Jabout the SW vs ST article

[Justloginin]

Before you read this realise I don't care that much about this and its just a casual observation and I have no intention of looking for older posts to see of this has already been raised.

I just read the article of SW vs ST and how the enterprise D is beaten on all fronts by the empire. Does the author not realise that while Star Trek has only a little bit of true science there is no basis in reality in Star Wars.

I find it strange that (among other things) Jango Fett's seismic charges have about 100 times the power of a photon torpedo which has aout 1.5kgs of antimatter which to the best of my knowledge is the most destructive substance in existance.

The science behind star wars seems to be there only to sound impressive. If i was to make a ship in the Star Wars universe I could say it was equiped with "awesome torpedos" that had 1 trillion megtons and in "reality" all they could do was damage a small ship.

Its just seems stupid as 1 of Jango Fetts charges could end all life on a single plant and that seems a bit much don't you think?

In short I think there is no point in comparing each series as the science is so flawed in both comparisions are just meaningless. End rant.

[Batman]

Before you read this realise I don't care that much about this and its just a casual observation and I have no intention of looking for older posts to see of this has already been raised.

You DO know that one of of the board rules is that you HAVE to, right?

I just read the article of SW vs ST and how the enterprise D is beaten on all fronts by the empire. Does the author not realise that while Star Trek has only a little bit of true science there is no basis in reality in Star Wars.

Since the same is true for Trek your point is?

I find it strange that (among other things) Jango Fett's seismic charges have about 100 times the power of a photon torpedo which has aout 1.5kgs of antimatter which to the best of my knowledge is the most destructive substance in existance.

A pity that that amount is completely noncanon while the power of those seismic charges is NOT.

The science behind star wars seems to be there only to sound impressive.

Bzzt. Wrong. The science (for want of a better word) behind TREK is.WARS out-everythinged Trek from the word go.

If i was to make a ship in the Star Wars universe I could say it was equiped with "awesome torpedos" that had 1 trillion megtons and in "reality" all they could do was damage a small ship.

As evidenced by-you saying do. 200 GT per shot per gun for a clone wars era troop transport.

Its just seems stupid as 1 of Jango Fetts charges could end all life on a single plant and that seems a bit much don't you think?

As me stepping on it could end all life on a single plant-um, no? If youre talking about a PLANET-no?

In short I think there is no point in comparing each series as the science is so flawed in both comparisions are just meaningless. End rant.

A megaton is a megaton is a megaton. You're whining because Trek loses, that's all.

[DatBurnTho11]

Considering your username "Justloginin", I doubt you'll even be around to read this or have even looked over the SD.net site much yet. I'd actually recommend reading a few of Mike's articles, they are really quite interesting.

Anyway, your point seems to boil down to the long repeated argument that somehow ST is a 'hard science fiction show' while SW is more space opera in style and thus the two cannot be compared. But, when you really look at the distinct episodes, the primary difference between the presentation of technology in ST and SW is that ST takes great pains to SEEM like a hard science fiction show. Unfortunately, both series utilize so much fictional technology: hyperspace, hypermatter, subspace, etc. that it is really quite difficult to argue which show is more 'realistic' on a purely scientific basis.

The science behind star wars seems to be there only to sound impressive. If i was to make a ship in the Star Wars universe I could say it was equiped with "awesome torpedos" that had 1 trillion megtons and in "reality" all they could do was damage a small ship.

Unfortunately, as Batman discussed, it is Star Trek that uses what many have termed 'Treknobabble' to try to give fictional technologies a semblance of reality by saying 'quantum' or other science buzzwords a lot. In Star Trek, there are multiple scenes where main characters spout out disconnected technical jargon when explaining what they are doing. In this sense, it is Star Trek science that is there to sound impressive. I challenge you to find a single scene in the canon episodes where technobabble is used to attempt to justify how a technology functions. On the other hand, just play any episode of Star Trek to see how quantum intermix matrixes in the dilithium confinement crystal create a gravimetric disruption to accelerate the vessel to superluminal speeds. It sounds sciency, but ultimately has as much meaning as the word "hyperdrive".

I find it strange that (among other things) Jango Fett's seismic charges have about 100 times the power of a photon torpedo which has aout 1.5kgs of antimatter which to the best of my knowledge is the most destructive substance in existance.

