ST v SW forum, or how many ways can SW trash ST?

[Master of Ossus]

Cite one example of how Mike's site is biased. Point to something that he omitted, or did not analyze properly. Moreover, observed ST firepower tops out in the low-megaton range.

Even in Star Trek: Nemesis, when one of the UFP's most powerful ships went into action with their most advanced arms, the total firepower topped out at less than one kiloton per torpedo. In contrast, Boba Fett's Slave-1 demonstrated similar firepower with just its forward cannons during AotC, and its seismic charges and missile did a SPECTACULAR amount of damage for warheads that small.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Ok, just so you know, i'm not scared of any flames.

Good, because we're not afraid to smack down stupid newbies.

Now heres what I have to say. Everyone on this forum now seems to presume that Star Trek technology is so inferior to Star Wars technology that a single X-Wing could take out the entire Federation fleet without a scratch.

Sure. You're reading the right site, right?

Well, now its time to start the debate again (if there ever was one).

Look, another newbie who think's he's bringing up "new" points that have been smacked down a million times.

You've all been brainwashed by non-canon material. No you may argue that non-canon is still Star Wars. But your wrong, its not what George Lucas' ideas, its other peoples which can contridict his and other people's ideas.

Wrong dumbass. The EU has to be approved.

Therefore, figures that tell us that one turbo laser has 100 times more enrgy than the nuclear bombs used in WWII even though we never see this in the movies,

Did you miss an ISD vaporizing asteroids with its light guns, or Slave 1 doing huge amounts of damage in AOTC?

or the hulls are made out of neutornium from Neutron Stars which can protect against ALL ST weapons (even though an A-Wing crashed into the Executtor's Bridge

Do you not understand the concept of a window.

and in ESB a single asteroid destoryed the bridge of an ISD),

Then why did the Captain survive 2 seconds later?

are ALL wrong! Even if the ICS is canon, what comes first? Onscreen canon or canon from a book with figures? If you REALLY want to argue against Star Trek, you can't just throw figures. You have to use onscreen evidence.

Yes you can. Canon means it doesn't have to be proven.

I mean for one thing, with the powerful shields and neutronium hull which is what you say an ISD has, in an Asteroid field one lost it's bridge from a single asteroid!

Do you really assume that ISD managed to get hit by only one asteroid? Man you're stupid.

Yet in TOS, there was an episode were the original USS Enterprise NCC-1701 was flying through an asteroid field to save another ship. They exteneded there shields around the ship they were rescuing to protect them from the incoming asteroids! After a while some of the dilithium crystals started to burn out because of the way they were using their shields. They beamed the crew of the other vessel aboard and then let the other ship get pulvisied by the asteriods. Now if the original Enterprise can survie hits from Asteroids like this, and the ISD is supposed to be so superior, one turbolaser would destory any ship in the Star Trek universe, why did one asteroid hit the bridge section and blow it up?

How big were these asteroids? How fast?

Theres one argument. There are so many more but this is one example were onscreen evidence completly contridicts your figures.

[Anarchist Bunny]

I wonder if I should post 1 ISD vs X number of Cube figures. He's not gonna believe it, but quite frankly he's not going to believe anything we say.

What I think we have here is a Darkstar equivelant of a spacebattle.com baby(I dont' want to call it a Darkstar baby cause that would infer some kind of sex and this would be a more unholy act). I wonder, do any of the books or tech manuals if ultra weak figures for Trek ships? If he doesn't want to pay attention to Lucasfilm's policy on canon and offical, why should we pay attention to Paramounts?

[Stravo]

If we go by solely on screen evidence then ST is even WORSE off because they have consistently demonstarted kiloton or sub kiloton yields for their torpedoes.

[Howedar]

Bias on a site does not matter. What matters is whether or not the data is accurate.

[Sea Skimmer]

Bias on a site does not matter. What matters is whether or not the data is accurate.

Careful with the big words like "data", we can't be sure this moron is going to understand them.

[Joe Momma]

Yet in TOS, there was an episode were the original USS Enterprise NCC-1701 was flying through an asteroid field to save another ship. They exteneded there shields around the ship they were rescuing to protect them from the incoming asteroids! After a while some of the dilithium crystals started to burn out because of the way they were using their shields. They beamed the crew of the other vessel aboard and then let the other ship get pulvisied by the asteriods. Now if the original Enterprise can survie hits from Asteroids like this, and the ISD is supposed to be so superior, one turbolaser would destory any ship in the Star Trek universe, why did one asteroid hit the bridge section and blow it up?

