The new ST V SW at startrek.com

[Rightous Fist Of Heaven]

What I'd most like to see is someone really put him in his place about his military claims.

I gave it a shot, and frankly the appalling ignorance that he displayed during the little exchange showed pretty well that the fucker had no real military experience whatsoever, at best he was part of the local paintball militia.

I think I remember that. Was that where his response was just to say Finland's military sucked?

Pretty much yeah, the one which could have come from the mouth of any ignorant 10 year old in the style of "Your dad sucks! My dad would walk over your dad in a fight". Just looking at that exchange should be enough to convince anyone that the man has not ever seen or heard of real military training. I tried to lure the guy into a real debate over PM's, but sadly he didnt take the bait and I didnt get the chance to laugh my ass off.

[Glimmervoid]

They are now saying the deathstar has no hyperdrive.

[Firefox]

So now they're going to suggest that Alderaan was in the same system as Yavin?

[Glimmervoid]

So now they're going to suggest that Alderaan was in the same system as Yavin?

No its worse they are saying it has no sublight engines too (so how it got between these systems are beyond me) but they are saying it travel between the systems at sunlight.

[Firefox]

I imagine they're arguing from the assumption that if there are no visible sublight engines, there must be no engines at all. Ask him how the Enterprise maneuvers in space, since we never see jets emitted from the RCS thrusters? Those spots on the edge of the saucer could be sensor platforms, for all we know.

[General Zod]

So now they're going to suggest that Alderaan was in the same system as Yavin?

No its worse they are saying it has no sublight engines too (so how it got between these systems are beyond me) but they are saying it travel between the systems at sunlight.

that sounds almost too stupid to be true. . .can you provide quotes?

[Glimmervoid]

So now they're going to suggest that Alderaan was in the same system as Yavin?

No its worse they are saying it has no sublight engines too (so how it got between these systems are beyond me) but they are saying it travel between the systems at sunlight.

that sounds almost too stupid to be true. . .can you provide quotes?

"FIRST off, you have no idea how long it took to get to yavin, how do you know it dint take months? and where are the hyperdrive engines? From what I can tell everything that has hyperdrive, has those big ### engines in the back . Or was I high? All im asking is IF the DS had hyperdrive, where are the engines? And if they have engines, why not just shoot yavin, instead of waiting 30 min to swing around a gas giant?"

[Glimmervoid]

No its worse they are saying it has no sublight engines too (so how it got between these systems are beyond me) but they are saying it travel between the systems at sunlight.

that sounds almost too stupid to be true. . .can you provide quotes?

"FIRST off, you have no idea how long it took to get to yavin, how do you know it dint take months? and where are the hyperdrive engines? From what I can tell everything that has hyperdrive, has those big ### engines in the back . Or was I high? All im asking is IF the DS had hyperdrive, where are the engines? And if they have engines, why not just shoot yavin, instead of waiting 30 min to swing around a gas giant?"

This was my response.

So let me get this right you are arguing that it has no hyperdrive and no sublight("And if they have engines, why not just shoot yavin, instead of waiting 30 min to swing around a gas giant?" this is some thing sublight would be for) and at the same time saying it travelled between systems. Mind explaining that.

[tumbletom]

Riobravo says:

Neither of these "universes" was ever intended to fight one another or they would not be so many discussions as to which is better. If they were designed on purpose to be so lopsided then there would be no point to any of it, now would there?

In any case, Star Trek wins.

It is unbelievable to say Star Wars weapons are more advanced and they still use rockets at the back of the ships to power them and don't even have touch screens at the controls, they are still using levers and buttons and such. Not very advanced at all.

It's like using photon torps on a tugboat, it couldn't carry them much less power them and much less use them. End of battle. Next.

Interesting way of putting it....very superficial guy

[General Zod]

Riobravo says:

Neither of these "universes" was ever intended to fight one another or they would not be so many discussions as to which is better. If they were designed on purpose to be so lopsided then there would be no point to any of it, now would there?

In any case, Star Trek wins.

It is unbelievable to say Star Wars weapons are more advanced and they still use rockets at the back of the ships to power them and don't even have touch screens at the controls, they are still using levers and buttons and such. Not very advanced at all.

It's like using photon torps on a tugboat, it couldn't carry them much less power them and much less use them. End of battle. Next.

