Q vs? Umm? Can anything beat Q?

[brianeyci]

And to emphasize the point, I never said Q teleportation is equal to Federation transporters. I was trying to establish a lower limit for Q transporter effectiveness to use. With the blanket statement "You think Federation transporters are equal to Q transporters", you are saying the same as "You think that Federation transportation is the upper limit" which is false as I am clearly trying to find lower limit.

Brian

[HyperionX]

LOL you're just so damn dumb it's funny. Evidence? I gave you all the evidence you need: existence of space-folding teleportation. To counter your short-term memory loss: Q teleported the Enterprise-D 60k LYs in "Q Who", QJunior in "Q2" teleported himself to a distant star system. None of which a transporter has demostrated to do, but a space-folding device can in "Prime Factors". You're original premise is dead. Concession accepted.

[brianeyci]

LOL you're just so damn dumb it's funny. Evidence? I gave you all the evidence you need: existence of space-folding teleportation. To counter your short-term memory loss: Q teleported the Enterprise-D 60k LYs in "Q Who", QJunior in "Q2" teleported himself to a distant star system. None of which a transporter has demostrated to do, but a space-folding device can in "Prime Factors". You're original premise is dead. Concession accepted.

60k LY was not a transportation, but took time and several seconds at that.. It was a warp, and transwarp can do this.

Teleporting to a distant star system does not alter the transporter's effectiveness, but alters the transporter's distance. Subspace transporters have been demonstrated to have great range.

PICARD
My understanding is that such
devices were impractical.

DATA
The Federation abandoned its
research in the field because the
technology was found to be
unreliable... as well as extremely
energy intensive.

STAR TREK: "Bloodlines" - REV. 02/09/94 - ACT FOUR 37.

27 CONTINUED:

GEORDI
In order to transport matter
through subspace, you have to put
it into a state of quantum flux --
it's very unstable.

DATA
The quantum effect would explain
why our sensors did not detect
Bok's presence.

GEORDI
It would also explain why he was
able to penetrate our shields.

PICARD
What range would this kind of
transporter have?

DATA
In theory it could operate over
several light years.

Therefore if we take the lower limit of what Q can do, then he has perfected subspace transportation technology. Wars possesses subspace sensors and subspace jamming.

Brian

[HyperionX]

Teleporting to a distant star system does not alter the transporter's effectiveness, but alters the transporter's distance. Subspace transporters have been demonstrated to have great range.

PICARD
My understanding is that such
devices were impractical.

DATA
The Federation abandoned its
research in the field because the
technology was found to be
unreliable... as well as extremely
energy intensive.

STAR TREK: "Bloodlines" - REV. 02/09/94 - ACT FOUR 37.

27 CONTINUED:

GEORDI
In order to transport matter
through subspace, you have to put
it into a state of quantum flux --
it's very unstable.

DATA
The quantum effect would explain
why our sensors did not detect
Bok's presence.

GEORDI
It would also explain why he was
able to penetrate our shields.

PICARD
What range would this kind of
transporter have?

DATA
In theory it could operate over
several light years.

Therefore if we take the lower limit of what Q can do, then he has perfected subspace transportation technology. Wars possesses subspace sensors and subspace jamming.

Brian

Nope, sorry, QJunior specifically said it was through a "spatial flexure." Concession accepted.

[brianeyci]

The word "spatial" has been used to refer to transporters before.

GEORDI
Exactly.
(beat)
We think one or more of the
microbes may have gotten into the
Transporter system -- and are
still caught inside the buffer.
It probably explains what you saw
in there...

BARCLAY
But... what I saw was much larger
than a microbe...

DATA
Normal spatial relationships, such
as size, are often distorted
within the matter stream.

"Spatial fluxture" does not mean that it is not a transporter. And while you're at it please provide the whole quote.

Brian

[HyperionX]

The word "spatial" has been used to refer to transporters before.

GEORDI
Exactly.
(beat)
We think one or more of the
microbes may have gotten into the
Transporter system -- and are
still caught inside the buffer.
It probably explains what you saw
in there...

BARCLAY
But... what I saw was much larger
than a microbe...

