The technology level question answered.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

And what evidence is there for this speculation, since the heating effect is just as easily explained by radioactive decay in heavy metals scattered throughout the planet's mass? Please give us a source which can be verified independently (none of this "I know a guy whose name must remain secret" bullshit).

To be fair, here is the site of a primary proponent of this theory:
http://www.nuclearplanet.com

For those who are interested and knowledgable enough about this kind of thing.

[SirNitram]

I don't know, calculating the maximum yield of his proposed size is okay, but I really do prefer my method of working out the required fissile material and comparing it's mass to the mass of Earth. Drives home the point. It's elegant in it's smackdown.

[Darth Wong]

And what evidence is there for this speculation, since the heating effect is just as easily explained by radioactive decay in heavy metals scattered throughout the planet's mass? Please give us a source which can be verified independently (none of this "I know a guy whose name must remain secret" bullshit).

To be fair, here is the site of a primary proponent of this theory:
http://www.nuclearplanet.com

For those who are interested and knowledgable enough about this kind of thing.

Oh I see, the projected power output is only 3-6 TW, from a uranium "droplet" of about 5km radius and density of roughly twice normal. I could see that (although it is acknowledged on the site that the theory is unnecessary at the moment). Of course, it's nowhere big enough to support Stewart's theory, not to mention his silly notion of achieving reaction rates similar to those of man-made nuclear weapons.

We're talking about a droplet of 2E16 kg uranium here. Even if it's 100% artificially enriched material and all of it reacts with 100% efficiency despite the laws of physics, you're only going to get about 1% of the energy you need to overcome gravitational binding energy, and about 0.000001% of the energy you'd need to make it explode at .05c.

[PackMule]

It kinda inspires me to learn more about science ...

[pellaeons_scion]

Im still trying to comprehend the idea of modern japan beating the former soviet union...

*brain explodes in the stupidity of it* I cant find the stats, but the soviet airforce alone in that region could reduce japan to dust...and if I recall correctly theres at least two naval bases for the Pacific Nuclear fleet?

Do tell, how the JSDF could fend that off...

[Master of Ossus]

BTW, the neutron beam sequence must have been fairly odd, since SDI's theory requires the beam to use two distinct phases. Even if we grant him that the neutron beam exists, then the explosion begins before the beam is shut off, no change in the beam can be observed during this time, and the explosion continues to grow, centered around the beam, after the planet begins exploding.

[Stewart at SDI]

Technology can be defined as the sum of the knowledge of whatever groupe or civilisation that we are discussing. In evaluating the total a simple sum of the diferances will point to the side with the supirior technology.

In order to define and reduce this debate to managable proportions, I propose that we confine it to one topic at a time. That the power to destroy Alderan thread of this discussion should therefore be moved to a new topic and that the first part of this discussion should become; the FTL combat point, since it was the first item that I cited.

In the origional serries, every single insidence of combat involving the Enterprise showed the ship moving at FTL speed while firing it's Phasers or Photon Torpedos. The speed of propagation and velosity of the two weapons was also clearly FTL. That the Phaser Beam and Photon Torpedos were traveling at FTL speeds is beyond question. That the Enterprise had both the FTL weapons and the ability to use them at FTL speeds is also beyond debate. The argument that it never hapened in any of the later shows or movies does not reduce the fact that it was demonstraited there. Also the argument that it only hapens at low realive speeds of a few /dozzens/hundreds of Km/S is not realivant because the ship was movind at FTL speeds and shooting at targets that were them selves moving at FTL speeds. That argument is also clearly defective in the light of the following two episodes.

The first is were the Enterprise is transporting dealigates to some conference and it gets attacked by the "Orion Pirates". The Pirate ship is shown as a bright spot with radiating light tendrils as if you were looking threw a difraction grid at it. The Enterprise has a spy in board, who is caught and found to be "surgicaly altered" to look like an "Andoran? IIRC" ( Blue skin with antenia that resemble suction cup darts, one of which fall off as he commits suiside.) In this combat, the two ships exchange several head on passes at what is obviously FTL speeds. Before Spok concludes that "They are using 100% of the power curve, and are thus on a one way trip." This episode displays fire between ships moving at FTL speeds in reciprical directions.