Interesting way of putting it....very superficial guy

sounds like a typical style over substance moron. possibly the easiest way to refute this type of idiot is to point out that most trek races have never successfully managed to create a planet killing weapon more than once. the empire has done so multiple times.

[tumbletom]

that sounds almost too stupid to be true. . .can you provide quotes?

"FIRST off, you have no idea how long it took to get to yavin, how do you know it dint take months? and where are the hyperdrive engines? From what I can tell everything that has hyperdrive, has those big ### engines in the back . Or was I high? All im asking is IF the DS had hyperdrive, where are the engines? And if they have engines, why not just shoot yavin, instead of waiting 30 min to swing around a gas giant?"

This was my response.

So let me get this right you are arguing that it has no hyperdrive and no sublight("And if they have engines, why not just shoot yavin, instead of waiting 30 min to swing around a gas giant?" this is some thing sublight would be for) and at the same time saying it travelled between systems. Mind explaining that.

Bring up Borg Cubes....They have no visible warp drive either....

[Firefox]

"But we've seen them at warp! We've never seen the Death Star in hyperspace! Microsoft is greater than Linux! Wahh! Wahh! Wahh!"

[Nick Lancaster]

Riobravo says:

Neither of these "universes" was ever intended to fight one another or they would not be so many discussions as to which is better. If they were designed on purpose to be so lopsided then there would be no point to any of it, now would there?

In any case, Star Trek wins.

It is unbelievable to say Star Wars weapons are more advanced and they still use rockets at the back of the ships to power them and don't even have touch screens at the controls, they are still using levers and buttons and such. Not very advanced at all.

It's like using photon torps on a tugboat, it couldn't carry them much less power them and much less use them. End of battle. Next.

The Empire uses levers and buttons and such because they have ion weapons which would disrupt fancy-ass touch screen interfaces.

Additionally, there are 'manual overrides' for Trek systems, because that's basic engineering. You don't design a nuclear reactor that lacks a mechanical/manual method for inserting the control rods. Maybe this Riobonehead thinks the magic technology fairies make things happen?

But beyond that, 'touch screen' does not imply 'more advanced'. Standard Trektard logic, that cool buttons and interfaces means superior technology.

And is this retard saying an ISD is the equivalent of a tugboat?

[Darth Servo]

The Empire uses levers and buttons and such because they have ion weapons which would disrupt fancy-ass touch screen interfaces.

Not to mention the fact that touch screens give no real tactile feedback, are highly prone to type-os and are a pain in the ass.

Additionally, there are 'manual overrides' for Trek systems, because that's basic engineering. You don't design a nuclear reactor that lacks a mechanical/manual method for inserting the control rods. Maybe this Riobonehead thinks the magic technology fairies make things happen?

Pretty much. I PM'd him my response to his idiotic post. I'll share his responses in my next posts.

And is this retard saying an ISD is the equivalent of a tugboat?

He doesn't even address the firepower, speed or other issues. Like Stewart at SDI, he thinks showing ONE fancy technology means higher tech across the board.

Darmok is not just making up what ever he wants.

[Darth Servo]

Neither of these "universes" was ever intended to fight one another or they would not be so many discussions as to which is better. If they were designed on purpose to be so lopsided then there would be no point to any of it, now would there?

It is lopsided. Just in the opposite direction you think it is.

In any case, Star Trek wins.

glanicing at your post, that statement is clearly made on the assumption that 'flashier' is better. Justify this assumption.

It is unbelievable to say Star Wars weapons are more advanced and they still use rockets at the back of the ships to power them

And Trek impulse drives DON'T use thrust propulsion?

BOTH universes have exhausts at the rear of the ship venting waste gas.

and don't even have touch screens at the controls, they are still using levers and buttons and such. Not very advanced at all.

So what? We have touch screens today so they are obviously within the technological capabilities of a galaxy spanning empire. Yet we do NOT use them on our military equipment or even civilian cars and airplanes. Why not? Becasue touch screens are LOUSY for controling a vehicle or large piece of machinery. The human mind responds best to a combination of visual, audio AND tactile feedback. These are provided by "primitive" switches and buttons but NOT by touch screens.

Have you ever actually USED a touch screen? I have. They are a pain in the @$$ and are heavily prone to typos, moreso than that "primitive" keyboard you're using right now. The ONLY reason for their widespread use in Trek is people seem to like the appearance. They look cool so they put them on everything, even Nog's dumbells in DS9. Hardly something to judge military capability by.