DATA
Normal spatial relationships, such
as size, are often distorted
within the matter stream.

"Spatial fluxture" does not mean that it is not a transporter. And while you're at it please provide the whole quote.

Brian

Not like this:

ICHEB: I'm not detecting any ion fluctuations. We did it. You can power down the engine now. Q, what are you doing?
Q2: You're going to love this. I once learned how to open a spatial flexure using nothing more than a deflector array.
ICHEB: Flexure?
Q2: It's like a tunnel through space. I'm going to open one to the Klovari system. Wait till you see the females. Spectacular!

[brianeyci]

Not like this:

ICHEB: I'm not detecting any ion fluctuations. We did it. You can power down the engine now. Q, what are you doing?
Q2: You're going to love this. I once learned how to open a spatial flexure using nothing more than a deflector array.
ICHEB: Flexure?
Q2: It's like a tunnel through space. I'm going to open one to the Klovari system. Wait till you see the females. Spectacular!

Okay. However, arguing the word spatial fluxture is pointless anyway. Think about the episode where VOY went back in time and fought Bill Gates wannabe. He called the transporter "teleport" or "teleport" me. In other words, we compare the effect. The transporter was still a transporter, but he just called it "teleport".

Also, was this spatial flexture used to transport, or to create a tunnel by which the ship could travel through like a wormhole? I fail to see the connection between opening a wormhole and teleportation, unless when Q2 used his "spatial flexure", he disappeared exactly like Q does in a flash of white light. This sounds like a wormhole more than transporter technology. Do we get to see this spatial flexure?

Brian

[HyperionX]

Not like this:

ICHEB: I'm not detecting any ion fluctuations. We did it. You can power down the engine now. Q, what are you doing?
Q2: You're going to love this. I once learned how to open a spatial flexure using nothing more than a deflector array.
ICHEB: Flexure?
Q2: It's like a tunnel through space. I'm going to open one to the Klovari system. Wait till you see the females. Spectacular!

Okay. However, arguing the word spatial fluxture is pointless anyway. Think about the episode where VOY went back in time and fought Bill Gates wannabe. He called the transporter "teleport" or "teleport" me. In other words, we compare the effect. The transporter was still a transporter, but he just called it "teleport".

Also, was this spatial flexture used to transport, or to create a tunnel by which the ship could travel through like a wormhole? I fail to see the connection between opening a wormhole and teleportation, unless when Q2 used his "spatial flexure", he disappeared exactly like Q does in a flash of white light. This sounds like a wormhole more than transporter technology. Do we get to see this spatial flexure?

Brian

Yes, he went to another star system with it in the Delta flyer. Although it was more like a wormhole making device, it's close enough. I'm past debating semantics with you. whether Palpy gets sucked in by a wormhole or just beamed out it's practically the same. For the last time, concession accepted.

[brianeyci]

Yes, he went to another star system with it in the Delta flyer. Although it was more like a wormhole making device, it's close enough. I'm past debating semantics with you. whether Palpy gets sucked in by a wormhole or just beamed out it's practically the same. For the last time, concession accepted.

So we're saying that opening a wormhole is the same as Q's teleportation? That's ridiculous. That is not a "semantic" meaning of the word wormhole. If we have a picture of a wormhole, and we have a picture of Q teleporting away in a flash of light, they are not automatically equivalent. The visuals show they are totally different ways of transportation. Opening a wormhole in Palpy runs the same problem that you have not proved that Q sensors are any more advanced than Federation sensors and therefore Q does not know where Palpatine is.

Brian

[HyperionX]

Yes, he went to another star system with it in the Delta flyer. Although it was more like a wormhole making device, it's close enough. I'm past debating semantics with you. whether Palpy gets sucked in by a wormhole or just beamed out it's practically the same. For the last time, concession accepted.

So we're saying that opening a wormhole is the same as Q's teleportation? That's ridiculous. That is not a "semantic" meaning of the word wormhole. If we have a picture of a wormhole, and we have a picture of Q teleporting away in a flash of light, they are not automatically equivalent. The visuals show they are totally different ways of transportation. Opening a wormhole in Palpy runs the same problem that you have not proved that Q sensors are any more advanced than Federation sensors and therefore Q does not know where Palpatine is.