How big were these asteroids? How fast?

The TOS episode is Mudd's Women. The asteroids are maybe twice the size of Mudd's ship at most and are not nearly as densely packed as the Hoth asteroid belt. There's maybe two or three zooming by on-screen at most at any given time, often only one or two. The shields were burning out from being extended to encompass Mudd's ship and when an asteroid finally hit Mudd's ship while the Enterprise's shields were still around it, Mudd's ship still suffered catastrophic damage and exploded. During this time the Enterprise's power usage was so intense that the transporters were barely functioning and several of the ship's dilithium crystals burned out. The Enterprise's deflector screens were extended for all of three minutes.

Also note that in the TNG episode "Genesis" Data states that the Enterprise-D can't navigate safely at all through an asteroid field that is not nearly as active or densely packed with asteroids as the Hoth Belt was.

The other points made by this assclown are painfully specious as well, but they've already been adequately addressed by others.

-- Joe Momma

[Ender]

Ok, just so you know, i'm not scared of any flames.

Spoken like someone who has never been flamed.

Now heres what I have to say. Everyone on this forum now seems to presume that Star Trek technology is so inferior to Star Wars technology that a single X-Wing could take out the entire Federation fleet without a scratch. Well, now its time to start the debate again (if there ever was one). You've all been brainwashed by non-canon material.

I see; so apparently you know better then Lucasfilm liscensing and the stated order of canon by the employees there of.

No you may argue that non-canon is still Star Wars. But your wrong, its not what George Lucas' ideas, its other peoples which can contridict his and other people's ideas.

Pleas point out one contradiction with canon.

Therefore, figures that tell us that one turbo laser has 100 times more enrgy than the nuclear bombs used in WWII even though we never see this in the movies,[/quopte]Actually dumbfuck, we do see MT level TLs in the movies

or the hulls are made out of neutornium from Neutron Stars which can protect against ALL ST weapons (even though an A-Wing crashed into the Executtor's Bridge and in ESB a single asteroid destoryed the bridge of an ISD), are ALL wrong!

The neutronium is in the heavy armor which is not on the command tower you ignorant turdling.

Even if the ICS is canon, what comes first? Onscreen canon or canon from a book with figures?

There is no contradiction, there fore all canon is valid

If you REALLY want to argue against Star Trek, you can't just throw figures.

I see, so to find a logical conclusion you must be subjective rather then analytical.

That is almost as stupid as the statement in my sig.

You have to use onscreen evidence. I mean for one thing, with the powerful shields and neutronium hull which is what you say an ISD has, in an Asteroid field one lost it's bridge from a single asteroid!

After the shields were down, and the captain was still visable on the transmission so clearly the bridge did not go bye bye.

Yet in TOS, there was an episode were the original USS Enterprise NCC-1701 was flying through an asteroid field to save another ship. They exteneded there shields around the ship they were rescuing to protect them from the incoming asteroids!

Mudd's women. They were not in an asteroid field as long, the asteroids were slower, the asteroids were smaller, and the ship they wre protecting still took damage.. Does the stupidity there shine through? Do you see why a subjective argument fails?

After a while some of the dilithium crystals started to burn out because of the way they were using their shields. They beamed the crew of the other vessel aboard and then let the other ship get pulvisied by the asteriods. Now if the original Enterprise can survie hits from Asteroids like this, and the ISD is supposed to be so superior, one turbolaser would destory any ship in the Star Trek universe, why did one asteroid hit the bridge section and blow it up?

No, clearly ou do not get the difference between subjective and analytical.

Theres one argument. There are so many more but this is one example were onscreen evidence completly contridicts your figures.

Except.. it doesn't. The ISDs shields were down at the time, it didn't loose it's tower, and your ship of choice was taking damage from smaller, slower asteroids (meaning less KE) over a shorter period of time.

What you provided supports us, not you.

But its still only someone elses idea of what happens by filling in the gaps. Most of it is from the movie, but in all books based on a film, the author will add some things of there own. Such as more and different dialouge. So anything that is different isn't canon.

Declarations from the people who make decisions on what is canon and what is not say different then you.

I have, thats the whole point of what I was saying earlier.

No, clearly you have not, or else you would see your earlier point about the ISD had been dealt with.

Besides the site is completly byased. Its amazing how it brainwash you! Try http://www.st-v-sw.net/ and you'll see what I mean.