It's like using photon torps on a tugboat, it couldn't carry them much less power them and much less use them. End of battle. Next.

News flash. flashier doesn't mean better. Latest is NOT synomous with greatest dispite thier often joint use.

Look at the example of real life lasers. How many of the world's militaries have replaced "primitive" bullets with this high tech toy? Try none.

You seem to subscribe to the technology cast myth. Read here for some more examples of why that mentality is severely flawed.

You're comparing our current technology to sci-fi stuff so I based MY opinion on that, not on touch screens in real life or lasers, since non of this ST-SW stuff is real.
So that's my story and I'm sticking to it. Trek is more advanced and SW is all backwoods. The evidence is on the screen. So sorry to dissapoint you.

Next.

Yep. Typical Trektard, totally ignores the argument and invokes the "its not real" excuse alone with the "you have no idea what technology will do in the future" excuse.

next exchange:

You're comparing our current technology to sci-fi stuff

What SHOULD I compare it to? Fan's wetdreams?

so I based MY opinion on that, not on touch screens in real life or lasers, since non of this ST-SW stuff is real.
So that's my story and I'm sticking to it. Trek is more advanced and SW is all backwoods. The evidence is on the screen. So sorry to dissapoint you.

Next.

I like the way you just ignore all of my arguments and just repeat your original refuted claims.

1) No touch screen no matter how advanced will give the tactile feedback that buttons and switches will.

2) In piloting a starship, Federation touch screens are the LAST kind of control system you'd ever want. In combat you want speed. You can get speed with a joystick but NOT by verbally instructing a helmsman to change course to 114.35 mark 272.

There is ZERO reason to assume a ship controled with a touch screen will ever beat one controlled with "primitive" buttons. The user interface they use has NOTHING to do with how fast the ship goes, how much firepower it can put out or how strong its shields and armor are.

1.You base your opinion on what? Stuff in movies that does NOT exist? Yeah, I can see your imperical evidence there. You assume also that touchscreens will continue to be as primitive as they are now and won't have major upgrades and that we can't get used to them, that sounds personal not empirical.
2.You assume starship battle tactics would remain the same as they do for our conventional weapons, another false assumption. Yeah, I can see why they use joysticks to manuever aircraft carriers which are in scale to these starships. They show them in close proximity but even current battle tactics for tanks and aircraft show they don't even see each other anymore but fire their weapons from far away and change course after firing.
3.There is ZERO reason not to, since there is no way for you or anyone to know what they could do since that kind of futuristic technology does not exist and you only take into account the 21st century technology we have now. You wouldn't drive a steam locomotive with a touch screen because they aren't compatible. The size of their control panels would make it impossible to handle all the functions on vessels their size, only touch screens allow you the flexibility to see and work that many systems at once. SW ships have tons of guys sitting in front of tons of control panels and that seems more efficient to you?

What else you got?

ST.com doesn't seem to save sent PMs the way our system here does and I'm not going to re-type the refutation of his last nonsense. I let you guys enjoy tearing it up. If he replies again, it should contain a copy. He doesn't do point-by-point rebuttals. Just rambles on at the end of my message.

[Nick Lancaster]

RioBravotard
3.There is ZERO reason not to, since there is no way for you or anyone to know what they could do since that kind of futuristic technology does not exist and you only take into account the 21st century technology we have now.

If the technology portrayed in Trek (or SW) is not based on reasonable extrapolations of our own achievements, what is it based on? Either it's make believe, in which case your technical pronouncements are full of shit, or it's based on real-world examples.

Since the series has invoked the name of the aircraft carrier Enterprise more than once, it's clear we're building off a world similar to our own.

You wouldn't drive a steam locomotive with a touch screen because they aren't compatible.

Ahem. Touch screens on dumbells. What was that about incompatible?

The size of their control panels would make it impossible to handle all the functions on vessels their size, only touch screens allow you the flexibility to see and work that many systems at once.

So, by your argument, aircraft carriers are impossible to control with purely mechanical systems?

Did you know that aircraft carriers have redundant systems, and that during general quarters, there are crewmen tasked to stand watch by specific valves/pumps and do nothing but tend to that set of valves/pumps? I didn't think so, because that would require intelligence, and reading, and understanding how things are actually built.

