Q vs? Umm? Can anything beat Q?

[brianeyci]

I'm not even going to bother. You have proven nothing. You've stated that it has no relevance. Which again is wrong. The assertion it was used to back up is that the Earth's moon is a large one, and that in "moving a moon" one can generally assume the Earth's moon to be near the upper limit.

It doesn't matter what you think he said, he didn't say it was an upper limit or specify any limit at all. Since the point of the thread is to ignore upper limits because it is impossible to quantify them for Q, it should have been obvious to someone who followed the thread... oh wait, you are not interested in the thread.

On this site at least we assume that when we debate someone they have a basic education. Such as "Most moons are smaller than The Moon."

Whether or not most moons are smaller than The Moon is irrelevant. The point is what saying "Q can move an entire moon" means. That means you can move The Moon. Antares has already conceded this point, so you are defending nothing.

When you say "you can move an entire moon" you say you can move The Moon, if you don't specify episode or the size of the moon.

Only to an ignoramus like you.

Oh yeah? You sidestepped the DW quotation I brought up earlier fuckface.

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.

So DW is an ignoramus too because of this position? Ridiculous. You are pushing a point when there is none. Antares has already conceded that referring to the asteroid as a moon is wrong.

Whether or not smaller moons exist is irrelevant, because when you say "Q can move an entire moon" you say that Q can move The Moon.

Only to an ignoramus like you.

See above dickhole. You have already admitted you are not interested in this thread, so you take the moon comment out of context to mean that there must be a minimum size of moon when what I am saying is that moon is not a good representation of what Q can do.

So? Your assertion that "Q can move a moon" means "Q can move a moon the size of 'Luna'" is shite. It may mean that to you, but it doesn't mean it to someone who knows something of astronomy. Such as 1 - the Average debator on this board or 2 - The average Starfleet crewer.

Too bad, whether or not there are smaller moons is irrelevant, because when you say "Q can move an entire moon" that is wrong.

You are still saying moronic things like:

I show that common knowledge is that moons are far larger than the Deja Q moon,

These things demonstrate that you do not know about astronomy, and either should shut up and do your own research whenever someone uses an astronomical term like moon, or just piss the hell off.

Listen dickhole. Does it say anywhere there that all moons are far larger than the Deja Q moon? In fact in the same sentence I admit that Deja Q is a fucking moon! So I don't mean that Deja Q is not literally a moon, but rather that moon is not a good description. By saying "Q can move an entire moon", it is an inaccurate description of Q's abilities. What part of that can you not understand?

Brian

[SirNitram]

^^^Is it that simple though? In both cases impossibilities were performed: FTL. F=ma may not apply in any way we can relate. What I mean is while I think moving something with mass 5x should be harder than the same motion applied to a mass of x, due to the freaky shit occuring that allows FTL the difference in effort may not be 5. It may not be any different (although that goes against my sensibilities...but then so does FTL).

We cannot really assume much, if anything, about these 'super physics' events IMO. Part of why quantifying Q is ultimately impossible (if the most he has ever teleported is X over Y distance, then this is a lower limit, but it means very little. How much energy did it take to do that? Does distance or mass place more relative strain on the feat? Does the material teleported make any difference? How much? If distance is a factor can he extend range by extending the time of event? Or would it be shortening the event? Does distance even matter all that much? How is he accomplishing his feat? Oh wait we have no idea so we can't even narror the above questions down).

We know such events are impressive, namely because no one else can do them and they defy our perception of the natural laws, but the ultimate impressiveness is unknown and so is the relative.

You'll have to forgive me for rolling my eyes. I'm sure alot of inexperienced folk will beleive this tripe, but SoD can be applied even to the mystical once one gets the blindingly stupid no-limits fallacies from their skull.

Quantifying is easy. One event moved one ship a ways; the other violently chucked an entire fleet. The commentary on weight is heavily tied into the power used in the Jedi example, which was telekinesis simply ramped up to the point it can hurl objects into hyperspace. We can certainly conclude they would be able to fling one smaller target just as well, if not better.

This 'Well, it's impossible, so give up trying to quantify it' bullshit really does become tiresome.