The second episode that also shows obvious FTL combat to and from ships on reciprical courses is the second involving the Romulans, where the Enterprise is surrounded by many (10 IIRC) Warbirds that take turns firing on the FTL Enterprise. Durring this battle, numerious maneuvers are made by the Romulans as they fire, indicating that they too have the ability to utillise FTL combat.

In each of the other battles in space, both units are moving at FTL speeds. My favorite is the first battle with the Romulans, where Kirk chases a raiding Warbird for hours, pretending to be a sensor malfunction. Durring this combat, the Enterprise traks the cloaked Warbird well enough to almost kill him at least once and get enough close miss "proximity" detonations to dust them off with every salvo. The smoke, plaster dust and debries falling from the cieling special effects show that the weapons are at least partialy effective against the cloaked ship.

There is not a single instance of either unit slowing to initiate or join combat in any of the first serries of episodes. Every single case has combat joined at FTL speeds. As to why this is not shown in most of the combat sequences in later shows, I haven't a clue. But it is depicted in at least several episodes of the Next Gen and Voyager serries. The incedent at farpoint episode where Picard shoots short at "Q" while traveling at FTL speeds and at least one of the Voyager shows that depicts FTL combat against a ship that has "Hunters" of intelligent "Prey" on board.

I do not own the synopsis books and must appologise for the lack of specific titles. All of this is from memory, after all I only watch the shows and it has been years.

It is therefore my contention that the Federation has the ability to join combat at FTL speeds. Since no depiction ever shows FTL combat, weapons or contemplation of same in the Star Wars settings they must not have this capasity. Therefore the SW universe is less advanced than the ST setting on this point at least.

[SirNitram]

Like a typical Troll, you ignore where you have been utterly smashed and hurry behind a new argument. Guerilla Debating.. How dishonest.

FTL Combat? Why should it matter? The Empire is ridiculously faster than the slow, sluggish warp ships. While they take decades to traverse the Galaxy, the Empire does it in hours. There's even evidence the Empire's ships will outrun the Federation's communications signals.

If you actually knew the art of war which you so pompously declare important, you'd realize this is an advantage which cannot be overstated. By the time the edge of the Federation's reports on incoming warships reach Earth, the ISD's are already in orbit and shelling the planet into molten goo.

There's FTL combat for you: No tactical nonsense(Which is all based on lies anyway, but I'll let Ossus and Poe poke those holes), but pure strategic speed.

[Stewart at SDI]

Aside from the technical implications which are huge, the ability to engage in FTL combat is that The Feds can shoot at you but you can not shoot back. After all, your "Turbo Lasers" are firmly sub-light velosity weapons.

As to the supposed stratigic speed diferance, the only write up that analises the SW films using impirical data, has a ship going from somewere near the edge of the galaxy to the either the political or geographic center (undefined) in something less than a 24 hour day to something longer than an entire night. ( Darth Maul talks to the Emporer in the day light, flies all night, then talks to him again in the late morning.) In ST-5? IIRC, the Enterprise goes from the very edge of the galaxy to the very center in 6.7 hours, or about twice to four times as fast as Darth Maul's trip. Do not cite Voyager times because they are obviously much slower that Kirk's ship. Also note that acording to cannon sources from ST, that a speed of Warp 12 was possable for Kirk's Enterprise which made it billions of times faster that the Warp 9.6 ship of Picard. (According to cannon sources that explain the Warp speed ratio to Light speed or Mike-1.) This jibes well with the images depicted on screen for Kirk's Enterprise wich show a speed of 1.2-10 LY per second. This is several/many times any speed claimed for any ship in the SW universe. The graphics depictions in ST-TNG and Voyager also differ with that speed stated in the books wich are millions of times to slow. The speed stated in the books also varies with that shown and diologued in several different episodes.