On the other hand, you strike me as one of those people who makes change by looking at the magic screen and fumbling around for the coins and bills to match, instead of actually checking the math in your head and doing a proper count-up to the amount tendered.

Consider also that one of the challenges in modern aircraft design is called the 'biology barrier' - even with multiple heads-up displays, the human mind is challenged when presented with that much information. And these are highly-trained, capable people.

Incidentally, I work with touch-screen systems at my job. If you are looking at one screen, you can't see the others. If you subdivide the screen to show multiple panels, they are reduced in size. There's always going to be tradeoffs, or you're going to need one big-ass control panel.

On the other hand, if I have one technician keeping watch on an important component, I don't have to worry about Ensign Wesleyboy looking in the wrong place when something important happens to that component.

SW ships have tons of guys sitting in front of tons of control panels and that seems more efficient to you?

If you go to a firehouse and see a bunch of guys sitting around, do you automatically assume there is a lack of efficiency or other time-wasting stupidity going on? Clearly, we have more firefighters than there are fires ...

... or is it rather that we have the manpower to cope with a projected level of fires and paramedic/rescue situations?

The answer, from an engineering perspective, is that we have enough people to do the job safely, not the bare minimum of people needed to do the job.

Don't let 'touch-screens' fool you into thinking that a product or process is automatically more advanced or inherently safer.

[Glimmervoid]

Dose any one have an explanation of how the falcon got from hoth to besbin. All I could come up with is faster than light sub light.

[Darth Servo]

Dose any one have an explanation of how the falcon got from hoth to besbin. All I could come up with is faster than light sub light.

Some theories include:

1) Unknown travel time.
2) Binary star system
3) Falcon has an emergency backup hyperdrive that can be used for a few short jumps.

[Darth Servo]

RioBravo actually wrote back!!!

> 1.You base your opinion on what? Stuff in movies that does
> NOT exist? Yeah, I can see your imperical evidence there.

You think touch screens don't exist in SW? Go watch AOTC.

(hmm from a prequel they show touchscreens and in the later years they have knobs, buttons and levers, going backwards aren't they?)

> You assume also that touchscreens will continue to be as
> primitive as they are now and won't have major upgrades
> and that we can't get used to them, that sounds personal
> not empirical.

By all means, what kind of "major upgrade" would give touch screens the tactile feedback of buttons and switches?

(you obviously don't like them personally, nothign to do with the fact they are better)

> 2.You assume starship battle tactics would remain the same
> as they do for our conventional weapons, another false
> assumption.

Its a false assumption that the ship that responds faster will always outperform a slower one? You're pretty funny.

(and you're just stubborn, if they are similiarly powered the vehicle with better manueverability will win, always)


> Yeah, I can see why they use joysticks to manuever
> aircraft carriers which are in scale to these starships.

They don't use touch screens either.(not yet)

> They show them in close proximity but even current battle
> tactics for tanks and aircraft show they don't even see
> each other anymore but fire their weapons from far away
> and change course after firing.

Doesn't change the fact that the one that is easier to control will always outperform the one with the slow but cool looking user interface.

(thinking about what I have seen on screen those destroyers never even make turns, havent you noticed they always move in a straight line and crash and burn into each other so easily and the super star destroyer lost a little bubble on top of the bridge and crashed into the Death Star, major wussy ships, taken out by an x-wing the size of a fly)

3.There is ZERO reason not to, since there is no way for you or anyone to know what they could do since that kind of futuristic technology does not exist and you only take into account the 21st century technology we have now.

> You wouldn't drive a steam locomotive with a touch screen
> because they aren't compatible.

You could. It is entirely possible to install a touch screen on such an engine and hook it up to machines that would work all the levers and such. Its just a stupid idea.
(exactly, even more stupid to use levers, buttons and such, our newest aircraft use fly by wire, do you even know what that is? The pilot doesn't do the majority of the flying anymore, the CENTRAL COMPUTER DOES and they have the info on their helmet visors, holographic technology, which DS9 shows ST to be using in their future and our armed forces are using that kind of technology already)

> The size of their control panels would make it impossible to
> handle all the functions on vessels their size, only touch
> screens allow you the flexibility to see and work that many
> systems at once.