[NecronLord]

Don't try name dropping twit. I never said that Antares was any less of an idiot than you are (though at least he confesses his mistake, and is thus not the object of my contempt you are swiftly becoming). You say moronic things like "the Deja Q moon ain't big enough to be called a moon." So far, Wong hasn't. He has succinctly said what you have been trying to say for the last three or four pages - the connotations of Moon imply a larger object than the moon seen in Deja Q. His argument is valid, because it deals with the topic appropriately. Yours is not, because yours is predicated on your own ignorance of Astronomy.

You on the other hand have come out with a stream of idiocy the like of which I have rarely had the misfortune of witnessing since my early Horseman days. And the second Wong says that "common knowledge is that moons are far larger than the Deja Q moon," I will treat him exactly as I'm treating you. As a person who is woefully ignorant of what a moon is.

This isn't about the connotations of "Q can move a moon" this is about the ignorant things that you wrote, such as: "It wasn't a moon, it was an asteroid and was not near the size or mass of the moon." You are simply ignorant of astronomy, and I am trying to correct you. I though I was having some success earlier, but, apparently not, given the more recent "far larger" quote.

Additionally, you should work on getting a better flame than dickhole. It is a truly feeble insult, and makes me want to laugh. Something like "scatological-porn-fetishist" would be more effective.

[brianeyci]

Don't try name dropping twit. I never said that Antares was any less of an idiot than you are (though at least he confesses his mistake, and is thus not the object of my contempt you are swiftly becoming). You say moronic things like "the Deja Q moon ain't big enough to be called a moon." So far, Wong hasn't. He has said what you have been trying to say for the last four pages - the connotations of Moon imply a larger object than the moon seen in Deja Q. You on the other hand have come out with a stream of idiocy the like of which I have rarely had the misfortune of witnessing since my early Horseman days. And the second Wong says that "common knowledge is that moons are far larger than the Deja Q moon," I will treat him exactly as I'm treating you. As a person who is woefully ignorant of what a moon is.

I never fucking said that "the Deja Q moon ain't big enough to be called a moon". As you quoted already, I said this,

I show that common knowledge is that moons are far larger than the Deja Q moon,

So what the hell am I saying here? Why do you cut out the last word when I refer to the Deja Q moon as a moon? You say that with this quotation it proves I say that moons have to be a size of The Moon, when reading one more word makes it clear that I consider Deja Q moon a moon! I am obviously saying that calling the Deja Q moon in the context of "Q can move an entire moon" is ridiculous given that saying "can move an entire moon" means you can move much larger moons, and since we are ignoring upper limits in this thread it is wrong to do this.

This isn't about the connotations of "Q can move a moon" this is about the ignorant things that you wrote, such as: "It wasn't a moon, it was an asteroid and was not near the size or mass of the moon." You are simply ignorant of astronomy, and I am trying to correct you. I though I was having some success earlier, but, apparently not, given the more recent "far larger" quote.

Did you miss the last word? I call Deja Q moon to be a moon. So obviously I am not arguing about the definition of moon. That is your strawman. "It wasn't a moon, it was an asteroid and not near the size or mass of the moon" was meant to focus on the size and mass. You take a sentence out of context of the discussion, which is to quantify the description of Q's powers.

Additionally, you should work on getting a better flame than dickhole. It is a truly feeble insult, and makes me want to laugh. Something like "scatological-porn-fetishist" would be more effective.

This point I concede, dickhole is truly a pathetic insult.

Brian

[brianeyci]

And besides NecronLord, I have already shown that I know what the definition of a moon is, being a natural satellite around a planet (and I knew that before despite you saying to the contrary). So why are you still here? You continually attempt to strawman me into saying that the Deja Q moon is not a moon, when I have never said that. The opening sentence was meant to be a condensation of "You shouldn't say that Q has the ability to move an entire moon, because moving an entire moon means you can move something the size and mass of The Moon, so you should refer to it as something smaller, perhaps an asteroid". If I apologize, I apologize for not making my point clearer, but as you said NecronLord you have no interest in following the thread and anybody who was following it would have realized that saying "Q can move an entire moon" implies that Q can move The Moon as a lower limit since we are ignoring upper limits, which is false, which is why I suggested asteroid. I did not suggest asteroid because I thought moons need a minimum size, holy fuck.

Brian

[NecronLord]

I never fucking said that "the Deja Q moon ain't big enough to be called a moon". As you quoted already, I said this,

I show that common knowledge is that moons are far larger than the Deja Q moon,

So what the hell am I saying here?

