I wrote:Michael Laube wrote:I'm sorry that I write to you through this mailform instaed of writing through the forum. Beeing recommended by someone on the internet I've read your story "The Best Of Both Worlds" and have asked me, why you write about the federation in the way you do. Reading your website I found the page "Star Wars vs Star Trek in Five Minutes" and feel urged to tell you my opinion. Anyway I don't wanna become a member of your community by now. That's why I write via this contact form.
On this side you are referring only to the energy output of the weapons and shields. That's not conclusive. Anyway not the energy output is important but the way in which the weapons take effect on the target.
The damage mechanism can affect the efficiency of the weapon, but to say that the energy output is not important at all is sheer idiocy. And at very high energy yields, damage mechanisms become largely immaterial; a nuclear explosion and an asteroid impact produce very similar results because of the sheer amount of energy involved.
For exampel a laser only exists of photons. If that bound on matter as a basic principle only heat is created. At the most molecular bonds can be loosened and the matter can change the physical condition that means to become liquid, aerially and then ionic plasma. Through such a reaction there is no energy released additionally. But if you take e.g. a neutron beam it can start a nuclear fission. Normally hereby there is destructive energy released because of the nuclear fission in addition to the energy released by the weapon itself. Under certain circumstances an extreme destructive chain reaction can be started which destroys the hit target completely.
Wrong. Neutron radiation has a heating effect and only causes fission if the person who built the target spaceship was stupid enough to make it out of weapons-grade uranium or something similar. You could blast an iron plate with neutron beams all day long and not cause any measurable nuclear fission.
Or if you take e.g. a positron beam. If such one meets matter the electrons and positrons annihilate and in this process they release a lot of energy in addition to the energy of the weapon itself.
In the case of volatile weapons such as explosive devices, the potential energy of the weapon's exothermal reaction is included in the energy yield. Try again.
To know hot to create such beams is difficult but if you know how to create them they can be build with a lot less energy than a laser needs to have the same effect. That's why it is completely insufficient to compare only the energy output of the weapons. Therefore a phaser can be a lot more efficient although it uses a lot less energy than a turbo laser.
See above. You are talking out of your ass, to a person who knows far more about this subject than you do. It's pretty obvious you've got some sort of homemade science education, judging by your laughable claim that you can create net energy-gain nuclear fission in arbitrary targets by hitting them with neutron beams.
Examples for the destructive power of the starfleet technology that is not based on brute force but on superior technology: In the episode "The Cage" of the Star Trek Enterprise Classic series, the one with captain Pike, is said that the crew would be able to destroy the whole continent with the build-on weapon and the transferred ship energy, when they tried to open the entrance to the elevator of the Talosians and wondered why the weapon had no effect.
You're seriously using an incident where they needed a weapon with a special orbital power feed to take out a rocky outcropping with a door in it?
In the second cinema movie a projectile "the genesis torpedo" was developed which should not only be able to redesign a new planet but a whole solar system. The torpedo didn't work redesigning but anyway it would be able to destroy such a solar system.
No it wouldn't. The net energy yield of this process is actually NEGATIVE. And it almost certainly works on a principle similar to transporters (given that it does pretty much the same thing, but on a larger scale), which means that the effect can be disrupted or blocked.
In Star Trek Generation the trilithium probe was developed with which you can stop the nuclear fusion in a sun and destroy a whole solar system with the resultant shock wave.
If you stopped the nuclear fusion in a star it would take millions of years for the star to collapse and the undergo the reaction which would produce the nova. What you saw in the movie was a huge solar flare.
With the same superior technology the starfleet of UFP not only can destroy but also save. For example a extinct sun can be relighted and a planet which nearly falls apart can be stabilized.
Planets don't "fall apart" spontaneously. And the protomatter star trick is neat, but it wouldn't help you win a war.
The same is to be said concerning the shield technology. Only the energy output does not say anything about the efficiency of the underlying technology hence the way in which the shield repel an attack. Such a shield could lead an energy beam around the object to be protected or reflect it back or block it. The last way would be the most inefficient way and probably the one the imperium would use.
Totally irrelevant to the fact that shield quantification on my website is done through observation of their known abilities, not any sort of nonsensical first-principle theory. Not only that, but my "Five Minutes" page says NOTHING about "energy output" for shields; you are either ignorant of what energy dissipation is or you couldn't even bother reading that single page.
Concerning the speed:
The only real specifications that the star wars movies are giving to us: 1. The millennium falcon is one of the fastest ships in the star wars galaxy. 2. Han Solo maintains in the first Star Wars movie (4. Episode) that the millennium falcon travels with 1,5 light speed and 3.that he has already been everywhere in the galaxy.
This maintainings are only sensible if either the light is because of certain physical circumstances a lot faster than in our galaxy or this galaxy is a lot more dense than our meaning that the space between the stars is not so wide. If that's not the case the maintainings are simply wrong but from a captain of a starship you can expect that he knows what he is talking about.
Tell me, are you capable of performing even the most rudimentary mathematical calculations? Why don't you try calculating how many star systems you could pack into a volume of space which is traversible in a realistic timeframe at 1.5c, before proposing this stupidity as a viable theory?
A further example for the superiority of the knowledge of the UFP concerning basic sciences is the transporter and resultant the replication technology or the developed interphase cloaking device of the Pegasus.
Cool toys. Won't keep the Empire from steamrolling them, though.
All in all you can only come to the conclusion that the technology of UFP is a lot more complex and more efficient than the technology in Star Wars. Star Wars is relying to brute force while Star Trek is relying to smart technology.
By this moronic logic, a shaped-charge weapon is better than a nuclear bomb because it uses its energy more cleverly.
I would be pleased to get an answer.
Yours Sincerly,
Michael Laube
I would be pleased if you could go to university, learn science, and then get back to me.