Brian

Suck out the whole ship man. He's still dead.

[brianeyci]

Suck out the whole ship man. He's still dead.

That still assumes that he knows that Palpatine is on the ship. Palpatine, if he is on a ship, does not advertise his presence for all to know.

You're assuming that there is no way to detect his wormhole before it is forming. Why? The Federation can detect forming wormholes, and can do it with EM and subspace sensors, both of which Wars possess.

Also, the wormhole was small enough for the Delta Flyer to fly through. Why do you automatically assume it would work with something the mass and size of an ISD? Why do you assume that it would work through shields? If we take the lower limit of this wormhole ability, then it can send something the mass of the Delta Flyer, and may not be able to form the wormhole through shields.

Brian

[brianeyci]

O'BRIEN
We'll have to remodulate the
deflector grid frequencies and rig
a phase-conjugate graviton beam.

SISKO
You and Dax start work
immediately.

Dax nods. But something's bothering her.

DAX
What about Worf?

ODO
If we close the wormhole, he and
Garak will be trapped in the Gamma
Quadrant.

Since Wars has mastery of gravity and regularly generates gravity wells with their Interdictor cruisers, a wormhole may not be able to open at all.

Brian

[HyperionX]

"Yeah, that's right, my 3D shields will magically stop a 4D incusion, physics be damned. Q is too dumb to find my ship, he'd never figure out how to listen to communication channels, or any other primative form of spying. If he opens a wormhole in my ship, I'll know it and we can close it with a gravity well. I mean how much gravity do we need? Relativistic physics stated that a meter wide wormhole only needs 1000 times the mass of the Earth in negative energy to form. No problemo! We'll just stick a few thousand DSes togehter for power, no problem at all! And if he does get on my ship, he'll never figure where I am. I mean what's he gonna do? Interogate one of my officers? Scan from inside? Turn off the shields and use an outside scanner? Please! <Baghdad Bob>There are no Americans in Iraq. We are kicking their butts! We are winning!!!111oneone1shift+one1wunwunwun...1</Bob>"

[Batman]

"Yeah, that's right, my 3D shields will magically stop a 4D incusion, physics be damned.

Ah yes. Shields that block subspace and hyperspace are nevertheless 3D. Right. Sure.

Q is too dumb to find my ship, he'd never figure out how to listen to communication channels,

Because Trek is lousy with evidence of Q listening into subspace/hyperwave communications. Oh wait it isn't.

or any other primative form of spying. If he opens a wormhole in my ship,

Through shields we never have seen him deal with before-not that we've ever seen him open a wormhole before, leave alone through shields of any way shape or form, all we have is word of mouth,

I'll know it and we can close it with a gravity well. I mean how much gravity do we need? Relativistic physics stated that a meter wide wormhole only needs 1000 times the mass of the Earth in negative energy to form. No problemo! We'll just stick a few thousand DSes togehter for power, no problem at all!

Ah yes. Since real world physics which obviously don't coincide with how wormholes work in Trek need that energy to form a wormhole, it must automatically take the same amount of energy to prevent it from forming. You abviously know a lot more about wormholes than modern astrophysicists do so why don't you go and teach them?

And if he does get on my ship, he'll never figure where I am. I mean what's he gonna do? Interogate one of my officers?

Which would require him to get on board before opening the wormhole.

Scan from inside?

Which would require him getting inside before opening the wormhole.

Turn off the shields and use an outside scanner? Please!

Which would require him getting inside before opening the wormhole. AND understanding Wars technology well enough to operate the controls. AND circumvent the safety protocols. AND prevent the Imperial from reraising the shields, blocking the scanner, shooting him,...

<Baghdad Bob>There are no Americans in Iraq. We are kicking their butts! We are winning!!!111oneone1shift+one1wunwunwun...1</Bob>"

Sums up YOUR position perfectly well.
So far you have
UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY FAILED
to provide evidence for
-Q transporting through anything but Fed shields,
-Q transporting over large distances,
-Q transportation NOT being an extension of Fed transporter technology,
-Q opening a wormhole in the first place,
-Q opening said wormhole through any shields whatsoever,
-Q opening them through Wars shields...
So, Hypermoron X, are you going to start showing evidence anytime soon?

