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

[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?

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.

Asteroids have been vapourised in Star Trek too! Don't say they haven't! If thats true then the numbers apply to Star Trek too!

[Darth Servo]

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.

We HAVE given evidence. Thats what this whole webpage is about. You know, the webpage that you IGNORED because it was supposedly "biased". YOU ignored the evidence presented and then turned right around and accused us of doing the same. Hypocrite.

"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!

And Lucas has knowleges of what goies into the novels TOO. NOTHING gets published for the SW universe without his personal approval. They have checks to make sure the books stay fairly consistent with the films, to the point that two entire manuscripts were once rejected just before publication for failure to comply with continuity.

I hate it when people argue in this way.

I hate it when people like you can't see the points others are trying to show them in plain English.

[Darth Servo]

Asteroids have been vapourised in Star Trek too! Don't say they haven't! If thats true then the numbers apply to Star Trek too!

I SPECIFICALLY asked you to NAME an example and you failed to do so. Either put up or shut up.

[Darth Servo]

EU is NOT canon!

But it IS "quasi-canon" according to the SW Encyclopedia.

George Lucas said it himself!

When?

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.

Your analogy was proven to be absurd.

Another thing, numbers are NOT important! They mean nothing when compaing them between Star Trek and Star Wars!

They mean EVERYTHING when comparing how much energy they can dish out and how much they can withstand.

[Phyre]

I'd like to see the Enterprise face off against an ESD (Eclipse class Star Destroyer). Then we decide which has the better ship shields/weapons. For anyone who doesn't know what an ESD is, it was the largest, most powerful class of Star Destroyer. It could fit an ISD in it's docking bay with no problem.

[Darth Servo]

I'd like to see the Enterprise face off against an ESD (Eclipse class Star Destroyer). Then we decide which has the better ship shields/weapons. For anyone who doesn't know what an ESD is, it was the largest, most powerful class of Star Destroyer. It could fit an ISD in it's docking bay with no problem.

A 30 year old Acclamator troop transport has weapons that a Federation ship could only dream about (GT vs KT weapons--think about it).

[Chas_2003]

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.

We HAVE given evidence. Thats what this whole webpage is about. You know, the webpage that you IGNORED because it was supposedly "biased". YOU ignored the evidence presented and then turned right around and accused us of doing the same. Hypocrite.

"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!

And Lucas has knowleges of what goies into the novels TOO. NOTHING gets published for the SW universe without his personal approval. They have checks to make sure the books stay fairly consistent with the films, to the point that two entire manuscripts were once rejected just before publication for failure to comply with continuity.

I hate it when people argue in this way.

I hate it when people like you can't see the points others are trying to show them in plain English.

I told you! I never IGNORED the website! Why do you think i'm arguing against the numbers! You people all IGNORED Darkstar's website which gave some valuable points even if it was byesed. And another thing, if the books are supposedly canon and they remain constant with the films, then what do you have to worry about leaving them out of the debate? If Star Wars is truely more powerful than Star Trek then whats wrong with just using onscreen evidence? Answer this question and don't ignore it.

[seanrobertson]

Why did you quote my entire post and only respond to a small portion of it?

Thats not what I meant!

You said:


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.

Something doesn't have to be his idea to be canon.

That is very simple.

So drop the "Lucas' ideas" argument altogether and focus on the contradiction angle. You will find it's fruitless, as well, partly evident by the fact that you've failed to demonstrate anything like a "contradiction."

Oh, yes, you think the bridge tower asteroid is a contradiction. But you fall prey to your own illogic. In making a sweeping generalization, you have ignored many alternatives:

1--were the shields even up at the time?
2--how long had the ISD endured bombardment from asteroids; i.e., what was the state of said shields even if they WERE up? That is important if you want to declare the incident an upper-limit, no?
3--are weapons and physical impactors' energies interchangable, inasmuch as said impact "contradicts" a 200 gigaton turbolaser?