You are saying that the moon of Bre'el IV is erroneously termed that because it is of insufficient size. That may not be what you wish to say, but it is what you are saying.

Why do you cut out the last word when I refer to the Deja Q moon as a moon? You say that with this quotation it proves I say that moons have to be a size of The Moon, when reading one more word makes it clear that I consider Deja Q moon a moon!

Or you could be using the term from the show. You have also stubbornly insisted that it is not a moon but in fact solely an asteroid.

I am obviously saying that calling the Deja Q moon in the context of "Q can move an entire moon" is ridiculous given that saying "can move an entire moon" means you can move much larger moons, and since we are ignoring upper limits in this thread it is wrong to do this.

Yes. Though to be quite frank, he can be assumed to be able to move larger moons. He moved the Bre'el IV moon in an upper limit of around two minutes. Thus, a moon of twice its diameter would take up to sixteen minutes using the same energy. This however, is quite off the point, which is, the correct application of the word Moon.

Did you miss the last word? I call Deja Q moon to be a moon. So obviously I am not arguing about the definition of moon.

"This object isn't a object." This is a statement that the object is not in fact an object. It is gramatically correct, because the object is previously considered to be an object. Similarly, if I were to find a Death Star in Mimas, I would be justified in saying, "This moon isn't a moon, it is a Battle Station." Because you use the word moon to describe it does not mean you believe it to be a moon.

That is your strawman.

For god's sake. Stop claiming Strawman. It is what you said. You wrote the wrong thing. Now get over it.

"It wasn't a moon, it was an asteroid and not near the size or mass of the moon" was meant to focus on the size and mass. You take a sentence out of context of the discussion, which is to quantify the description of Q's powers.

It is still an ignorant statement. It is an ignorant statement in context, and it is an ignorant statement out of context. It would still be an ignorant statement if engraved on the pillar of wisdom on the planet Knowledgia in the Informatius galaxy. No matter where you put it, it is an ignorant statement. The only acceptable excuse is that you fucked up and wrote the wrong thing, and that your statement is wrong. Why will you not just accept that?

This point I concede, dickhole is truly a pathetic insult.

Yes.

[NecronLord]

And besides NecronLord, I have already shown that I know what the definition of a moon is, being a natural satellite around a planet (and I knew that before despite you saying to the contrary). So why are you still here?

Because you then went and backslid into saying "I show that common knowledge is that moons are far larger than the Deja Q moon," and you have refused to acknowledge that this is incorrect logic. Thus, I will continue to hound you until you conceed that this statement is wrong, or until I get bored.

You continually attempt to strawman me into saying that the Deja Q moon is not a moon, when I have never said that. The opening sentence was meant to be a condensation of "You shouldn't say that Q has the ability to move an entire moon, because moving an entire moon means you can move something the size and mass of The Moon, so you should refer to it as something smaller, perhaps an asteroid". If I apologize, I apologize for not making my point clearer, but as you said NecronLord you have no interest in following the thread and anybody who was following it would have realized that saying "Q can move an entire moon" implies that Q can move The Moon as a lower limit since we are ignoring upper limits, which is false, which is why I suggested asteroid. I did not suggest asteroid because I thought moons need a minimum size, holy fuck.

That is however what you said. If you don't believe it, say you don't believe it, and that your quotes that say it is are wrong, and that you do not hold such deviant beliefs.

[brianeyci]

"This object isn't a object." This is a statement that the object is not in fact an object. It is gramatically correct, because the object is previously considered to be an object. Similarly, if I were to find a Death Star in Mimas, I would be justified in saying, "This moon isn't a moon, it is a Battle Station." Because you use the word moon to describe it does not mean you believe it to be a moon.

I never said it in that way. I never said "Deja Q moon isn't a moon, it is an asteroid." I said that common knowledge is that there exists moons far larger than the Deja Q moon. If you want to argue about the common knowledge part, you are right there are many more smaller moons, but the point is that there exists far larger moons like The Moon, not whether or not there are more larger moons than smaller moons.

Brian

[NecronLord]

Just say that the below is an erroneous statement. Go on. You'll practically triple my respect for you if you do.

I show that common knowledge is that moons are far larger than the Deja Q moon,

[brianeyci]

I don't do things only for respect or no respect, especially on a message board where whether or not other people give a flying fuck doesn't affect my life in any way.