Darkstar has had his ass kicked 6 ways from Sunday by everyone who was here last summer, and is currently taking a beating from almost every single poster at SB. His work is dependent on context dropping, misquoting, ignoring other evidence, and in some cases out and out lies.

I never said it wasn't bysed! I meant BOTH are. I was mearly comparing how BOTH are as bad as each other!

Please show how other then in tone SD is biased. For that to happen there would have to be things omitted that disproved the conclusions at the time the pages were written, or logical fallacies, or intentional mistakes in math. Prove the existance of them if you want to claim this place is biased.

I just want a debate, with no beliving these figures that have been given.

So in other words you want to ignore things that prove your bullshit wrong

I want to debate onscreen evidence. If you think i'm just trying to get away from ICS and it doesn't contridict whats onscreen, then you have nothing to worry about! If ICS is just explaing what was seen onscreen, then ignoreing it wouldn't be a problem! If it is, then ICS does contirict whats onscreen then it should be ignored. Either way, theres nothing wrong with leaving it out of a debate!

It explains not seen or not clear without contradicting things that ARE seen on screen. Thus choosing to ingore it is showing selective evidence, a fallacy by any defenition.

Ok, so I overexagerated, sue me.

No, you did not exagerrate, to have done that there would have been some sliver of truth in your statement.

But I have seen people on this forum say things like 'one shot from a ssd would destroy a borg cube'.

DITL puts a hifgh end of Borg shielding at 14 Gigatons. A single HTL is 50 Gigatons, on a 20 year old transport. Yes sparky, SW could take out a borg cube in a single shot

Anyway, I find it unlikely that an ISD wouldn't keep its shields up in an Asteroid field!

Holocom (which they were using) necessitates the dropping of shields.

After all, one did loose it's bridge section! Don't tell me they didn't know the danger.

Except one did not loose it's bridge, as the captain was still alive after the impact instead of being killed in the explosion.

I never said which one was right either, but after reading BOTH I am still supporting the side of ST. Afterall, if there was no one supporting ST then there wouldn't be a debate! Surely you can respect that.

Respect someone assuming a totally illogical stance simply to be contrary? Why the hell should we?

After all, I would be supporting SW if there were no other SW fans.

This is one of the stupidest things I have heard.

But the ISD lost it's bridge section after one hit.

LIAR. We see the ISDs getting hit numerous times and they were in the field for days. The only way you would not see this is if your head was lodged up your ass, as is evidently your case.

If the shields were failing then it wouldn't go from no damage to the bridge section to being wiped off!

The shields were not up, the bridge was still there, what is so hard to understand?

[Typhonis 1]

You are aware that the firepower of a Star Destroyer has been scaled from the Deathstar? and its full output is aproximateky 7 *10^30 ((the Star destroyers))
Fleet size 24 SDs at Endor Aprroximately 1000 secort seats in the senate in TPM

24,000 Star Destroyers alone not counting smaller ships


Torpedoe attack on Death Star the torpedoes did 72,000 g turn to enter the exaust port.


Trek save for Q ,the organians and the Voth maybe are royally screwed

[NecronLord]

Anyway, I find it unlikely that an ISD wouldn't keep its shields up in an Asteroid field! After all, one did loose it's bridge section! Don't tell me they didn't know the danger.

Danger from asteroids = mediocre.

Danger from Darth Vader noticing you've disobeyed a direct order = Absoloute.

[Lord of the Farce]

I have, thats the whole point of what I was saying earlier. Besides the site is completly byased. Its amazing how it brainwash you! Try http://www.st-v-sw.net/ and you'll see what I mean.

It is quite apparent, reading the above, who's actually been brainwashed. Hell, I'll probably be brainwashed too (with industrial grade bleach) if I was forced to read through every word of Darkstar's... diatribe.


BTW, here's a couple of quotes concerning Mike Wong vs Darkstar/G2K from the Yahoo SW vs ST Group (just to pull some opinion from outside of this board):

Wong is biased perhaps, in terms of his preference of Wars over Trek. In all honesty, I cannot say I like him, but I do respect him. I have no reason to believe his figures to be a reflection of bias, but instead of solid research and number crunching.

Darkstar... well...

As you said, if he doesn't accept the Expanded Universe as canon, he will have no credibility. Plus, he has made a number of rabid comments about Mike Wong, comments that have nothing to do with the debate. He's resorted on more than one occasion to the tactic of discrediting the opponent, not the argument.