Your bizarre refusal to consider "numbers" makes this difficult for you to realize, but if nothing else, pay special attention to no. 3. Your answer is on SD.net; if you've already read the site, as you claim to, you should have no trouble finding it.

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.

Sigh...

It wasn't George's idea. It's canon. Things needn't be "his idea" to be canon. If that's not an important part of your argument, why did you bring it up? For shits and giggles?

Ah, right--you're trying to make some odd claim about the EU. Tell me, then: how is the ICS part of the expanded universe?

[JodoForce]

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?

You don't, we do See Darth Servo's post above.

Can you really compare them between Star Trek and Star Wars?

Yes--or do you think they are just some stupid RPGs with damage and armor rated in hit-points?

We've seen Star Trek ships do similar things that Star Wars ships are capable of.

The devil is in the details.

[Darth Servo]

I told you! I never IGNORED the website! Why do you think i'm arguing against the numbers!

You obviously HAVE ignored the webpage (or only quickly skimmed it) since you tried to argue that real science might come up with different numbers that the ones on hte webpage.

You people all IGNORED Darkstar's website which gave some valuable points even if it was byesed.

Liar. We have NOT ignored it. It has been totally refuted. Name ONE "good point" on that webpage that is not based on scientific ignorance (although that would mean it isn't a good point afterall, wouldn't it ). The fact that you think we ignored Darkstar's page is just one more piece of evidence that you have NOT thoroughly read SD.net.

And another thing, if the books are supposedly canon

Quasi canon. Don't you read what I write? MORE evidence that you are reading impared. I guess that would be why you don't have any clue whats on the main webpage even though you claim to have read it.

and they remain constant with the films, then what do you have to worry about leaving them out of the debate? If Star Wars is truely more powerful than Star Trek then whats wrong with just using onscreen evidence? Answer this question and don't ignore it.

The more evidence you have the better. That is EXACTLY the way real life science works. The more consistant data points you have supporting a theory, the more reliable that theory is.

[Tribun]

I told you! I never IGNORED the website! Why do you think i'm arguing against the numbers! You people all IGNORED Darkstar's website which gave some valuable points even if it was byesed. And another thing, if the books are supposedly canon and they remain constant with the films, then what do you have to worry about leaving them out of the debate? If Star Wars is truely more powerful than Star Trek then whats wrong with just using onscreen evidence? Answer this question and don't ignore it.

Did it ever occur to you, that you are maybe one of the most annoying persons on this board...?

And...oh yes...Wong got a on screen evidence section only...just look at:
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Ess ... nutes.html

[seanrobertson]

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?

Who's "they"?

"Some scientist"...tee-hee. That always kills me. Incidentally, what do you think Michael IS?

How about Dr. Saxton?

Yep, they're scientists.

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.

"Relative strengths"? How is a turbolaser's ability to vaporize an asteroid of measurable size at all RELATIVE in the sense you mean?

When a Death Star blows a planet to smithereens, does that only mean its firepower is great next to other, lesser ships? LOL. Why is that? Because you have some strange hunch that a hypothetical "scientist" could come along and determine that such doesn't require as much energy?

That's a good case of appealing to ignorance, itself a form of circular logic: "we don't know for sure that the turbolaser/superlaser puts out exactly X no. of watts, so it cannot be that powerful."

To logically contend that these figures are lesser than what Michael, Brian, Curtis, and everyone else says they are, you need to actually--GASP--try and PROVE that. "Maybe" doesn't cut it.

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)

How is it valid? At all?

It's meaningless. You're trying to dismiss objective figures on the basis that they "could be wrong." If you feel more qualified than Dr. Saxton to make that determination, by all means, please, enlighten us.

What you are attempting to pull with this "relative strengths" false dilemma, I dunno. I'm guessing it's a thinly veiled attempt to try and dismiss all objective analysis.