Using the rule that the Visual trumps the Writen, the evidence is clear that some of the ships from the ST Federation are much faster than the diologue would indicate ships from the SW universe are. No depiction of any vessal in the SW movies shows FTL travel, just the accelleration from low speed to light speed. In diologue verses Image debates the film should win.

In any case, the 6.7 hour trip in ST-5 is faster than any equivilant trip diologued in SW.

Questions? Sincerely, Stewart.

[Darth Wong]

This moronic ST5 point has been dealt with many times in this thread already. It is becoming increasingly clear that you are refusing to even bother reading the rebuttals to your repetitive claims.

[SirNitram]

Aside from the technical implications which are huge, the ability to engage in FTL combat is that The Feds can shoot at you but you can not shoot back. After all, your "Turbo Lasers" are firmly sub-light velosity weapons.

Flat. Out. Lie. They have never fired on a moving sublight target while at Warp. Check those distances called out during the episodes... You'll be shown to be full of it.

If you can't even debate honestly, don't debate, child.

[Rightous Fist Of Heaven]

I also find it fascinating that apparently, no-one during the entire TNG seems to understand the tactical advantages of firing from warp at a sublight object. Not the Klingons or the Dominion when attacking DS9 (which was during those battles a pretty immobile target). Not ever.

But ofcourse, this is because all commanders in the entire ST galaxy are stupid right?

The graphics depictions in ST-TNG and Voyager also differ with that speed stated in the books wich are millions of times to slow. The speed stated in the books also varies with that shown and diologued in several different episodes.

Dont tell me you are trying to use ST books as canonical source of FTL speeds...

No depiction of any vessal in the SW movies shows FTL travel, just the accelleration from low speed to light speed. In diologue verses Image debates the film should win.

Yet another flat out lie. Did you perhaps miss that twirling blue tunnel where at the cockpit windows of the Falcon when Lando was using it and they were arriving to Endor? Try to actually be certain of your claims before you make them.

[Sarevok]

Aside from the technical implications which are huge, the ability to engage in FTL combat is that The Feds can shoot at you but you can not shoot back. After all, your "Turbo Lasers" are firmly sub-light velosity weapons.

Star Trek combat takes place at ranges of few kilometers. This is similar to ranges Imperial Star Destroyer normaly fight at.

Also disruptors, pulse phasers and other pulse weapons are sublight weapons. Their velocity is similar to turbolasers yet they can effictively hit Trek ships

In ST-5? IIRC, the Enterprise goes from the very edge of the galaxy to the very center in 6.7 hours, or about twice to four times as fast as Darth Maul's trip. Do not cite Voyager times because they are obviously much slower that Kirk's ship.

Voyger takes place a century after TOS. She was stated to be the a hundred years more advanced when vessels of that time when Voyger encountered an ancient Klingon battlecruiser. She is definately much faster than the Enterprise-A.

Also note that acording to cannon sources from ST, that a speed of Warp 12 was possable for Kirk's Enterprise which made it billions of times faster that the Warp 9.6 ship of Picard.

TNG and TOS uses different warp speed scales.

No depiction of any vessal in the SW movies shows FTL travel, just the accelleration from low speed to light speed. In diologue verses Image debates the film should win.

Visual evidence shows starships entering hyperspace and emerging in star systems at the other side of the galaxy within hours. The Falcon did just that when it travelled from Tatoonine to Alderan. This is FTL travel without any doubt.

Questions? Sincerely, Stewart.

Do you have a brain ?

[nightmare]

In ST-5? IIRC, the Enterprise goes from the very edge of the galaxy to the very center in 6.7 hours, or about twice to four times as fast as Darth Maul's trip. Do not cite Voyager times because they are obviously much slower that Kirk's ship.