Mike Wong isnt a bad person. I agree that he is biased. He makes it very obvisous that he prefers Star Wars over Star Trek. But his stuff is crediable. His numbers seem to make sense. Now don't get me wrong I like Star Trek better but he makes a lot of sense and seems to know what he is doing. Darkstar to me just seems like a sore loser because he can't except that Wars is probably stronger. But thats just my opinion.

*Yo, Sothis, hope you don't mind me quoting you

[Tribun]

I have, thats the whole point of what I was saying earlier. Besides the site is completly byased. Its amazing how it brainwash you! Try http://www.st-v-sw.net/ and you'll see what I mean.

Read Darth Wongs discussion about Darkstars site. Then you will see, why DS is not to be taken serious.

[Chas_2003]

Well i've finally seen what was so wrong with darkstar and i conclude that the asshats strategy was as follows
1) Start with the premise that you'll be fair

I am trying too, but there is NO debate, so I can only bring up different arguments in hope that some will find the fun in arguing from the other side (even if you belive otherwise). Anyway, from what I hear about Darkstar, I don't want to be like him...

2) Show some evidence

Thats the whole point...

3) Keep making wilder and wilder and less and less supported arguments slowly building them slowly enough as to avoid letting the average idiot that surfs the net not realise what's going on

No I wouldn't do that...

4) Eventually try and convince people that wars stands a snowballs chance in hell

I am not trying to say or prove that. What I want to prove is that Star Trek doesn't have a snowball chance in hell. Maybe even if I cut down these figures you've given both sides, but it may become clear that Star Wars would simply win on numbers.

Look, lets put it this way. Whats the point or having a forum like this if you never debate from the other point of view? I mean, even if you ALL belive there would be no point, it would be intresting to debate anyway.

Another thing with this idea that the bridge survived the asteroid hit and then you saw the captain in the holo conference. If this is so, why do you presume its even the same captain?? One thing you should learn from films is that events aren't ALWAYS linera (no, i'm not talking about time travel). If you want to show an event from two different places, then you would show it from one, then from another (but the second place would take place at the same time as the first). So thats what I have to say, arguments against this seem unlikely and unrealistic. I mean, a good film would never want to confuse the viewer so the most obvious reasons are usually the right ones. Not some abstract point of view!

Another thing to consider that ISDs and other ships use neutronium in their hulls. Now not only is this nearly immpossible its completly impractical. Neutronium comes from Neutron stars and is really just the protons and electrons being squashed together to form neutrons. A neutron star is so dense that the gravity is huge! The pressures that form neutronium is immense and once it leaves a neutron star (if it could) it becomes unstable and no longer exists! To pressures and gravity is so immense its one step away from a black hole! If a Neutron star's gravity is even stronger, it will continue to callapse in on itself and will become SO dense, gravity will be SO strong not even light can escape.

That is how much pressure is needed, alloying it with other materials would make no difference because it couldn't exist anyway! Therfore it can't be neutronium from neutron stars and so isn't completly reistant to Federation weapons!

[Ghost Rider]

The point is that numbers have shown that literally the GE has more then enough power to plow through the AQ.

The point is that even we ignore firepower...the sheer number of ships the Empire has shows them plowing through the AQ.

When I first lurked her it was in it's waning days...nowadays someone comes out, says they found something new and someone smacks them down because most of it has been resolved in numbers.

[Rightous Fist Of Heaven]

Another thing with this idea that the bridge survived the asteroid hit and then you saw the captain in the holo conference. If this is so, why do you presume its even the same captain?? One thing you should learn from films is that events aren't ALWAYS linera (no, i'm not talking about time travel). If you want to show an event from two different places, then you would show it from one, then from another (but the second place would take place at the same time as the first). So thats what I have to say, arguments against this seem unlikely and unrealistic. I mean, a good film would never want to confuse the viewer so the most obvious reasons are usually the right ones. Not some abstract point of view!

So there were many captains shielding their eyes from something at
relatively the same time? Anyways Vader had called ALL of the
Captains into the conference with him. And since the novelization IIRC
describes that it was just the ship that was hit to the bridge by the
asteroid, which's captain shielded his eyes and the transmission ended.

Look, lets put it this way. Whats the point or having a forum like this if you never debate from the other point of view? I mean, even if you ALL belive there would be no point, it would be intresting to debate anyway.