Please, WHY would a touch screen be smaller or more flexible than a standard computer keyboard? ( you can access different systems on mini screens instead of having to move to another console on the other side of the bridge and not have to jump and crawl over the other 500 people in there with you, especially if your under fire, it's called ergonomics, go look it up)

> SW ships have tons of guys sitting in front of tons of
> control panels and that seems more efficient to you?

SW ships have a lot more things to control. Where a GCS has TWO main phaser arrays and a few torp launchers, the ISD has DOZENS (some tech books put the figure at 120) of light TL, an unknown number of medium TL's, and the eight enormous top mounted turrets.
(yeah, I remember these slow moving behemoths of the star destroyers-taking forever just to knock out the shields on Leia's transport ship, oooo so impressive and the reason ST ships have less things to control is easy, they don't need as many and the ones the SW ships have do no damage-see Leia's transport reference- As far as turrets, is it a technologically advanced ship or a throwback to a WWII destroyer, do they carry biplanes as well ? ST has phaser emitters not turrets that need backwards technology to turn, does someone go out there and lubricate the ball bearings they turn around on? Man that makes me laugh)

This is a GOOD thing over the Federation model where everything is run from a central computer. In the SW ship, if the computer goes down, only ONE system is effected and it switched over to local manual control.
(where is it mentioned they dont use a central computer or are you assuming , again?)

With a Trek ship with everything controled from the main bridge, if the central computer goes down, the ship is dead weight.

> What else you got?

A lot more than you obviously since I base technology on observed accomplishments rather than which interface I like better. (what accomplishments? oh you mean the make believe ones on the silver screen?)

But why worry about observing which side's cap ship can vaporize asteroids with one shot from its light TLs vs photon torps that have trouble fragmenting them, or the fact that Imperial ships can cross a galaxy in hours rather than the 70 YEARS it takes Federation ships or the fact that the Empire can build enormous 900 km Death Stars and sky scrapers towering above the clouds vs the Federations inability to make any starship over 700 meters, or the fact that shields in SW can encompass an entire planet (and actually block the enormous firepower required to blast a planet into an asteroid field for a fraction of a second--no easy feat) vs Trek shields that fall after 1.5 hours of solar radiation.
(and how exactly do these magical shields encompass an entire planet? that's another major falacy and problem about SW, they never even try to explain how their technology works because it's all based on non-sense, you can't make a shield cover an entire planet, the energy requirements are impossible, just because someone says I'm superman does not make him superman, same for planetary shields as far as 700km death stars, yeah right if you look at it when they are building it you notice they have like thousands of parallel horizontal levels but the Death Star revolves like a moon or planet to achieve gravity-Are you even aware that is impossible according to tthe laws of physics? If the stupid thing rotates you would be standing on the walls and not on the floor as you're supposed to be, SW has science and technology wrong because they don't even attempt to solve it they just say they can do it even if it's impossible, what's worse is you buy into it. )

Why worry about any of that when you can simply ask which side has the cooloer LOOKING user interfaces.[/QUOTE

It's quite obvious by your screenname what your preference is and nothing anyone says is gonna make a difference one way or the other.
I know you are wrong as far as I'm concerned and its quite obvious you like to argue for the sake of argument and not to have the possibility of adopting another idea so arguing with you is futile.
Their you go with thinking a laser would vaporize a comet or planet, all they would do is burn a hole through them as that is the result of a concentrated beam of light, it would never do what you see in a movie. Duh!
No one would consider building such enormous ships, the energy requirements would outweigh the benefits.
I majored in architecture, son, so I know what I'm talking about. The engineering would not be feasible for anyone. 900 km he says. LOL. Go ahead keep living in your land of make believe. ST ships are sized like our modern day aircraft carriers and that is believable but a 900 km spinning whale of a target that can barely round a moon??? Oh and lasers cannot be fired at each other and made to coalesce together to make a bigger and more powerful laser beam! Did you kow that? SW so caleed technology is so bad and it's there on the screen. You are in love with lies.)

What else you got?

Pretty pathetic, I know.

My reply:

(hmm from a prequel they show touchscreens and in the later years they have knobs, buttons and levers, going backwards aren't they?)

No they aren't. Haven't you heard a word I've said? Just because something is more complicated or cooler does NOT mean its better. I said it before and I'll say it again. In terms of actualy PERFORMANCE, buttons, switches, etc are actually SUPERIOR to "high tech" touch screens. We have touch screens today but we do NOT use them on any of our military equipment. Is the U.S. military "backwards"?