[The Silence and I]

Folks, I am surprised no one has mentioned these yet...oh and, wow...
Want an example of a transporter-like device (Why has it been said that just because something has transporter in the NAME means it has all the limitations of a standard Federation version? Names mean all of NOTHING in startrek) which has extended range and which completely and totally ignores shielding on general principle while avoiding detection? Subspace Transporters! Infact, the very device was mentioned in a quote on this page even.

PICARD
My understanding is that such
devices were impractical.

DATA
The Federation abandoned its
research in the field because the
technology was found to be
unreliable... as well as extremely
energy intensive.

STAR TREK: "Bloodlines" - REV. 02/09/94 - ACT FOUR 37.

27 CONTINUED:

GEORDI
In order to transport matter
through subspace, you have to put
it into a state of quantum flux --
it's very unstable.

DATA
The quantum effect would explain
why our sensors did not detect
Bok's presence.

GEORDI
It would also explain why he was
able to penetrate our shields.

PICARD
What range would this kind of
transporter have?

DATA
In theory it could operate over
several light years.

If you think Wars shielding will stop even this--seeing as it is based on a subspace with zero relation to the one wars is familiar with I can see why this claim may be made--then how about dimensional shifting?

Not only is this version nearly traceless in at a <24th century tech level, it has a nice white flash, ignores shielding on an even more general principle having something to do with not existing until already inside...(The High Ground, TNG) sure 24th century science leaves a device which causes severe tissue damage with use, but this is hardly a challenge the Q are incapable of meeting.

Why must it be assumed the lower limit of Q's transporter abilities are the same as the capabilities of bog standard federation transporters? We know Q is better at transporting things, so if its a lower limit you want look for better transporters! Guess what? There are several transporters out there that ignore shielding on general principal and couldn't care less if there is a frequency window or not. Q's lower limit is that he can transport through shielding without exploiting a known weakness.

I'll spell it out because both sides are claiming people here can't read and I don't want chances to be taken
Q can do more with a transporter than anyone or anything seen before or since. His upper limit is totally unknown, so a meaningful debate requires a lower limit. As his upper limit is higher than anything else, his lower limit can safely be placed at the top of everyone else. The lower limit of Q's transporting abilities should not be overshot by existing transporter variants. The most capable variants include the ability to ignore shielding on general principle, and this must then be Q's lower limit. To claim he cannot ignore shielding on general principle (which means not exploiting a frequency window or hole) is to claim his technology is not up to par with shit the Federation has messed around with. I wouldn't go there. Hence the lower limit states he can ignore shielding on general principle. Wars shielding may be dimensionally shielded...or it may not be (Oo! Oo! I vote this one!!) and I find it likely Q could transport some random guy off a starship if he feels like it.

His ability to transport the most powerful living force user is another question....

In regards to the long forgottern OT, Palpy is a really powerful force user and evil. Q is also really, really powerful, and possesses methods to dispose of the sith which are superior to those the sith would level against him (transport into the cold vacuum of space/star/black hole from distant vantage point >> try to find hidden being at distant vantage point and then do something...) However we do not know if the force can be used to "block" Q's attack, or if Palpy can attack Q directly with the force. I would put my money on Q if I had to, but this is so full of unknowns it is impossible to say with certaintly.

[NecronLord]

When someone thinks of a "moon" they think of something the mass and size of our own moon.

No. Perhaps when a moron like yourself thinks of a 'moon' they think of that. Anyone who has even a passing understanding of astronomy knows that the Earth's moon is actually quite a big one. Indeed, one of the outstanding mysteries of Astronomy is how the Earth got such a large moon. The vast majority of moons in the Solar System are tiny little things in comparison.

Saying the asteroid was a "moon" rather than saying it was an asteroid is dishonest in debating because it implies that Q can move something the size of our moon.

Only to ignorant idiots like yourself.

Arguing for the precise definition of moon as a satellite is ridiculous. He did not make clear what size and mass of moon Q moved, so by default it was as if he was saying he moved something the size and mass of our moon.

