defeat non-frequency dependent shields?

You have to show evidence that the Q's technology is advanced. I see no reason to introduce unnecessary terms and claim that the Q have done more than has actually been seen on screen.

Let's say have a number you know is greater than 1 but not infinite. Thus, it is one, because you don't know what the upper limit is. This is the argument you are making, and it's absurd. Stick the burden of proof on yourself about what they can or can't do.

The upper limit is undefined. You are trying to argue with an undefined upper limit. It would be okay if Q was actually a god with no limits, but we know such an upper limit exists with Q weapons. Therefore there may be other limitations as well. Using a lower limit is proper debating technique.

For example, the same argument can be made with Death Star. Death Star takes X energy to destroy a planet at minimum. Does that mean that X is the upper limit, given hypermatter reactors? No, they Death Star could concievably have shot more energy out.

Your analogy is also false, because you have not proved that Q can transport through shields which are not frequency dependent. Put it another way. Let 1 represent what we have observed to be a Q power. Let A be the set of Q powers. Therefore 1 belongs to A. You are saying we should assume that (1, infinity) also belong to A, despite us having no evidence other than "Q is powerful". Ridiculous. The set A may not include any elements greater than 1. It is up to you to prove that it does.

blah blah blah, debating with is extremely exhausting and repetitive, but more or less you're saying that, we must debate at lower limits (because you say so), which leaves us with an undeterminate scenario. Is that right?

*MASSIVE SNIP*

Ok, so the rest of your argument is EXACTLY the same (holy shit). Anyways, who said we must debate at the lower limit? Only your and a few other SW fanboys have said that. No one has meaningfully explain. Until then, this whole point is moot, because you refuse to stick with realism.

I am not a SW fanboy. I've seen the OT maybe two times and the cut for television versions at that. I have no EU knowledge. Yet I know that debating with an undefined upper limit is dishonest. Why don't you try defining the upper limit of Q powers? Are you seriously saying we should admit that Q has no upper limit when we know that limits exist for all natural phenomenon? If Q is not a god, then he is a natural phenomenon and if you want to debate with an upper limit you have to quantify it.

Brian

[brianeyci]

HyperionX,

You keep saying that I implied that Q's upper limit is exactly the lower limit. Ridiculous. I stated Q's abilities, which by debating etiquette you should have taken to be a lower limit since we always use lower limits to debate. Then I said we should use a lower limit, although I would be perfectly willing to debate with an upper limit if you could quantify it. No, "The Q have never failed" is not enough. There are things the Q cannot do by their very nature as natural phenomenon. They have limits because they are not gods. If you are unable to quantify the Q's upper limits other than "they did not fail" well too bad, never failing is not an indication that they are capable of anything.

You say I "imply" that is an upper limit. This is a blatant lie, as debating etiquette tells us that every figure mentioned is a lower limit unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Brian

[brianeyci]

The irony is that even if we use the writer's intent excuse and try and conclude that Q's upper limit abilities are undefined, we reach a contradiction with the message of Trek which is that "technology can solve everything." In other words, writer's intent is not to portray Q as a god (assuming writer's intent throughout Trek to be consistent), but to portray Q as a stage of ascention which can be reached with technology, given enough time. Remember the Metrons IIRC who said the Feds should meet them after ten thousand years? In other words even if we use literary analysis and not hard facts like what Q has actually done, we arrive at the same conclusion that Q used technology and has technological limitations. Therefore it is honest to put a lower limit on Q as being able to transport through frequency dependent shields. Dripping with irony, because the writer's intent excuse so often used for Q backfires once one realizes the (flawed) message of Trek.

Brian

[Batman]

You're "we don't know the upper limit, so it must be the lower limit" is as stupid as your "if I don't see it then it can't argument." Retardation to the next level...

Bzzt. Wrong. Proper vs debating. We have no clue what the upper limit is, therefore we use the lower limit.

Yet Q technology has never failed, ever, in any scenario outside of deal with other Q.

And it also has never affected Wars tech, which happens to lack Trek weaknesses and is millions to billions of times more powerful.

You do realize that Q has transported thing to where transporter can't reach, like across time?

Except there's no reason to assume they ever did that.

You can set the lower limit of many things to absolute zero, but those are realistic. Do you honestly think that Q, as technologically advanced as they are, couldn't defeat non-frequency dependent shields?

Why not? WE HAVE NEVER SEEN THEM DO IT!

blah blah blah, debating with is extremely exhausting and repetitive, but more or less you're saying that, we must debate at lower limits (because you say so), which leaves us with an undeterminate scenario. Is that right?

No, what Brian's saying is that unless you have data on upper limits (which you don't fuckface) you use lower limits to be on the safe side.

Ok, so the rest of your argument is EXACTLY the same (holy shit). Anyways, who said we must debate at the lower limit? Only your and a few other SW fanboys have said that. No one has meaningfully explain.

If you actually need that explaine you're even stupider than I thought, and that's saying something. Unless you can quantify upper limits YES YOU DO USE LOWER LIMITS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Until then, this whole point is moot, because you refuse to stick with realism.

There's someone refusing to stick with realism, but it sure as hell isn't Brian.