Although "I show that common knowledge is that moons are far larger than the Deja Q moon" is incorrect. That is not what I meant to say though. "It is not a moon, it is not near the mass or size of a moon" should be "It should not be called a moon because that implies that Q can move any moon like The Moon."

Brian

[NecronLord]

Much better. I'm satisfied now. Good day.

[Darth Lucifer]

Jesus Holy Hell Mary fuckin' Christ! I'm glad that's over with.

[Assassin X]

Errr.... since i dont have this much time... So can Q be beat or not?

IN a REALLLYYYY short non 7000 post answer....now that your done debating...or is it not done yet and there is no answer....and its stalemate?

[Jaepheth]

I'm not entirely sure if this is still relevent to the conversation, but I went ahead and dug it up anyway.

From Star Trek Voyager "Deathwish" Episode 34 (Season 2)

"But you mustn't think of us as omnipotent. No matter, what the
Continuum would like you to believe. You and your ship seem incredibly
powerful to life-forms without your technical expertise. It's no
different with us. We may appear omnipotent to you, but believe me,
we're not."

~Q2

[Ghost Rider]

Jaepheth's quote fits very good into the lines that Q has been hit(By Sisko), Stripped(By his own race), and tech does kill them(Their own...but can be handled by humans...and the humans were not stripped of these weapons either).

So yes, Q can be trounced by sufficent power.

What is that power...Trek has not readily defined but getting socked by Sisko was not a high point of his "Godliness"

[The Silence and I]

<snip>

You'll have to forgive me for rolling my eyes. I'm sure alot of inexperienced folk will beleive this tripe, but SoD can be applied even to the mystical once one gets the blindingly stupid no-limits fallacies from their skull.

I am not trying to spill tripe, I honestly do not think these can be quantified in any meaningful way by us with what we know about the events.

Quantifying is easy. One event moved one ship a ways; the other violently chucked an entire fleet.

And both utilized different and unknown theories dealing with FTL.

Keep in mind I agree, flinging an entire fleet is more impressive to me than a single ship. But I have no idea how much more impressive it is, and neither do you. That is my point, boiled down.

The commentary on weight is heavily tied into the power used in the Jedi example,

If you mean the Jedi discussed the mass as an important variable or something equivalent was mentioned in the book then this makes more sense.

which was telekinesis simply ramped up to the point it can hurl objects into hyperspace.

I need not tell you no amount of force against any mass can achieve FTL velocities. All the energy in all the universe isn't enough to achieve this. Those Jedi must have used the force in some other manner beyond a simple push.

We can certainly conclude they would be able to fling one smaller target just as well, if not better.

Not in dispute. My point is we cannot know how much better.

This 'Well, it's impossible, so give up trying to quantify it' bullshit really does become tiresome.

I would say an apparently normal human toddler suddenly shooting an energy blast that vaporizes the moon is impossible. But because the result can be measured we can conlude how much energy that toddler directed at the moon.

I would also think some guy sending the Enterprise on a multi-lightyear trip in a few seconds is impossible. But unlike above the result cannot be measured because we have nothing to measure. The Enterprise was here, now it is over there, its real space velocity--which is quantifiable--never changed much if at all. It traveled at an average FTL speed we can measure, but the threshold energy to achieve FTL is totally unknown as are the laws governing velocity. We have no relevant theory on FTL so we can only say Q moved one ship this far. Saying a bunch of Jedi moved a fleet of ships this far is meaningless. As both emply totally different and unknown methods to achieve different results it is like comparing apples and oranges without even knowing what an apple or an orange is.

All I want to point out is we do not know how much more impressive the Jedi example is. That is all and I will not go on for pages over this small thing.

[Star-Blighter]

How could I be so stupid, you don't need to use precognition to prove that Palpatine would survive.

Since Q is obviously not a god, we can quantify what his powers are. The technology debate on Q a month ago shows this. The pro-innate ability crowd kept bringing up that Q was not observed to use transporters or technology. The pro-technology proponents brought up the example of Q weapons. The rebuttal was that the Q continuum was a metaphor. The thing that shifted the debate to the pro-technology crowd was that god-like beings in Trek use technology to accomplish their feats. There was only one example of Kes brought up to counter this, and Kes didn't have the ability of Q. Therefore to be consistent with the rest of Trek, Q is probably using technology to accomplish his feats. Q weapons and the message of Trek is consistent with technology.