Well that's all well and good, but again, don't you think it's strange that Star Trek and Star Wars ships can travel faster than the speed of light, a theoretical impossibility? And isn't it ridiculous how they claim to control gravitons, the existence of which modern science cannot yet even confirm? And there are multiple examples on SD.net discussing other 'allowances' that you have to make in order to analyze science fiction. Though one might currently say that antimatter is the most destructive substance in existence, it's rather presumptuous to believe that there can be nothing more powerful than it. You might say that any science fiction series that relies on these fictional concepts beyond the realm of science are inherently inferior, but be careful of throwing stones from glass houses. Star Trek technology is based on some quite laughable concepts itself: subspace, dilithium crystal moderated antimatter reactions, etc. This ultimately boils down to the idea that sufficiently advanced technology might seem like magic to us. Just because we currently do not understand how such power could be harassed, it does not automatically void our ability to quantify and compare the properties of the different weapons.

In short I think there is no point in comparing each series as the science is so flawed in both comparisions are just meaningless. End rant.

You really should read SD.net, he actually does reply directly to this question. The prevailing model for analyzing science fiction on this site is to use footage, descriptions, and to a lesser extend dialog from the science fiction videos as evidence to try to develop a method of quantifying knowable factors of the two works of science fiction. In other words, we may have no idea HOW the Death Star works, but we can use evidence such as the explosion of Alderaan to at least place some limits on the power/energy exerted by the station. We may not know HOW photon torpedoes or seismic charges work, but we can analyze the evidence of how they perform against common test objects, say asteroids, to learn more about their destructive capabilities. This philosophy accepts that the technology is likely beyond current understanding, but nevertheless posits that theories of science can be applied to try understand the relative technologies of both works of science fiction.

Of course it's meaningless to debate whether an ISD or Ent-D would win in a battle, this is all science fiction. However, it is a refreshing pastime for those who are interested in works of science fiction, and like to see whether it can be at least partially understood through science.

[Justloginin]

Its just seems stupid as 1 of Jango Fetts charges could end all life on a single plant and that seems a bit much don't you think?

As me stepping on it could end all life on a single plant-um, no? If youre talking about a PLANET-no?

Hey if the fat man bomb (which was only a few kilotones) can blow up a whole city im sure a couple of thousand megatones could do a wee bit more damage. Just sayin.

[Ryan Thunder]

Its just seems stupid as 1 of Jango Fetts charges could end all life on a single plant and that seems a bit much don't you think?

As me stepping on it could end all life on a single plant-um, no? If youre talking about a PLANET-no?

Hey if the fat man bomb (which was only a few kilotones) can blow up a whole city im sure a couple of thousand megatones could do a wee bit more damage. Just sayin.

A multi-megaton nuclear bomb *might* produce a mushroom cloud you could see from low orbit. And these work on a completely different mechanism, anyway, so it wouldn't look anything like that. Furthermore, most modern nukes have a yield of a few hundred kilotonnes. Are you going to suggest that one of them could destroy a hundred cities because Fat Man was "just a few kilotonnes", now?

So, no, not that much.

[DatBurnTho11]

I think your estimation of the destructive power of the Fat Man bomb (explosive equivalent 21 kilotonnes of TNT) is quite exaggerated.

I'm not an expert on this, but based on a quick internet search it seems that only 30% of Nagasaki, a relatively (compared to modern cities) small seaport constructed primarily of antiquated unplastered wooden walls, was considered destroyed. (http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/hiroshima.htm, http://www.world-war-2.info/atomic-bomb/)

On the other hand, a bomb of a 'couple thousand megatons' probably might threaten life on an UNSHIELDED world. I'm assuming this considering that the Russians developed a hydrogen bomb Tsar Bomba with an initial yield of 100 MT, but scaled that back to 50 MT for its test detonation due to environmental considerations. (http://english.pravda.ru/russia/history ... ar_bomba-0) So something ten times more powerful is probably not going to be beneficial for hypothetical inhabitants of this planet if the bomb is of a similar nature. Of course, you might say that the seismic blasts have a different mechanism for causing destruction than nuclear weapons (i.e. do not produce nuclear fallout) in which case a comparison cannot be performed well.

You probably will need to do more calculations than "wee bit more damage" to convince anyone on this forum that it will end all life on the world. Anyway, the whole point is moot because SW planets have planetary shields that have been proven in canon to be able to deflect much more powerful weapons.

That said, I do think the gripe over misspelling is kind of nit-picky, but I am interested to hear what Justloginin has to say about any of our points.

[Batman]

We're talking a measly 3 GT here. That wouldn't even destroy all life on a single continent. Plug in the number

[Justloginin]

I think your estimation of the destructive power of the Fat Man bomb (explosive equivalent 21 kilotonnes of TNT) is quite exaggerated.