[Typhonis 1]

This website deals in facts Questions lead to Answers that lead to more questions.Facts lead to results that are oftn indisputed if said facts are correct . The facts on this site are correct.

[seanrobertson]

This website deals in facts Questions lead to Answers that lead to more questions.Facts lead to results that are oftn indisputed if said facts are correct . The facts on this site are correct.

There you go.

What I don't understand is how someone can say that the figures are far too high, then turn around and claim that numbers don't matter.

?

Granted, I am talking a lot of crap here today as I sit nursing my swollen stupid frickin' wisdom teeth, but even on a bad day, Sean Robertson understands CONSISTENCY.

THAT is not consistent.

[seanrobertson]

Asteroids have been vapourised in Star Trek too! Don't say they haven't! If thats true then the numbers apply to Star Trek too!

What does that matter? It hasn't happened; I've seen all the episodes in which asteroids are dealt with, up to the latest ENT stuff. I've seen some shattered rocks, perhaps partial vaporizations, but nothing like the scenes from TESB.

What you are apparently unwilling to understand is that "asteroid" does not refer to a class of interstellar objects that are all of IDENTICAL SIZE. If Star Trek depicts a phaser vaporizing a 10m wide asteroid in a split-second, the energy requirements for so doing are DIFFERENT than vaporizing a 30-40m wide asteroid, a 60m wide asteroid, and so on. (We won't even touch composition, which I KNOW would throw you off at this stage.)

Why, then, are you talking about asteroid destructions as if they're equivalent? Trust women when they say, size matters!

And why are you comparing the small turbolasers on an ISD to Trek's big guns, like the biggest phaser strips on a Galaxy or its photon torpedoes?

I think most people would probably grant that a Star Trek ship's maximum firepower is somewhere fairly close to the LOWER-LIMIT OF A SINGLE LIGHT TURBOLASER BOLT, within an order of magnitude anyway. But how does that help your case, at all? Light turbolasers are insects next to the heavy guns. THOSE are the weapons that put out hundreds of gigatons per shot or more. (Note to everyone else: I won't confuse the issue with MTLs .)

Please, please, please read through Mike's site more carefully. Dismissing it on the basis of "bias" is itself illogical, all the more reason you SHOULD read it and re-read it again.

[Stravo]

Asteroids have been vapourised in Star Trek too! Don't say they haven't! If thats true then the numbers apply to Star Trek too!

Would now be a bad time to point out that in the EPisode Pegasus it was stated that it would take the entire torpedoe loadout of the Enterprise to destroy a 5km asteroid, not vaporize, just destroy.

[Darth Servo]

Would now be a bad time to point out that in the EPisode Pegasus it was stated that it would take the entire torpedoe loadout of the Enterprise to destroy a 5km asteroid, not vaporize, just destroy.

In SW vs ST debates, its never a bad time to point that out.

[Solauren]

Chas_2003

I'm going to be as to the point as possible with this post.

If you read over the website carefully, slowly, and double check the math yourself, you'll find that both Star Wars and Star Trek have been analysed to the best of the ability of the authour.

In any event, Attack of the Clones Incredible Cross Sections gives actual numbers for some of the ships from that movie.

Attack of the Clones Incredible Cross Sections is considered
both according to the other published works of its nature, and the offical Star Wars website. Located at www.starwars.com, go look in the Databank section. Specfically at http://www.starwars.com/community/askjc ... 10817.html

Here is the relevant parts of the page. I've highlighted a few sections for ease of reference

[Qoute]
There's been some confusion of late regarding the 'Infinities' symbol, and Star Wars Expanded Universe continuity in general. Terms like "canon" and "continuity" tend to get thrown around casually, which doesn't help at all.
When it comes to absolute canon, the real story of Star Wars, you must turn to the films themselves - and only the films. Even novelizations are interpretations of the film, and while they are largely true to George Lucas' vision (he works quite closely with the novel authors), the method in which they are written does allow for some minor differences. The novelizations are written concurrently with the film's production, so variations in detail do creep in from time to time. Nonetheless, they should be regarded as very accurate depictions of the fictional Star Wars movies.