Bulls shit boy. Bullshit.

[brianeyci]

Except you didn't look at the screenshot fucker. If the Enterprise-D is around 650 meters in length, then the so-called "moon" is about 5 kilometers in diameter. The picture is a nearly orthogonal view of the Enterprise-D with the asteroid. If you want we can make it 10 km to correct for errors of perspective. From the different screenshots of the "moon", we know it is probably not irregularly shaped. In the link you provided, one of the smallest moons is 220 km in diameter. So actually, all the fucking moons in your picture are larger than the one depicted in the Deja Q episode! And do go on about bullshit about hundreds of moons being discovered around Jupiter, you said "anyone with a passing knowledge" and those moons in your link are all fucking larger.

Not to mention that Q himself refers to the "moon" as an asteroid.

Q
Change the gravitational constant
of the universe. And thereby
alter the mass of the asteroid...

Geordi refers it as a moon, but so what. The question is what is a more accurate description. Even the smallest well known moon is many times larger than the one depicted in Deja Q.

Brian

[NecronLord]

Yes. That's a diagram of the significant moons of the Solar System. There are many smaller moons not illustrated. You might not know but Earth's second moon (Cruithne) is around the size of the Bre'el moon. Guess what? It's universally (well, widely, and mostly due to its bizzare orbit - it's 'orbit' takes 770 years, as well as its temporary nature, which would require me to explain trojans and the like to you, which I don't want to do) accepted as a moon of the Earth, and its perigee is 1.5e7 Km! It is not up to you to define what is and is not a moon. It is up to the scientific/astronomy community, and the Bre'el IV moon more than fits the definition.

Why have you changed your signature? The comment that you could actually log off and learn physics from a bloody textbook still damn well applies to you moron.

EDIT: To wit, the Bre'el moon is a rocky body of significant size and has, normally, a circular orbit around Bre'el IV. It's a moon. You may think otherwise. This just makes you stupid.

[brianeyci]

Yes. That's a diagram of the significant moons of the Solar System. There are many smaller moons not illustrated. You might not know but Earth's second moon (Cruithne) is around the size of the Bre'el moon. Guess what? It's universally accepted as a moon of the Earth, and its perigee is 1.5e7 Km! It is not up to you to define what is and is not a moon. It is up to the scientific/astronomy community, and the Bre'el IV moon more than fits the definition.

That's ridiculous. So you're saying we should count the hundreds of small tiny moons which are 1 km being discovered around Jupiter and say that moon is an accurate description of the asteroid in Deja Q? Your argument amounts to nothing more than saying that an asteroid sized object can possibly be a moon. When you say "I have the power to move a sea", that implies that you can move any sea and therefore even the largest seas, not just the smallest sea or the medium sized seas. When you say Q has the power to move a moon, then you are saying he has the power to move The Moon. We are not arguing what is the definition of a moon fucker, we are arguing whether or not moon is an accurate description of Q's powers.

Brian

[NecronLord]

That's ridiculous. So you're saying we should count the hundreds of small tiny moons which are 1 km being discovered around Jupiter

I'll bold the bit that makes it quite clear you're just lying to try and save face.

and say that moon is an accurate description of the asteroid in Deja Q?

Let's see. Natural body of significant (IE, not a dust particle) size. Check.
Orbiting a planet. Check.

Yes. It's a moon.

Your argument amounts to nothing more than saying that an asteroid sized object can possibly be a moon.

Which it is.

When you say "I have the power to move a sea", that implies that you can move any sea and therefore even the largest seas, not just the smallest sea or the medium sized seas.

Upper and lower limits. Learn them. Know them. Live by them you little excremental parasite.

When you say Q has the power to move a moon, then you are saying he has the power to move The Moon.

Only to an idiot like you who thinks that all moons must be like the freaky one orbiting the Earth. More to the point, he doesn't say he can move a moon, he says (and shows the ability to) move that moon.

We are not arguing what is the definition of a moon fucker,

Hard smegma shitstain. That's what I'm arguing.

we are arguing whether or not moon is an accurate description of Q's powers.

Upper and lower limits imbicile.

[Assassin X]

:Sets up booth and makes sign:

"Get your tickets here! Only $10 for the a debate/fight like no other! $10 right here".