(you obviously don't like them personally, nothign to do with the fact they are better)

Nice way to totally EVADE the point. Answer the question or conceed. What kind of advancement would make a touchscreen a better control system than a buttor, switch or joystick? Your repeated insistance that they are better does NOT prove that they really are.

(and you're just stubborn, if they are similiarly powered the vehicle with better manueverability will win, always)

How a ship is powered has NOTHING to do with the kind of control device it uses. And you have NOT proven that touch screens are faster than buttons, switches or joysticks.

(not yet)

Not ever. We already HAVE that technology today but we do NOT put them on our air craft carriers. And there is a reason we don't. What do you think that reason is?

(thinking about what I have seen on screen those destroyers never even make turns, havent you noticed they always move in a straight line and crash and burn into each other so easily

I see you haven't watched the SW movies recently. The ISD that was hit by the Rebel Ion cannon at Hoth did a pretty quick turn.

The Mon Calamari cruisers pulled a rather tight turn to avoid crashing into the DS2 shield in ROTJ

And at least when those ISDs DO bump into each onther (which happened ONCE in the films) at least they don't explode they way the E-D did when the USS Boseman gave it a love tap.

Furthermore, the range when Piett's subbordinate reported they were in attack position, the rebel fleet appeared so small, it must have been MUCH further than the typical combat range we see in Trek (<10 km)

and the super star destroyer lost a little bubble on top of the bridge and crashed into the Death Star, major wussy ships, taken out by an x-wing the size of a fly)

AFTER a sustained bombardment from the Rebel fleet. Like we see in this picture of a Frigate shooting the Executor.

snip link to movie file of Frigate shooting Executor.

Besides, Slave-1 shattered asteroids measuring several km across with just ONE seismic charge, a feat that Riker declared would require most of the E-D's photon torps in "Pegasus". Slave-1 is not a military grade ship. Its a one-man craft with a kid's booster seat in back. If the SW equivalent of a Station Wagon can out-gun the Federation's finest starship, what does that tell you about who has the REAL wimpy ships.

(exactly, even more stupid to use levers, buttons and such, our newest aircraft use fly by wire, do you even know what that is? The pilot doesn't do the majority of the flying anymore, the CENTRAL COMPUTER DOES

Not during COMBAT they don't. Not in a dogfight they don't. In COMBAT, they use manual control and they use a JOYSTICK to control the fighter. NOT a touchscreen.

and they have the info on their helmet visors, holographic technology, which DS9 shows ST to be using in their future and our armed forces are using that kind of technology already)

NONE of which has ANYTHING to do with touch-screens. Please try and stay on topic.

The Dominion has those holographic displays, not the Federation. And Stormtroopers have that same holographic display in their helmets.

you can access different systems on mini screens instead of having to move to another console on the other side of the bridge and not have to jump and crawl over the other 500 people in there with you, especially if your under fire, it's called ergonomics, go look it up)

You can do the EXACT SAME THING with a modern mouse and computer monitor. In fact the mouse is FASTER than a touch screen. You utterly FAILED to answer the challenge.

Besides, hasn't anyone ever told you thats its an incredibly BAD idea to have one person in charge of so many systems? The most effective crews SPECIALIZE in the tasks they perform.

(yeah, I remember these slow moving behemoths of the star destroyers-taking forever just to knock out the shields on Leia's transport ship, oooo so impressive

What on Earth does this have to do with the sheer NUMBER of weapons on an ISD?

Furthermore, you seem to forget that they were trying to CAPTURE the Taintive 4, not destroy it. Only an idiot would go for direct hits on a ship that they were trying to capture in one piece with the crew still alive.

and the reason ST ships have less things to control is easy, they don't need as many and the ones the SW ships have do no damage-see Leia's transport reference- As far as turrets, is it a technologically advanced ship or a throwback to a WWII destroyer, do they carry biplanes as well?

There you go again, making decisions based on SUPERFICIAL APPEARANCE rather than HOW WELL IT DOES ITS JOB.

Given any technology, a long barrel will always have higher accuracy than a short "strip". In the case of a particle accelerator, a longer barrel will be able to accelerate particles more than a short one. And that long barrel will require a physical mechanism to turn it.