Consider what was used to prove this -- writer's intent, which is ironic because pro-innate proponents say that writer's intent proves Q has innate powers when the rest of Trek shows that the message is "technology can solve anything" meaning writer's intent is not for Q to be a god!!!!!!!!!!! Dripping with fucking irony once you realize this -- the pro-innate does not even have a case.

Once you realize it is not innate and more evidence for technological, then you can put limits on what Q can do. Q can probably travel through time. Q can transport someone from Earth to the Delta Quadrant. Q can teleport.

But using "Q can teleport" to mean he can automatically teleport away Palpatine is an obvious no-limits fallacy. Once you accept that Q probably use transporters, the answer becomes obvious why Q was able to transport into Federation ships. They have frequency, and we know from O'Brien that Federation ships have a specific weakness when their shields "cycle", allowing transport through provided you time within a millisecond. Therefore, Q being able to transport through Federation shields does not mean he can transport through Wars shields, because they do not have a frequency and thus no weakness to transporters. What Q has is probably the ability to scan through frequencies and transport through Federation shields.

Therefore, unless Palpatine walks around somewhere without shields, he is safe. Also thick armor can stop transporters, so Palpatine is probably safe even if he is not expecting an attack.

Brian

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. Claiming that his teleportation abilities are just transporters an utterly nonsensical claim based on no facts whatsoever. Face it, a Q was able to transport Voyager to immediately after the big bang (and somehow keep it is safe from destruction), the Enterprise-D some 60k LYs, etc. No transporter can do that, and obviously it is vastly more advanced than anything ST or SW has. Among other things he can also bring people from the dead, alter the universal gravitation constant, make up alternate timelines at will and jump across. No limit fallacy my ass, you're making the "if I didn't see it then it can't happen" fallacy. If Q can do something far more difficult than transporting a person, then is there is no reason to believe that he can't transport a person.

How do we know that Q actually did what he claimed he did? We don't. Q can do some phenominal things but he is not an imortal, nor does his power even approach omnipotence (anyone remember the Voyager ep where a Q was imprisoned in a comit? It doesn't paint the Q in a flattering light.).

[SirNitram]

<snip>

You'll have to forgive me for rolling my eyes. I'm sure alot of inexperienced folk will beleive this tripe, but SoD can be applied even to the mystical once one gets the blindingly stupid no-limits fallacies from their skull.

I am not trying to spill tripe, I honestly do not think these can be quantified in any meaningful way by us with what we know about the events.

Then you're simply ignorant.. Either to how to quantify or what quantification means. As I feel benevolent this morning, I'll be less abusive and more informative than normal.

Quantifying is easy. One event moved one ship a ways; the other violently chucked an entire fleet.

And both utilized different and unknown theories dealing with FTL.

Completely correct. We cannot define the intricacies of the mechanism... However we can completely quantify the observed effects. And that's all SoD cares about.

Keep in mind I agree, flinging an entire fleet is more impressive to me than a single ship. But I have no idea how much more impressive it is, and neither do you. That is my point, boiled down.

We know the mechanism for moving the fleet is based on forces.. These may be forces beyond us, but it was a Jedi's telekinetic power, which we know is dependent at least somewhat on mass(It's harder to lift an X-wing than a rock, even if it is no different). Q's mechanism may be different, but this proves the high-end Force event meets or exceeds the high end Q event.

The commentary on weight is heavily tied into the power used in the Jedi example,

If you mean the Jedi discussed the mass as an important variable or something equivalent was mentioned in the book then this makes more sense.

Telekinetics was the power used, and we know it's effected by mass.

which was telekinesis simply ramped up to the point it can hurl objects into hyperspace.

I need not tell you no amount of force against any mass can achieve FTL velocities. All the energy in all the universe isn't enough to achieve this. Those Jedi must have used the force in some other manner beyond a simple push.

<Insert lame joke about force and Force>

We can certainly conclude they would be able to fling one smaller target just as well, if not better.

Not in dispute. My point is we cannot know how much better.

I beleive I have made a solid case for using mass in the Jedi example, showing they can easily fling the mass-lightening Fed starships. Equipped with the same amplifier, at least, and I am discussing extremely high-end events.