The further one branches away from the movies, the more interpretation and speculation come into play. LucasBooks works diligently to keep the continuing Star Wars expanded universe cohesive and uniform, but stylistically, there is always room for variation. Not all artists draw Luke Skywalker the same way. Not all writers define the character in the same fashion. The particular attributes of individual media also come into play. A comic book interpretation of an event will likely have less dialogue or different pacing than a novel version. A video game has to take an interactive approach that favors gameplay. So too must card and roleplaying games ascribe certain characteristics to characters and events in order to make them playable.

The analogy is that every piece of published Star Wars fiction is a window into the 'real' Star Wars universe. Some windows are a bit foggier than others. Some are decidedly abstract. But each contains a nugget of truth to them. Like the great Jedi Knight Obi-Wan Kenobi said, 'many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view.'

Returning to the question at hand. Yes, Star Wars Gamer is part of continuity, though as game material, there is room for interpretation. Only specific articles marked with the 'Infinities' logo within the magazine should be considered out of continuity.

Fans of the old monthly Marvel Star Wars comic will be heartened to know that LucasBooks does indeed consider them part of continuity. Decades of retrospect haven't been kind to all the elements of the comic series, but the characters and events still hold weight and are referenced in newer material whenever possible.

[/Qoute]

The remaining paragraph on the webpage discusses how the Infinities logo is used on Star wars material that is not considered part of the offical history, timeline, or is not considered cannon. For example, one of them is a story where Darth Marl is resurrected by renegade Dark Siders and duels Darth Vader.

This means that everything with the Star wars logo on it, published or supported by LucasBooks (and therefore Lucasarts) is CANON. Offical. Indisputable. Rock Solid unless it contradicts the movies.


A good comparison would be is the entire published Star wars universe was turned into a table, the movies would be the table top, and the Expanded Universe is the table legs.

You CAN use the movies by themselves, and most people do. That's when you start having people do number crunching like Darth Wong and Darkstar (I apologise to those offended by me mentioning both in the same breath). Some people get the crunching right, some do not.

However, Star Wars number crunching has become pointless and redundant thanks to the Attack of the Clones Incredible Cross-sections.

We now have Offical, mathematical and real-worl scientific qualifications of the relevant data for Star Wars weapons, shields, technology and vechiles.

The only way these numbers can not and will not stand is if the movies, someone says something that directly contradicts that book. Please note, this is not likely to happen, as the above qoute points out, George Lucas, the man behind Star wars, works with the authours and Lucasbooks in general to make sure they get things right.

Interestingly enough, Mike's (Darth Wong's) calculations line up nicely with the Attack of the Clone's Incredible cross sections book. Mike isn't dead on, but if this was a case of playing dart, he might not have got the bull's eye, but he's within an inch of it.

Now then, the arguement could be made that the Star wars people just tossed out numbers to sound good. Okay, I can accept that as an arguement. however, people with the knowledge to do so, and that can prove they have the knowledge to do so, have backed those numbers up. I'm not talking about high school punks or red-necks with piece of paper. I'm talking about people with engineering and science degree's. Figuring stuff like this out is there JOB and what they were trained to do. Often in highly regulated and controlled environments.

Either way, the numbers stand.

Now then, Star Trek is a BIT harder to qualify up, but it is possible. Mike has done a reasonably good job on his website. I will not say amazing or air-tight job, because that is impossible to do with the material he has to work with. There is no offical/canon material to use for numbers besides the shows and movies. Nothing printed with the same stamp on it as AOTC:ICS. Personally, I find that to be a shame.

Paramount only considers the movies and shows to be canon, and the rest of it is just toilet paper with ink on it. The offical Star Trek website even says the novels and books are not canon. They do however disagree with paramount and refer you to the Tech manuals, as they were published by production staff members.