Last time i checked, the point of this forum is to bring out the facts. Different points of view are not gonna change the hard numbers.

That is how much pressure is needed, alloying it with other materials would make no difference because it couldn't exist anyway! Therfore it can't be neutronium from neutron stars and so isn't completly reistant to Federation weapons!

Im not gonna get into the neutronium argument, AGAIN. But i'd like
to point out that the armor on SW capital ships can take fair amounts
of 200 Gigaton turbolaser blasts before the ship which it protects
is destroyed. Not that it matters since the weapons of the major
races in ST (Borg, Feds, Klingons etcetera) could not really do jack
to an ISDs shielding anyway.

[Chas_2003]

To be honest, do numbers really mean anything? Do you know how much energy it would take to destroy a planet? Do you know how much energy it would take to vapourise an asteroid? There just numbers, showing relative firepower and other things within the Star Wars universe. Can you really compare them between Star Trek and Star Wars? We've seen Star Trek ships do similar things that Star Wars ships are capable of. We've seen Species 8742 destroy a planet with nine ships, yet it took a massive battlestation, several kilometers across (the size of a small moon) to do the same thing. Now while i'm saying Star Trek is better than Star Wars, i'm saying can you really use the numbers to compare them?

Just a thourght.

Another thing with this EU buissness that Star Wars books are ok to debate with. So your saying I can write a book for Star Trek saying that the Federation get this weapon so poweful it can unmake the universe and get it published then Star Trek would win the debate? I think not! Thats why I say it, besides, whats stopping George Lucas contridicting whats in the books?

Just another thourght.

[Micheal Ryans, Beta pilot]

Yes numbers do mean something, and while we may not know exactly how much energy is needed to vape an asteroid or destroy a planet, there are ways to calculate it.

[Chas_2003]

Yes numbers do mean something, and while we may not know exactly how much energy is needed to vape an asteroid or destroy a planet, there are ways to calculate it.

But they didn't calculate it. What would you say if some scienctist worked out the energy requirements from everything done in Star Wars were much smaller than the figures that have already been given?

The idea is that the figures represent the relative strengths. Now I would say thats a new idea so don't brush it aside too quickly. The amount of energy needed was never taken into consideration when the figures in ICS was made up. If that is, then apart from relative strengths in the Star Wars universe they would mean nothing.

Thats a new thing to think about. Don't pass it by so quickly, its a valid point! (even if you think i'm just an idiot)

[seanrobertson]

Ok, just so you know, i'm not scared of any flames.

Now heres what I have to say. Everyone on this forum now seems to presume that Star Trek technology is so inferior to Star Wars technology that a single X-Wing could take out the entire Federation fleet without a scratch.

Not even close.

I find myself saying this often these days: pretty please, do not exaggerate. It irritates the piss out of me.

Well, now its time to start the debate again (if there ever was one). You've all been brainwashed by non-canon material. No you may argue that non-canon is still Star Wars. But your wrong, its not what George Lucas' ideas, its other peoples which can contridict his and other people's ideas.

That's a weak false dichotomy: either it's George idea and is canon, or it's not idea and is NOT canon.

Did you know that the original script for AOTC had NO battle at Geonosis?

It was not George's idea at all. Indeed, we have Dr. Saxton to thank in no small part for that awesome spectacle.

But...waitaminute. Does that mean part of the canon movie itself is non-canon, a contradiction in terms?

BZZZZZT.

Try again.

Therefore, figures that tell us that one turbo laser has 100 times more enrgy than the nuclear bombs used in WWII even though we never see this in the movies,

I suggest you rewatch "The Empire Strikes Back." Smallish turbolasers are easily more energetic than Fat Man or Little Boy.

or the hulls are made out of neutornium from Neutron Stars which can protect against ALL ST weapons (even though an A-Wing crashed into the Executtor's Bridge and in ESB a single asteroid destoryed the bridge of an ISD), are ALL wrong!

Saying it doesn't make it so, flamebait.

Even if the ICS is canon, what comes first? Onscreen canon or canon from a book with figures? If you REALLY want to argue against Star Trek, you can't just throw figures. You have to use onscreen evidence.

Okay, goodie.

DEATH STAR.

That's all the onscreen evidence I ever need. The Death Star is just a very large-scale manifestation of Imperial technology; it reflects the kind of engineering skill and ability to use power that ISDs simply do on a lower level. However, that "lower level" is still tremendously powerful--bigger indeed than almost all of Trek's largest-scale weapons.