This 'Well, it's impossible, so give up trying to quantify it' bullshit really does become tiresome.

I would say an apparently normal human toddler suddenly shooting an energy blast that vaporizes the moon is impossible. But because the result can be measured we can conlude how much energy that toddler directed at the moon.

Exactly! We cannot define the mechanism or how it survived, but we can observe the effects and discuss them and quantify the end result.

I would also think some guy sending the Enterprise on a multi-lightyear trip in a few seconds is impossible. But unlike above the result cannot be measured because we have nothing to measure. The Enterprise was here, now it is over there, its real space velocity--which is quantifiable--never changed much if at all. It traveled at an average FTL speed we can measure, but the threshold energy to achieve FTL is totally unknown as are the laws governing velocity. We have no relevant theory on FTL so we can only say Q moved one ship this far. Saying a bunch of Jedi moved a fleet of ships this far is meaningless. As both emply totally different and unknown methods to achieve different results it is like comparing apples and oranges without even knowing what an apple or an orange is.

We have many things to measure; the distance and transit time. Distance is anything but meaningless when quantifying capabilities. This is essentially a dressed up No-Limits fallacy.. IE, we don't know the exact mechanism, so let's just assume everything is infinite. This is fallacious logic, but others have written explanations of No-Limits better than mine.

All I want to point out is we do not know how much more impressive the Jedi example is. That is all and I will not go on for pages over this small thing.

I do firmly suggest you read up on the No-Limits fallacy, as you seem to be using it inadvertantly.. But I'll give you the benefit of hte doubt.

[brianeyci]

Errr.... since i dont have this much time... So can Q be beat or not?

IN a REALLLYYYY short non 7000 post answer....now that your done debating...or is it not done yet and there is no answer....and its stalemate?

You didn't need to read anything to know that Q can be beaten. Q weapons can kill Q, so Q is killable.

However, if the Q ever did get into a war and was losing, all they'd have to do would be to hide in their continuum and nothing would happen. Even if enemies did find a way to enter the continuum (which involves having some technobabble shielding to protect against a supernova IIRC), they would then be playing by the rules of the Q. And what are the chances of finding out anyway? I suppose if a Q exposed themselves, you could capture one and torture it and it would tell you to fly into a supernova, but would that be believable?

And given that the Q are experienced in dealing with "mortal" lifeforms to the point of not exposing themselves, if they knew a mortal had the power to kill them (and are not easily cowed like the Federation) they would probably never reveal themselves to that mortal in the first place. The Federation was cowed, but not everybody in the galaxy is the Federation -- the Calamarains, more advanced than the Federation, attacked Q as soon as they could and Q never exposed himself to be killed by them until his powers were stripped. Supposedly the Calamarains had tried to kill Q before.

Anyway, Q's would never interfere with so-called "mortals" and their trivial matters. The Q was an enigma, and so was Quinn. It was made clear that it is against Q laws to interfere. Q's power being stripped and again with Quinn's trial where Q revealed that Quinn was imprisoned for intefering made this clear. Although, there seems to be some inconsistency here -- Quinn altered the course of history of an entire race and he is imprisoned in an asteroid, while Q interfered only with Picard and gang and gets his powers stripped? However, since Quinn wanted to die, maybe the continuum didn't want to strip his powers because they knew Quinn would try to kill himself. Also we know Q fucked around some more with other cultures, so Q might actually have done worse things than Quinn.

In short, yes Q is killable, no Q would never get involved in a war, and on the off chance that for some plot contrived reason the Q got involved in a war they could just hide in the continuum so would probably never be defeated.

Brian

[The Silence and I]

SirNitram^^^^

I have a passing knowledge of the no limits fallacy, and I see your point. The only reason I dispute it is because not only are we in the dark about the intricacies of the mechanizms used we also have no idea about the more general mechanisms.

I don't think everything Q has done cannot be quantified simply because we don't know how he did them, that would be silly. For example moving the moon in Deja Q--an unknown mechanism but a readily quantifiable result.

But I don't understand how FTL can be quantified; no doubt you will say distance covered, mass moved and speed of travel are the factors. I agree those are factors but the effort of pushing something into hyperspace with the Force may rely more on mass than sending a starship through Q's method does, as one example of variables we cannot know or assume.