If you just go by the Tech manuals or Cross-section type books, Star Wars wins by a HUGE, factor. According to AOTC:ICS One Turbolaser from a 20 year old (from the orginal trilogys perspective)'s weapons are at LEAST 500,000 times as powerful as the numbers from the Star Trek Tech manual. And that's if the Turbolaser is ratted as 1 joule per second (1 watt) instead of what on screen evidence says of 15 joules per second. The low end is 500 (500,000,000,000,000 Watts) TW for a Turbolaser. The end using one screen time is 4500 Terrawatts (4,500,000,000,000,000 Watts).

The Star Trek tech manual lists the main array for the Galaxy Class Enterprise, one of the most powerful ship configurations in Starfleet, as 1 Gigawatt. 1,000,000,000 Watts. It rates the Shields of the enterprise (off hand I can't remember) at 3500 GW. Even the low end numbers for a Turbolaser overpower the Shields of the enterprise by a huge margin.

How then, if you want to go with Paramount and toss the Tech Manuals out the window (I just put them in a draw in one of my spare desks) and go with on screen evidence, the power of Star Trek shields do jump up. However, you have so many contradictions between some episodes, it's not even funny.

Now, I've looked over DarkStar's webpage (to those of you that hate the sight, I can take it. If I can take babysitting my 4 year old cousin playing teaparty with 10 of her whinny friends over at the same time, I can take that website) and I've considered his evidence, and I also compared it to a few other Star Trek websites (such as DITL.ORG. Unlike most people here, I like the website. I'll get to them in a moment) and I have to say, Darkstar is so full of shit, his eyes just didn't turn brown, they popped out of his head while he was taking a crap through his face.

Now then, moving on to a much better Star Trek website, let's look at DITL.ORG

Ignoring that horrible, horrible FanFic he has there (at least he says he ignored anything not on screen and without solid numbers behind it), I'd have to say the numbers he has up for the various ships are probably accurate. Probably in the same ballpark for accuracy with what the writers intended as Mike is for turbolaser firepower. Noticed I did not say what is on screen, but what is intended. Or what would be intended if the writers paid more attention to backstory. What is on screen actually lines up with Mike's calculations.

Anyway, even using DITL.ORG's numbers, Star Trek STILL loses, if not by as huge a margin. As an example, I loaded up Excel recently and plugged in the shield strength of the Eclipse and its firepower, as well as that of a DITL.ORG Borg Tactical Cube. For the Eclipse, I assumed the same shieldpower:length of a Acclamator Troop transport. (and Eclipse probably has much more powerful shields. I've never seen any numbers for it, but hey, this will do)
Using just the Eclipse's Forward guns, and not the Co-Axial Death Star Style Superlaser, it took a total of 2856 Borg Tactical Cube to take down the Eclipse before it was destroyed. That was with both ships hitting every time with every shot, and the Borg hitting with all possible weapons and regenerating 10% of there shields per second.

The numbers for other ships were around 1 Acclamator : 10 normal cubes 1 Imperial/Imperator Class Star Destroyer : 50 Tactical Cubes

You can not logically argue with numbers.

heck, the best example I can give of what everyone is saying is one from a year ago I did. I just go the Star Wars D20 RPG, and I wanted to run a Star Wars vs Star Trek campaign, before I found out there was a Star Wars vs Star Trek debate on the web.

I decided to treat both sides fairly, and then let things run from there.

So, I took the Lenght, Width, and beam of each class of ship in the Empire, the Romulan, Federation and Klingon fleets, and then some, mulitplied them to get each ships volume as if it was a perfect cube, and decided each 1000 cubic meters (10 meters x 10 meters x 10 meters) gave a ship one hit point. They would have double that number in shields.