Of course, we can't bother you to explain why Kirk's much older ship would be so much faster than Voyager, which is claimed to be technologically superior, or why the "center of the galaxy" looks nothing like it should, nevermind why a single example based on secondary evidence standing out among hundreds of examples based on direct evidence would be statistically significant, including other observations of the maximum speed of Kirk's ship. The observed speed of Darth Maul's ship is based on direct evidence, and matches all other known examples of primary and secondary evidence for SW ships. If you understand the scientific method, it should be clear to you which conclusion is the correct one.

For being someone who concentrates so much on the visuals of the asteroid shooting in TESB, this is bad style of you, Stewart. You pick only what evidence that suits you. If I ever had any doubts about you having scientific credentials, they are decidedly gone by now, as in proven negative. I'm not going to bother answering your other points, already rebutted by others.

Here's some advice for you to go by in the future:

1. Visuals are objective evidence while dialogue is not, for rather obvious reasons. Visuals are available for measuring and direct interpretation, while dialogue brings in the whole going through secondary sources, ie a character saying something from his/her perspective, not yours. The "center of the galaxy" being a prime example.

2. Do *not* only present your favoured evidence, neglecting to explain contradictory evidence when you clearly know there are. This is an unscientific approach.

3. Maintain consistency in your arguments. And by consistency, I don't mean "consistently proven wrong". You go from observation to conclusion to question to hypothesis to prediction to theory via deductive logic. A conclusion is not "SW ships are slower than ST ships". A conclusion is "Ship A travelled from point A to point B in time T. This gives an average speed of Y. Ship B has an observed speed of X. Since X>Y, ship B is faster than ship A".

4. Be as clear in your presentation as possible. State your observations, conclusions based on reasoning, backed by evidence. Name your sources and explain why contradictory evidence should be neglected. I know it's hard to be clear while speculating, but if that is what you are doing, you are nowhere near a working theory yet.

[Cornelius]

Actually, the will of the people was never there. To continue in Vietnam would have been political suicide.

However, I've only heard that the US won every major battle I doubt that includes every tactical battle. Fifty-eight thousand US dead compared to nearly one million NV soldiers is very telling. Vietnam was simply a political defeat for the US, not a military defeat. The US didn't leave because the enemy pushed us out, we left because we didn't want to be there any longer.

Anyway, I apologize for going off topic.

Stewart, read the site. Thus far people are being very nice to you but if you continue along this path that will soon change in a very unpleasant way.
_________________

It is a political defeat, and a defeat is technically a defeat. Militarily no, however. War was kinda ill thought and stupid. They tried to run a massive civil program which sucked oodles of money while trying to fight a war we had no real business fighting. It probably wouldn't have mattered if we won every battle, even the troops didn't want to fight. I don't even think we were getting anything significant out of it except death.

[Trolic]

The F-22 is so good that the Air Force thinks that they will only need 48 of them and their support systems to defeet any other air force on the planet. Thats right 48 Vs. the red air force of 20,000 planes or the British/French/German sales to the third world.

I was in the airforce for 8 years yes the airforce will only have 48 for awhile those will be sent to Tyndall AirForce base to TRAIN pilots how to fly the F-22 they are going to get around 400 if budget allows they are also going to keep the f-15 active for until 2035 the last time i heard. It will be 10-15 years befor they have more then 3-4 squadrons of f-22 in service it is a very expensive and complicated aircraft and takes time and money to build

[Ghost Rider]

Read the annoucements

[Darth Wong]

Actually, that was a nugget of information that hadn't been mentioned in the thread previously, so it doesn't really break the rules (EDIT: as they were intended, but I agree that the way the rule was written does make it look like there are no exceptions).

[Ghost Rider]

Actually, that was a nugget of information that hadn't been mentioned in the thread previously, so it doesn't really break the rules.

Okay...just antsy of dug out threads.

[Striderteen]

To be fair, here is the site of a primary proponent of this theory:
http://www.nuclearplanet.com

Actually, that is the site of the originator and *only* real proponent of this theory. I was curious enough about this to ask one of the geology professors here at Caltech about it (Dr. David J. Stevenson), and he informed me that it's about as believable as cold fusion.

It is perhaps worth nothing that the author of this theory was the technical advisor for "The Core".