Before I continue to simply repeat what I have already said I have a question; when you attempt to quantify the two events are you simply trying to find out who can move more ships based on a lower limits kind of reasoning? In that case the Jedi clearly beat Q by a large margin.

If you are trying to prove the Jedi had to work X harder than Q to accomplish their task then I still disagree. What I have been arguing is because of totally unknown mechanisms it might be harder for Q to do what he did than what the Jedi did or vice versa by any amount.

In other words with the energy expended by Q to move the Enterprise the Jedi may have been able to move a starfighter, the whole fleet, 5 fleets etc. If you don't care about this and only the real world result: Jedi move a fleet Q moves a ship, then I conceed as I have been arguing the wrong point.

[SirNitram]

SirNitram^^^^

I have a passing knowledge of the no limits fallacy, and I see your point. The only reason I dispute it is because not only are we in the dark about the intricacies of the mechanizms used we also have no idea about the more general mechanisms.

I don't think everything Q has done cannot be quantified simply because we don't know how he did them, that would be silly. For example moving the moon in Deja Q--an unknown mechanism but a readily quantifiable result.

But I don't understand how FTL can be quantified; no doubt you will say distance covered, mass moved and speed of travel are the factors. I agree those are factors but the effort of pushing something into hyperspace with the Force may rely more on mass than sending a starship through Q's method does, as one example of variables we cannot know or assume.

But who gives a shit about how much effort it takes? The one with the superior outcome is the superior one. Because it makes the superior outcome!

Before I continue to simply repeat what I have already said I have a question; when you attempt to quantify the two events are you simply trying to find out who can move more ships based on a lower limits kind of reasoning? In that case the Jedi clearly beat Q by a large margin.

If you are trying to prove the Jedi had to work X harder than Q to accomplish their task then I still disagree. What I have been arguing is because of totally unknown mechanisms it might be harder for Q to do what he did than what the Jedi did or vice versa by any amount.

In other words with the energy expended by Q to move the Enterprise the Jedi may have been able to move a starfighter, the whole fleet, 5 fleets etc. If you don't care about this and only the real world result: Jedi move a fleet Q moves a ship, then I conceed as I have been arguing the wrong point.

And we move from No-Limits to Appeal to Ignorance. We don't know, so it could be anything, so declare a draw. No. This is not logical debating or even close.

[The Silence and I]

SirNitram^^^^

I have a passing knowledge of the no limits fallacy, and I see your point. The only reason I dispute it is because not only are we in the dark about the intricacies of the mechanizms used we also have no idea about the more general mechanisms.

I don't think everything Q has done cannot be quantified simply because we don't know how he did them, that would be silly. For example moving the moon in Deja Q--an unknown mechanism but a readily quantifiable result.

But I don't understand how FTL can be quantified; no doubt you will say distance covered, mass moved and speed of travel are the factors. I agree those are factors but the effort of pushing something into hyperspace with the Force may rely more on mass than sending a starship through Q's method does, as one example of variables we cannot know or assume.

But who gives a shit about how much effort it takes? The one with the superior outcome is the superior one. Because it makes the superior outcome!

All I need to know, I have been arguing against a point you were not making hence I conceed.

Before I continue to simply repeat what I have already said I have a question; when you attempt to quantify the two events are you simply trying to find out who can move more ships based on a lower limits kind of reasoning? In that case the Jedi clearly beat Q by a large margin.

If you are trying to prove the Jedi had to work X harder than Q to accomplish their task then I still disagree. What I have been arguing is because of totally unknown mechanisms it might be harder for Q to do what he did than what the Jedi did or vice versa by any amount.

In other words with the energy expended by Q to move the Enterprise the Jedi may have been able to move a starfighter, the whole fleet, 5 fleets etc. If you don't care about this and only the real world result: Jedi move a fleet Q moves a ship, then I conceed as I have been arguing the wrong point.

And we move from No-Limits to Appeal to Ignorance. We don't know, so it could be anything, so declare a draw. No. This is not logical debating or even close.

Appeal to ignorance? If you mean I am conceeding because I was ignorant of your point and actually agree with it, having no desire to debate something I agree with, and thus conceed rather than call a draw, then yes I suppose that is an appeal to ignorance...

If you mean my point that we simply don't know how much effort each event took then forget it because you were not arguing that; it is an argument I have dropped because it was never the argument.