ST has phaser emitters not turrets that need backwards technology to turn, does someone go out there and lubricate the ball bearings they turn around on? Man that makes me laugh)

You obviously subscribe to the Technology caste myth that embraces the idea that newer is always better. Learn why that ides is totally false.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tec ... _Tech.html

Personally when my life is on the line, I'd rather have the technology that is LEAST LIKELY TO BREAK DOWN than the one that is the flashiest.

(where is it mentioned they dont use a central computer or are you assuming , again?)

The fact that you can SEE individual people manning each gun in ANH and also in the ROTS trailer.

A lot more than you obviously since I base technology on observed accomplishments rather than which interface I like better. (what accomplishments? oh you mean the make believe ones on the silver screen?)

The CANON ones. The ones I listed in my closing paragraph. The ones you mostly ignored.

and how exactly do these magical shields encompass an entire planet? that's another major falacy and problem about SW, they never even try to explain how their technology works because it's all based on non-sense,

Who cares how it works? That doesn't cahnge ANYTHING about what they can do. How does ANY sci-fi civilization make ANY non-material shield? There is just as much "realism" in a shield surrounding a 650 meter GCS as there is in a shield encompassing a planet. You just don't like the fact that in SW they make them bigger and stronger than in Trek.

you can't make a shield cover an entire planet,

In real life we can't make ANY kind of energy shield. But in Sci-fi they obviously CAN. How they do it is irrelevant.

the energy requirements are impossible,

Oh really? And how do you know this? You actually went and calculated the energy needed? Based on what? Trek made-up science? Tough. The SW planetary shield is CANON and all your whining won't change that.

just because someone says I'm superman does not make him superman,

If George Lucas says SW has planetary shields, then they have planetary shields. It doesn't matter that this is impossible in real life. Most things in Sci-fi are impossible in real life. Warp drive is impossible in real life. You don't see me crying that it should be thrown out. Face facts. You simply lost.

same for planetary shields as far as 700km death stars, yeah right if you look at it when they are building it you notice they have like thousands of parallel horizontal levels but the Death Star revolves like a moon or planet to achieve gravity-Are you even aware that is impossible according to tthe laws of physics?

Its called artificial gravity and no, I never claimed there was any real physics behind it. And if we throw out the DS's artificial gravity, we must throw it out in Trek too. By the way, who ever said the DS rotates to create gravity?

If the stupid thing rotates you would be standing on the walls and not on the floor as you're supposed to be,

Too bad for you that anyone can watch ROTJ and see that the DS most certainly does NOT rotate. But give yourself a pat on the back for being able to make things up out of thin air.

SW has science and technology wrong because they don't even attempt to solve it they just say they can do it even if it's impossible,

And Trek is NOT guilty of this? In fact, one of the reasons I like SW better is they DON'T waste lots of time with meaningless technobabble the way Trek does.

what's worse is you buy into it. )

Don't lie. I NEVER tried to claim SW tech was realistic. I simply pointed out its know properties.

It's quite obvious by your screenname what your preference is and nothing anyone says is gonna make a difference one way or the other.

Attack the man rather than his arguments? Einstein was hoplessly biased in favor of relativity. Does that prove he was wrong about it?

You disprove an argument by showing its premises are false or its inductions from those premisis are invalid. Not by saying the person making the argument is biased. Do you know what an ad-hominem fallacy is?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... minem.html

I know you are wrong as far as I'm concerned

Yet you can't show ANYTHING wrong with my arguments. You just deny them and make attacks against ME instead of my arguments or drift off onto totally irrelevant tangents.

and its quite obvious you like to argue for the sake of argument and not to have the possibility of adopting another idea so arguing with you is futile.

When you put forth a VALID idea, you can be sure I will adopt it. You have yet to do anything even resembling that.

Their you go with thinking a laser would vaporize a comet or planet, all they would do is burn a hole through them as that is the result of a concentrated beam of light, it would never do what you see in a movie. Duh!

Depends on how fast it happens. If the weapon turnes enough of the planet or comet or asteroid to vapor before it "drills" through, that expanding gas will put pressure on the rest of the object, causing the entire mass to expand. And I never said the Death Star 'vaporized' Alderaan. The film shows quite clearly that it was blown into fragments accelerated to a significant fraction of the speed of light (around 5%c)


Furthermore, there is a mountain of evidence that the weapons in SW are not anything like real life lasers.