I mean for one thing, with the powerful shields and neutronium hull which is what you say an ISD has, in an Asteroid field one lost it's bridge from a single asteroid!

Do you have ANY clue how many times this has been brought up before?

Did you read ANY of Michael's site, at all?

I'd say no and no, not really, respectively.

You are a classic example of someone who argues with the "no math" mentality. Subjective impressions are meaningless. Compare something quantifiable, like the momentum of the bridge tower 'roid to Jem'Hadar attack ships.

THEN come back and say Wars is "weak."

Yet in TOS, there was an episode were the original USS Enterprise NCC-1701 was flying through an asteroid field to save another ship. They exteneded there shields around the ship they were rescuing to protect them from the incoming asteroids!

So all asteroids are of the size that hit the ISD in TESB, eh? LOL.

"Asteroids" can be of tremendously varied sizes. The bigger the asteroid, the more massive it probably is. The more massive it is, the greater threat it poses to navigation. That's to say nothing of their relative velocity.

So where are these massive asteroids in that episode? How fast were they moving relative to the E-nil? How many HIT IT?

After a while some of the dilithium crystals started to burn out because of the way they were using their shields. They beamed the crew of the other vessel aboard and then let the other ship get pulvisied by the asteriods. Now if the original Enterprise can survie hits from Asteroids like this, and the ISD is supposed to be so superior, one turbolaser would destory any ship in the Star Trek universe, why did one asteroid hit the bridge section and blow it up?

How long is "a while"?

The ISDs in TESB had been in that asteroid field for hours or DAYS. You only see one collision of hundreds, perhaps thousands.

Theres one argument. There are so many more but this is one example were onscreen evidence completly contridicts your figures.

Bor-ring.

[Darth Servo]

To be honest, do numbers really mean anything?

YES! How do you know which car is faster? The one that can do 100 kph or the on that can do 200 kph? How do you know which armor is stronger? The one that can withstand 100 kPa of pressure or the one that can withstand 1000 kPa? How do you know which weapon is mroe powerful? The one that delivers 100 MT or the on that delivers 100 GT?

NUMBERS ARE EVERYTHING!!! I suppose you'd rather just spout vagueries like you did in your forst post about the E-nil surviving asteroid impacts WITHOUT saying how MANY impacts, how FREQUENT they were, how BIG the asteroids were, or how FAST they were moving.

Your whole "asteroid argument" from TESB was BEATEN TO DEATH years ago. Here's just ONE example.

Do you know how much energy it would take to destroy a planet?

Yes

Do you know how much energy it would take to vapourise an asteroid?

Yes

There just numbers, showing relative firepower and other things within the Star Wars universe. Can you really compare them between Star Trek and Star Wars? We've seen Star Trek ships do similar things that Star Wars ships are capable of.

Name ONE instance of a Federation ship vaporizing an asteroid with a split second blast.

We've seen Species 8742 destroy a planet with nine ships, yet it took a massive battlestation, several kilometers across (the size of a small moon) to do the same thing.

S8472 did it with some kind of funky chain reaction and NOT brute force like the DS did. IOW, those bioships did NOT have the energy within themselves that the DS does and those chain reactions would NOT work on shields.

Now while i'm saying Star Trek is better than Star Wars, i'm saying can you really use the numbers to compare them?

But your argument is based on faulty reaasoning.

Another thing with this EU buissness that Star Wars books are ok to debate with. So your saying I can write a book for Star Trek saying that the Federation get this weapon so poweful it can unmake the universe and get it published then Star Trek would win the debate?

Paramount has different rules for what is and is not canon and official material. With Lucasfilms, official novels DO count unless contradicted by a canon source.

Thats why I say it, besides, whats stopping George Lucas contridicting whats in the books?

IF Lucas contradicts something in the books, THEN that point (and that point ONLY) is thrown out (or rationalized somehow) and not one second before.

[Stravo]

As to you writing a story that creates uber weapons and whether that would be considered material for a debate NO.

There is this thing called canon policy and that policy is not set by us but by the very creators and owners of the story.

GL recognizes the movies, screenplays and novelizations as absolute canon. The EU is a second tier of canon where if not directly contradicted by the first tier (Movie, screenplay or novelization) then it too is canon.

Paramount DOES NOT recognoze anything but the TV shows as canon. The novels are NOT canon. That is the policy of Paramount NOT us.

Don't go stating that warsie debaters have chosen to include the EU to give us an unfair advantage because that's just not true.