I'm not an expert on this, but based on a quick internet search it seems that only 30% of Nagasaki, a relatively (compared to modern cities) small seaport constructed primarily of antiquated unplastered wooden walls, was considered destroyed. (http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/hiroshima.htm, http://www.world-war-2.info/atomic-bomb/)

On the other hand, a bomb of a 'couple thousand megatons' probably might threaten life on an UNSHIELDED world. I'm assuming this considering that the Russians developed a hydrogen bomb Tsar Bomba with an initial yield of 100 MT, but scaled that back to 50 MT for its test detonation due to environmental considerations. (http://english.pravda.ru/russia/history ... ar_bomba-0) So something ten times more powerful is probably not going to be beneficial for hypothetical inhabitants of this planet if the bomb is of a similar nature. Of course, you might say that the seismic blasts have a different mechanism for causing destruction than nuclear weapons (i.e. do not produce nuclear fallout) in which case a comparison cannot be performed well.

You probably will need to do more calculations than "wee bit more damage" to convince anyone on this forum that it will end all life on the world. Anyway, the whole point is moot because SW planets have planetary shields that have been proven in canon to be able to deflect much more powerful weapons.

That said, I do think the gripe over misspelling is kind of nit-picky, but I am interested to hear what Justloginin has to say about any of our points.

http://worldofweirdthings.com/2010/04/2 ... ith-nukes/

"we could say that it would take only 283 megaton warheads and 3,724 average nukes (350 KT) to end civilization as we know it."



Remember its not just the blast. Theres the fallout too.

3724*350/1000=1303.4 1303.4+283=1586.4 megatons
1 seismic charge =12000 megatons

Notice a difference??

and about those shields.

1. Land on planet
2. Set a few charges on different points of the planet
3. Go to space
4. Detonate and watch the fireworks

[Batman]

'End civilization as we know it' does not equal kill all life on the planet, which, you know, requires killing all life on the planet. 'End civilization as we know it' can be achieved by merely setting us back a couple hundred years technologically. Heck, merely killing any and all electronics would.
And how pray tell do you intend to get those warheads PAST the planetary shields?

[Justloginin]

'End civilization as we know it' does not equal kill all life on the planet, which, you know, requires killing all life on the planet. 'End civilization as we know it' can be achieved by merely setting us back a couple hundred years technologically. Heck, merely killing any and all electronics would.
And how pray tell do you intend to get those warheads PAST the planetary shields?

im saying by the numbers in the SW vs ST aticle that 1 seismic charge is equal to the power of many thousand warheads.

Nobody would find 1 charge very suspicious as it appears to be a common armament in the SW universe. How does any shp get past a planetary shield.

Courasaunt for example does not appear to be shielded. Fly in drop charges. City planet obliterated.

Hell apart from Hoth name me another planet that is.

[The Vortex Empire]

Coruscant is most definitely shielded. Hell, during the Battle of COruscant in RotS, the fleets were trapped under the shield. According to Wookieepedia, Alderaan, Naboo, Mon Calamari, Caamas, Bothawui, and Nar Shaadaa were also shielded. They're not uncommon at all.

[Batman]

'End civilization as we know it' does not equal kill all life on the planet, which, you know, requires killing all life on the planet. 'End civilization as we know it' can be achieved by merely setting us back a couple hundred years technologically. Heck, merely killing any and all electronics would.
And how pray tell do you intend to get those warheads PAST the planetary shields?

im saying by the numbers in the SW vs ST aticle that 1 seismic charge is equal to the power of many thousand warheads.

So's a modern day nuke. A 20 KT warhead is the equal to 20,000 one ton bombs. Gosh.

Courasaunt for example does not appear to be shielded.

Bzzt. Wrong. DOUBLY shielded as per the EU AND shielded as per the Episode 3 novel.

Hell apart from Hoth name me another planet that is.

Alderaan, Camaas, Bothawui... And Hoth DIDN'T have a planetary shield.

[Justloginin]

'End civilization as we know it' does not equal kill all life on the planet, which, you know, requires killing all life on the planet. 'End civilization as we know it' can be achieved by merely setting us back a couple hundred years technologically. Heck, merely killing any and all electronics would.
And how pray tell do you intend to get those warheads PAST the planetary shields?

im saying by the numbers in the SW vs ST aticle that 1 seismic charge is equal to the power of many thousand warheads.

So's a modern day nuke. A 20 KT warhead is the equal to 20,000 one ton bombs. Gosh.

Courasaunt for example does not appear to be shielded.

Bzzt. Wrong. DOUBLY shielded as per the EU AND shielded as per the Episode 3 novel.

Hell apart from Hoth name me another planet that is.