I also decided each weapon canon had the same firepower as each other. So a Turbolaser = Phaser = Disruptor, and Photon Torp = Proton Torp = Plasm Torp = Mass Driver. I keep drive speeds at in-universe levels, and ship numbers at in-universe levels (i.e 25000 Star Destroyers, according to ever source under the sun, including several of the novels, and I used the ship numbers from DITL for each ship class. I also used the numbers in my good old FASA 'Ship Guides'.)
Oh, 2 Torpedoe = 2 guns

Guess what...

Star Fleet was STILL over run.

Very quickly.

Why?
They were massively outgunned by a single ship

under my little system, that's ISD guns = Federation guns, it breaks down like this
Galaxy Class Ship: 12 Guns, 3 Torpedo launchers (18 guns).
Imperial Star Destroyer 60 Guns.

Are you getting the numbers now? That's 3 times the weapons on the Imperial Ship then on the Federation ship.

If you want to argue Star Wars vs Star Trek in a manner other then "by the numbers" I suggest you check out another website, or put up a thread like someone did recently "Star Trek vs Star Wars from a philosophical approach".

If you want to argue it by the numbers, I suggest if you don't like the numbers on this site, and can't find numbers that haven't been shot to hell, that you commission a 5 year university study and torture the writers from the TNG:DS9:Voyager era into sitting down together to come up with concreate, mathematically backed numbers for you to us. Oh, and they are not allowed to change plotlines or the size or composition of targets. Just come up with numbers that match the on screen stuff.

Oh, and just cause I want to
POKE

[JodoForce]

Why don't you guys give it a rest until Chas posts a reply, I think he's definitely getting information overload here

[Tribun]

Congrats, Solauren!

That was definatly the best way to show how hopeless a fight would be. I never knew, that even with reduced firepower, the Federation was screwed. But also good explanation of canon-definition in SW and ST. That should have made many things clear. If somebody now thinks, that you were wrong, he must be really stupid.....

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

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.

How funny. When he realizes his asteroid argument doesn't hold water, he claims numbers don't matter. And at the same time, he compares speed. How do you do this? Using numbers!

[2000AD]

"Some scientist"...tee-hee. That always kills me. Incidentally, what do you think Michael IS?

How about Dr. Saxton?

Yep, they're scientists.

Little nitpick, but isn't Mike an engineer and not a scientist?

[Ted C]

Asteroids have been vapourised in Star Trek too! Don't say they haven't! If thats true then the numbers apply to Star Trek too!

If you believe they have, then cite the episode, scale the asteroid, and quantify your estimate of firepower requirements. In other words, build real arguments.

[Master of Ossus]

To be honest, do numbers really mean anything?

Of course they do.

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?

Not precisely, but we can easily estimate it to within an order of magnitude.

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?

Of course we can. Numbers help us to compare such things.

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?

Yes you can. The S-8472 blast was capable of damaging the power installations (or similar explosives) that the Borg had infused the planet with, but was incapable of destroying the planet itself without that assistance. Why wouldn't we be able to compare the firepower demonstrated by S-8472 against other starships, and compare that to the known firepower of Imperial ships to find out which one is more powerful?

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!

Of course you can't. Paramount policy specifically and irrevocably disregards ST books, including ones based on the movies themselves.

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

Nothing. That doesn't give you the authority to throw them out arbitrarily.

[Master of Ossus]

Asteroids have been vapourised in Star Trek too! Don't say they haven't! If thats true then the numbers apply to Star Trek too!

I have never seen an asteroid vaporized in ST. Cite the episode name.

Moreover, "the numbers" do not necessarily "apply to Star Trek too!" In order for them to do so, the asteroids would need to be of similar size and composition as those vaporized in Star Wars, that have been measured and quantified. Moreover, only lower-limits can be generated for things that have already been done. Even if such a thing were true, it would not affect the upper limit for either side in the least. For the Empire, that's well over 200GT per shot. For the UFP, right now the upper limit is around 100MT, with a lower range at less than a kiloton.