As to the numbers - we know PRECISELY what sort of numbers can be generated by onscreen evidence. We can claculate how much energy it would take to destroy a planet. We know how much energy will vaporize an asteroid. Throwing out numbers is an ancient Trekkie tactic when faced with defeat.

[Tribun]

To be honest, do numbers really mean anything? Do you know how much energy it would take to destroy a planet? Do you know how much energy it would take to vapourise an asteroid? There just numbers, showing relative firepower and other things within the Star Wars universe. Can you really compare them between Star Trek and Star Wars? We've seen Star Trek ships do similar things that Star Wars ships are capable of. We've seen Species 8742 destroy a planet with nine ships, yet it took a massive battlestation, several kilometers across (the size of a small moon) to do the same thing. Now while i'm saying Star Trek is better than Star Wars, i'm saying can you really use the numbers to compare them?

I don't know much about physics, so I could be wrong. But I think, numbers are important. Visual evidence suggests that in ST and SW the laws of physics are the same as the real ones. And as Ryans said, there are ways to calculate them.

By the way. Your mention of the 9 8472-Ships compared with the Death Star.....
-You forgot, that the central bioship looked somewhat bigger and not like the normal one. It must be a special planetbuster-weapon.
-I compared, whow much time it took to demolish a planet. 8472 fired ~10 sec on the planet, and it still needed time to go kaboom. The Death Star archived the same within a second with perhaps no even full power...
-The bioships have a poor defense quality.

But I'm definatly off-topic. Fact is, that both of them have to produce at minimum 5E16 megatons of energy to destroy planets. It's fact that can't be ignored.

[Chas_2003]

Ok, just so you know, i'm not scared of any flames.

Now heres what I have to say. Everyone on this forum now seems to presume that Star Trek technology is so inferior to Star Wars technology that a single X-Wing could take out the entire Federation fleet without a scratch.

Not even close.

I find myself saying this often these days: pretty please, do not exaggerate. It irritates the piss out of me.

Well, now its time to start the debate again (if there ever was one). You've all been brainwashed by non-canon material. No you may argue that non-canon is still Star Wars. But your wrong, its not what George Lucas' ideas, its other peoples which can contridict his and other people's ideas.

That's a weak false dichotomy: either it's George idea and is canon, or it's not idea and is NOT canon.

Did you know that the original script for AOTC had NO battle at Geonosis?

It was not George's idea at all. Indeed, we have Dr. Saxton to thank in no small part for that awesome spectacle.

But...waitaminute. Does that mean part of the canon movie itself is non-canon, a contradiction in terms?

BZZZZZT.

Try again.

Therefore, figures that tell us that one turbo laser has 100 times more enrgy than the nuclear bombs used in WWII even though we never see this in the movies,

I suggest you rewatch "The Empire Strikes Back." Smallish turbolasers are easily more energetic than Fat Man or Little Boy.

or the hulls are made out of neutornium from Neutron Stars which can protect against ALL ST weapons (even though an A-Wing crashed into the Executtor's Bridge and in ESB a single asteroid destoryed the bridge of an ISD), are ALL wrong!

Saying it doesn't make it so, flamebait.

Even if the ICS is canon, what comes first? Onscreen canon or canon from a book with figures? If you REALLY want to argue against Star Trek, you can't just throw figures. You have to use onscreen evidence.

Okay, goodie.

DEATH STAR.

That's all the onscreen evidence I ever need. The Death Star is just a very large-scale manifestation of Imperial technology; it reflects the kind of engineering skill and ability to use power that ISDs simply do on a lower level. However, that "lower level" is still tremendously powerful--bigger indeed than almost all of Trek's largest-scale weapons.

I mean for one thing, with the powerful shields and neutronium hull which is what you say an ISD has, in an Asteroid field one lost it's bridge from a single asteroid!

Do you have ANY clue how many times this has been brought up before?

Did you read ANY of Michael's site, at all?

I'd say no and no, not really, respectively.

You are a classic example of someone who argues with the "no math" mentality. Subjective impressions are meaningless. Compare something quantifiable, like the momentum of the bridge tower 'roid to Jem'Hadar attack ships.

THEN come back and say Wars is "weak."

Yet in TOS, there was an episode were the original USS Enterprise NCC-1701 was flying through an asteroid field to save another ship. They exteneded there shields around the ship they were rescuing to protect them from the incoming asteroids!