Alderaan, Camaas, Bothawui... And Hoth DIDN'T have a planetary shield.

then why did the imperials land to take out the SHIELD GENERATOR

[Kamakazie Sith]

then why did the imperials land to take out the SHIELD GENERATOR

Hoth had a theater shield. If it had a planetary shield then landing would not have been possible. Use your head, dude.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Coruscant is most definitely shielded. Hell, during the Battle of COruscant in RotS, the fleets were trapped under the shield. According to Wookieepedia, Alderaan, Naboo, Mon Calamari, Caamas, Bothawui, and Nar Shaadaa were also shielded. They're not uncommon at all.

Not only that, they were trapped between shields. Not only did Coruscant have a planetary shield, she had redundant theater shields that covered individual districts of the planets.

[DatBurnTho11]

Dang, that's pretty interesting. I wish I could find an e-book version of the SW novelizations.

[Junghalli]

Hey if the fat man bomb (which was only a few kilotones) can blow up a whole city im sure a couple of thousand megatones could do a wee bit more damage. Just sayin.

Keep in mind that a sphere's surface area quadruples as radius doubles, so if you want a bomb to be as destructive at 2 times the distance it has to be 4 times as powerful, so the destructiveness of a bomb is subject to diminishing returns as you make it more powerful.

[Littlefoot]

And how pray tell do you intend to get those warheads PAST the planetary shields?

Easy......land. The only planet we've seen with customs ports have been wealthy core worlds. Naboo, Tatooine, and various others have had spaceports dirtside, but no orbital docks. Also, with the exception of some Core worlds, aren't the shields left down until a threat is detected? And aren't full planetary shields too expensive for all but the richest worlds? SW does not show any terrorism in the sense that we know it today, but they seem to be perfectly comfortable with the thought of some random ship with weapons in the MT+ range landing in cities, so the construction materials used in the building may make such attacks very limited in the amount of damage inflicted.

[Batman]

Ah, but Justloggedin WAS talking about obliterating Coruscant. Which not only IS shielded but HAS customs ports, AND is built with Star Wars materials. I'd like to see how he intends to achieve 'city planet obliterated' with Trek yield warheads even IF he somehow manages to get them on-planet.

[Serafina]

Ah, yet another person who completely overestimates the effects of nuclear devices, or other MT+-weaponry.

"Ending civilization as we know it" is not that hard. Heck, you only have to take out Germanys industry (not that hard) and the world would be in serious trouble (no more high-quality machine tools=no more factories) in short order.
The same goes for many other countries.

But "ending civilization as we know it" does not mean "kill everyone" or "kill most people". It only means that civilization is drastically altered.
And contrary to popular misinformation, all full-blown nuclear war would not kill everyone on earth. Indeed, most people would initially survive and not die of radiation either - they are much more endangered from the lack of infrastructure.
An extreme example is Great Britain - only about 10% of the population would have died due to the explosions and radiation. But 80% would die because there would not be enough clean water, food, medicine, heating and whatnot.
We are just utterly dependent on our infrastructure.

Hence, it is relatively easy to "end civilization as we know it". Just take out a couple of important infrastructural centers (harbors, large energy plants , governmental centers etc.)


Now, on to SWvsST.
Star Trek is NOT more realistic than Star Wars. They might borrow terms from actual science, but that's just window-dressing. They just ignore their actual meaning. If you take anti-matter as an example:
Anti-matter reactions do not work like they are described in Star Trek. You can not use "Dilithium-crystals" to "moderate" the reaction - if the crystals are matter, antimatter will react with them. If they are themselves antimatter, the matter in the reactor would react with them.
You also have a lot of things like ghosts and posessions (remember Spocks "katra" that was his "immortal soul" and could possess another being"?
But in the end, it would not matter - it's like saying "well, a fight between a child and an adult is just not fair". It isn't, but the adult wins regardless. Actually, you can argue that it IS fair, as long as both have to play by the same rules. Which is usually the definition of fair we use, if you think about it.
And Star Wars is just like that (except worse). If you want to claim a benefit for Star Trek because it is "more realistic", you are trying to change the rules.

But what are the rules? Well, we generally use "suspension of disbelief". Which means that we suspend our disbelief and (pretend to) belief that the movies, books, whatever we are talking about - is realistic.
Thus, we analyze both sides as if they were documentaries - just like we can analyze footage from actual historical events or modern-day recordings. And the best tool for this is science.
And a scientific analysis tells us that SW-firepower is just way more powerful than ST-firepower, that they shields are better, their ships faster and larger, their armies bigger and so on. And the difference is like pitting the US-army against the ancient Celts - except that it is actually worse. It's more like sending a thousand-strong fleet of aircraft-carries, battleships etc. against a fleet of 50 galleys.

If you do not use suspension of disbelief, you can not have a rational debate. Because then it boils down to "i think that X is better than Y" - children can do that, and we do not get better results from it than them. It all boils down to taste, and you can't argue about taste.