Real lasers are invisible in vacuum. SW TLs are not.

Real lasers always more at the speed of light (hardly surprising since they ARE light). TLs move considerably slower than light speed.

Real lasers do NOT impeed each other's progress if they intersect. Compare this with the combining DS beam, the micro-superlasers combining in AOTC or blaster bolts bounding off lightsabers.

Real lasers have a LENS at the end of them. TLs have a hole at the end of the barrel.

No one would consider building such enormous ships, the energy requirements would outweigh the benefits.

Depends on what your goals are. And for a galaxy spanning empire with a million star systems under its control, mile long ISDs are trivial.

I majored in architecture, son, so I know what I'm talking about.

You don't ACT like someone with a college degree. In case you didn't know, EVERY sci-fi BSer makes claims like that. Why don't you try PROVING you have an education rather than just boasting about it like an ignorant teenager does? And you have no idea how old I am so you have no business calling me "son".

The engineering would not be feasible for anyone.

Its not feasable for US with modern day technology. That only proves that SW has far stronger building materials than we do.

900 km he says.

Correction. The MOVIE says.

LOL. Go ahead keep living in your land of make believe.

Rabid Trekkies are the LAST people who should be criticizing others for living in a make believe world. At least SW fans don't try and learn Huttese the way Trekkies learn Klingon.

ST ships are sized like our modern day aircraft carriers and that is believable

But they aren't SHAPED like real life ships. If you tried to build a life-size model of a Federation starship, the nacells would snap off in no time. If you really did have a college degree in architecture, you'd know this.

but a 900 km spinning whale of a target that can barely round a moon???

And what about the 100 MILLION wide dyson sphere seen in "Relics"

And why should we expect great propulsion from a station that is STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION?

Oh and lasers cannot be fired at each other and made to coalesce together to make a bigger and more powerful laser beam! Did you kow that?

Of course I know that. I pointed it out above as evidence that SW weapons are NOT real lasers. I have NEVER claimed that SW weapons are real life lasers. Stop putting words in my mouth.

SW so caleed technology is so bad and it's there on the screen. You are in love with lies.)

I could say the same about you and Trek tech. There is NOTHING realistic about Trek shields or warp drive or transporters or replicators or just about any technology we see on the show. In fact they can't even get what little real science they DO have right. They have shown they know NOTHING about the real nature of stars (Generations, Half a Life) or black holes. They can't even get simple metric units right (Final Mission, The Loss) and Data once screwed up a simple area calculation by an order of magnitude (Relics). But that has nothing to do with which technology is superior.

You are in love with logical fallacies and irrelevancies.

I NEVER claimed there was any real life validity to SW tech. I simply pointed out the known properties. The onlyone spouting falsehoods is you.

All too easy.

[Darth Lucifer]

Servo, I love you. I want to be your disciple. "Master."

[Firefox]

Aren't CVNs equipped with at least one FoG display on the bridge? The Truman was shown to have such a system, along with a mouse to use when wearing gloves during GQ. I can't recall the panel's function, however.

[Darth Lucifer]

Aren't CVNs equipped with at least one FoG display on the bridge? The Truman was shown to have such a system, along with a mouse to use when wearing gloves during GQ. I can't recall the panel's function, however.

Click this to see a PDF file with a picture from the bridge on page 8 of 19, referring to the CDC or 'Combat Direction Center.' Hope this helps.

To me, it almost looks like a big trackball the operator in the foreground is using.

[Firefox]

Here's a (high-res) photo of Truman's bridge:

+http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/ ... 5P-003.jpg

IIRC, those are touch screens, though I don't see the mouse that was mentioned in the Discovery channel program. On the other hand, it's good that they're still using an analog ship's wheel for navigation, among other bridge controls. I'd hate to see the bridge or CIC of any warship completely fitted with FoG.

[Darth Lucifer]

Interesting stuff. Also, I may have confused the CDC and bridge,...I*'m not even sure if they're the same thing, one is a part of another or if the CDC is something else separate from the bridge. I go find out. But the real life pics are hella cool.

[The Spartan]

The CDC is seperate from the bridge, as I recall. The bridge is more or less visible in the "control tower" of ships. The CDC is further down in the bowels of the ship, to protect if from hostile fire.