:Makes lots of $$$ off of the huge line:

[brianeyci]

What part of "Q can move an entire moon" do you not fucking understand? The guy never mentioned "upper or lower limits", he only said that Q has the power to "move an entire moon" and never mentioned what size or mass of moons. Therefore it was as if was saying he could move large moons or The Moon and it is an inaccurate description.

A moon is any natural satellite of a planet. You say that we should consider the "passing knowledge" of what is a moon, so I play your game and show that "passing knowledge" in your given picture shows that all those moons are far larger. Then you fucking move the goalposts and declare victory by showing smaller sized moons. What I should have done is realize that your argument is a strawman. I am not arguing that moons are defined by a certain size. I am arguing that moon is a less accurate description of the asteroid in Deja Q, especially when another character gives a more accurate description of the moon as an asteroid in the script.

And this has been done before.

Hey fucktard, the point is that you didn't bother mentioning the episode so someone who was not already familiar with the subject would probably assume from your vague wording that you meant a more traditionally sized moon than the relatively miniscule couple-of-km-wide rock that we saw in "Deja Q". This is exactly the kind of "oops, I didn't mean to deceive anyone" bullshit that I'm talking about, asshole.

You try and strawman my argument into arguing that a moon must be a certain size, when the real question is whether or not "Q can move an entire moon" is an accurate description of Q's powers. Grow a brain. I played into your game by debunking your "passing knowledge" quote, but that doesn't mean that I meant to say "a moon must be a certain size" fucker, especially when it is common knowledge that a moon is any natural satellite.

Brian

[brianeyci]

As an addendum NecronLord, if you were really thought that I was saying that a moon needed to be a certain size rather than that I was arguing that moon was not an accurate description of Q's powers -- in other words if you thought I was ignorant of the definition of moon -- why the fuck didn't you just say "a moon is a natural satellite of a planet idiot" rather than bringing up sizes of specific moons? Your argument amounts to nothing more than an attempt by you argue with me about the size of a moon, when if you had said "a moon is a natural satellite of a planet idiot", it would have been clear for all to see that you were arguing definition when I was arguing the appropriateness of the word to define Q's powers. So grow a brain. Also he did not mention "Deja Q" at all, so your point about him referring to that specific moon in Deja Q is invalid. The quote is ambigious, and I suggest asteroid as a more accurate description of Q's powers and you argue definitions .

Brian

[NecronLord]

especially when it is common knowledge that a moon is any natural satellite.

It wasn't a moon, it was an asteroid and was not near the size or mass of the moon.

Brian

When someone thinks of a "moon" they think of something the mass and size of our own moon. Saying the asteroid was a "moon" rather than saying it was an asteroid is dishonest in debating because it implies that Q can move something the size of our moon.

Your concession is accepted. Clearly common knowledge is above you. Unsurprising really.

And guess what, the only reason I jumped into this thread is because of your flagrant abuse of the term Moon. I don't give a flying monkey's about the lower limits of Q's abilities, because in the end, that ends up as a form of sophistry, I've seen this argument before and don't care to get involved in the nonsense it brings up. The only concrete thing that can be said on the matter is that Q is not omnipotent. His actual abilities are unquantifiable.

[brianeyci]

Your concession is accepted.

Concession my ass numnuts. All your points have been countered. You say we must think of "passing knowledge of moons" and I debunk the point that passing knowledge shows that moons are not the size of Deja Q. You say that there are many smaller moons and what the guy said was a lower/upper limit, when the guy didn't even mention the episode name or lower or upper limits. Then you say that I meant to say "a moon needs to be a specific size" when it is clear to all when I say "that was not a moon, that was an asteroid" I am saying in context of Q's powers and what Q can do rather than the actual definition of moon which is common knowledge.

Why The fuck didn't you just say "moons are natural satellites of a planet" rather than bringing up the stupid "passing knowledge of moons" point and then moving the goalposts to include far smaller moons that were not in your link? Because if you had said it, it would be clearly obvious that you were taking my quote out of context and trying to strawman my argument into saying a moon needs to be a certain size fuckshit.

Brian