So all asteroids are of the size that hit the ISD in TESB, eh? LOL.

"Asteroids" can be of tremendously varied sizes. The bigger the asteroid, the more massive it probably is. The more massive it is, the greater threat it poses to navigation. That's to say nothing of their relative velocity.

So where are these massive asteroids in that episode? How fast were they moving relative to the E-nil? How many HIT IT?

After a while some of the dilithium crystals started to burn out because of the way they were using their shields. They beamed the crew of the other vessel aboard and then let the other ship get pulvisied by the asteriods. Now if the original Enterprise can survie hits from Asteroids like this, and the ISD is supposed to be so superior, one turbolaser would destory any ship in the Star Trek universe, why did one asteroid hit the bridge section and blow it up?

How long is "a while"?

The ISDs in TESB had been in that asteroid field for hours or DAYS. You only see one collision of hundreds, perhaps thousands.

Theres one argument. There are so many more but this is one example were onscreen evidence completly contridicts your figures.

Bor-ring.

Simply saying SW will win or giving speculations in which you have no evidence behind is just pointless. How many times do we hear things like 'one turbolaser from an SSD would destroy a Borg cube' or 'The empire must have thousands of ISDs'. This doesn't mean a thing, backup your arguments and answer things i've already said. Such as the idea that the figures from SW and ST aren't on the same scale and so can not be used to compare.

"Did you know that the original script for AOTC had NO battle at Geonosis?

It was not George's idea at all. Indeed, we have Dr. Saxton to thank in no small part for that awesome spectacle.

But...waitaminute. Does that mean part of the canon movie itself is non-canon, a contradiction in terms?"

Thats not what I meant! The only way it could contridict what I said if George Lucas had no knowlage of it and it went up in the movie without him knowing until it was onscreen! It might not have been his idea but he STILL went ahead with it meaning he thourght it was a good idea, agreeed with it and therefore it IS canon!

I hate it when people argue in this way.

[Darth Servo]

Yes numbers do mean something, and while we may not know exactly how much energy is needed to vape an asteroid or destroy a planet, there are ways to calculate it.

But they didn't calculate it. What would you say if some scienctist worked out the energy requirements from everything done in Star Wars were much smaller than the figures that have already been given?

Yes they did. The numbers on this and other pro-SW sites come DIRECTLY from what real life science says is needed to accomplish the given feats seen in SW and ST.

The idea is that the figures represent the relative strengths. Now I would say thats a new idea so don't brush it aside too quickly. The amount of energy needed was never taken into consideration when the figures in ICS was made up.

Tell that to the guy who wrote it: DR Curtis Saxton. He based his numbers on what is in the films AND the EU material. However, the large turbolaser figures can be derrives solely from information in ANH: the Death Star. And the rest Imperial fleet has roughly TWICE the firepower of the DS according to the breifing given before the battle of Yavin. PURE canon info.

Thats a new thing to think about. Don't pass it by so quickly, its a valid point! (even if you think i'm just an idiot)

Wrong on both counts. It is an OLD argument that has been proven wrong again and again and again and is NOT a valid point.

[Chas_2003]

As to you writing a story that creates uber weapons and whether that would be considered material for a debate NO.

There is this thing called canon policy and that policy is not set by us but by the very creators and owners of the story.

GL recognizes the movies, screenplays and novelizations as absolute canon. The EU is a second tier of canon where if not directly contradicted by the first tier (Movie, screenplay or novelization) then it too is canon.

Paramount DOES NOT recognoze anything but the TV shows as canon. The novels are NOT canon. That is the policy of Paramount NOT us.

Don't go stating that warsie debaters have chosen to include the EU to give us an unfair advantage because that's just not true.

As to the numbers - we know PRECISELY what sort of numbers can be generated by onscreen evidence. We can claculate how much energy it would take to destroy a planet. We know how much energy will vaporize an asteroid. Throwing out numbers is an ancient Trekkie tactic when faced with defeat.

EU is NOT canon! George Lucas said it himself! EU would contridict each other as there is nothing to follow. The only thing that would remain constant is the films. That is why EU cannot and will not be used in this debate. My whole point of what I said about creating an uber weapon was to show how ridculous it sounded.

Damn now I know how Thunderchild must feel.

Another thing, numbers are NOT important! They mean nothing when compaing them between Star Trek and Star Wars! Besides, i'm talking about the energy, not the speeds. I already recognise that Hyperdrive is faster than Warpdirve.