Star Wars vs Star Trek

[QUOTE=TW Scott;2453935]The zero-point initiator is powered by the detonation of an uprated photon torpedo warhead with a yield of 21.8 isotons. The m/am reaction occurs at four times the rate of a standard warhead; the detonation energy is channeled through the initiator within 10^-7 seconds and energizes the emitter, which imparts a tension force upon the vacuum domain. As the vacuum membrane expands over a period of 10^-4 seconds, an energy potential equivalent to at least 50 isotons is created. This energy is held by the chamber for 10^-8 seconds and is then released by the controlled failure of the chamber wall.

However if you go by the visuals of all impacts even the most powerful Photon Torpedo was less brilliant than the first atomic test and that was less than 20 kilotons.[/QUOTE]

No, if we went by purly visuals, then torpedoes would show to display massive shockwaves that can cross planets in instances without a massive display of fireballs.

Of course, if we went by purely visuals for Star Wars, their weapons would be on par with modern naval ships.

[QUOTE]Finally iso is a scientific prefix meaning one. So if 200 isotons is the firepower than it is 200 tons and I am DAMN sure you don't want that. I am trying to be nice.[/QUOTE]

Kinda cherrypicking aren't you? Because Star Trek has also use isotons and isograms as a unit of weight. So you oculd just as easily argue 200 isotons of matter/antimatter slush just waiting to detonate.

Of course, using only visuals is rather dishonest and trying to interpret information as literal in order to obtain the lowest result possible is rather dishonest and contradicted by multiple sources.

But that's never stopped you before, has it? Oh, and can't wait for my reply.

[QUOTE=Hellblade8;2454353]No, it isn't. But it's rather apparent that you're just trying to get a rise out of us now. Going to address those arguments Scott? Can't wait to see your replies.





A destroyed ship does not have itself and its serial numbers replaced. The Defiant is a good example of this. The Constitution class Defiant nor does the Defiant prototype share the same registry. Ships that are destroyed and replaced are often considered buried and a new ship is made with a new number. Only with the NX Defiant and the Enterprise series do we get an honor like that, and even then we have a method to distinguish them.[/QUOTE]

Not necessarily - a number of ships have been re-designated to keep a name alive (Excelsior being one of them, as there is now a Galaxy class Excelsior with the same registry), but you are right in that we distinguish them. They normally get a Alphabetical suffix on the name (like, the A-E) - the ONLY known conflict to this is the NX classes, and as they're prototype classes anyway, it makes sense not to worry too much as they aren't in full production :)

[QUOTE=Hellblade8;2454363]No, if we went by purly visuals, then torpedoes would show to display massive shockwaves that can cross planets in instances without a massive display of fireballs.

Of course, if we went by purely visuals for Star Wars, their weapons would be on par with modern naval ships.



Kinda cherrypicking aren't you? Because Star Trek has also use isotons and isograms as a unit of weight. So you oculd just as easily argue 200 isotons of matter/antimatter slush just waiting to detonate.

Of course, using only visuals is rather dishonest and trying to interpret information as literal in order to obtain the lowest result possible is rather dishonest and contradicted by multiple sources.

But that's never stopped you before, has it? Oh, and can't wait for my reply.[/QUOTE]

You won't get a reply mate - he's going to run away again, like usual :shrug:

[QUOTE=Kittamaru;2454370]Not necessarily - a number of ships have been re-designated to keep a name alive (Excelsior being one of them, as there is now a Galaxy class Excelsior with the same registry), but you are right in that we distinguish them. They normally get a Alphabetical suffix on the name (like, the A-E) - the ONLY known conflict to this is the NX classes, and as they're prototype classes anyway, it makes sense not to worry too much as they aren't in full production :)[/QUOTE]

As far as we know, only four were supposed to be built I think and we only saw two completed. Given that the first warp seven ships were about to be built, it's not really surprising that the entire class would have been retired before it was put into full production.

No no, I mean the USS Excelsior of the Excelsior Class - when that was destroyed, a Galaxy class was renamed USS Excelsior-A to keep the namesake alive :)

Or, if you are referring to the NX classes - NX is a prototype Designation, NOT the class the NX-01 (Enterprise) was. Hence why the Defiant and Prometheus have NX designations :)

[QUOTE=Kittamaru;2453946]Ahaha, nice double standard - by your OWN STATEMENTS, that is easily explained - the impacts are much smaller than the first atomic test because it's in a vacuum, not an atmosphere. You yourself have used this to defend your turbolaser blasts... make up your mind.[/quote]

However I am INCLUDING visuuals of Photons striking a planet or asteroid. There are many incidences of full strength torpedo strikes on a planet that would be considered sub twenty kilotons. We see torpedoes crash through bulkheads rather than explode and take out the vessel in question.

As for Turbolaser we have NEVER seen a heavy Turbolaser used on a target that wasn't shielded and heavily armored. Also case in point for the Turbolaser, it would be like a shaped charge, not a wide area explosion.

[quote]And you can't simply make the assumption that "iso" in Trek means "iso" IRL - after all, if we did the same thing for, say, Star Wars hyperspace index, that would mean your BEST ship only manages 1/2 the speed of light... not very helpful... and you say you're being nice.[/QUOTE]

You would be correct IF they never explained in Star Wars what the hyperspace index means. Plus also the correct quote is:
[QUOTE=Han Solo]"She'll make it point 5 past light. Is that fast enough for you?" [/QUOTE]
Notice he didn't say 1.5 times the speed of light, or anything like that. We also get the point that the ship is traveling very, very fast from the fact that it makes it to another star system in a short amount of time.

So sisnce they NEVER correct the meaning or terminology in Star Trek and even go so far as to use it as a measurement of weight one would suppose they were using the scinetific terminology. So yes I am being nice.

[QUOTE=TW Scott;2455797]However I am INCLUDING visuuals of Photons striking a planet or asteroid. There are many incidences of full strength torpedo strikes on a planet that would be considered sub twenty kilotons. We see torpedoes crash through bulkheads rather than explode and take out the vessel in question.

[COLOR="Red"]Have you ever considered:

A) Variable Yields
B) The desire to disable rather than outright destroy
C) Orbital views that show the planet in full on screen resulting in small appearance for explosions on the surface
D) The desire to NOT cause massive collateral damage on the surface[/COLOR]

As for Turbolaser we have NEVER seen a heavy Turbolaser used on a target that wasn't shielded and heavily armored. Also case in point for the Turbolaser, it would be like a shaped charge, not a wide area explosion.

[COLOR="Red"]Oh, like General Grievous's ship when it's shields were disabled? How the turbolaser blasts (the 1% that actually hit a mostly disabled capital ship, lawl) caused what appeared to be mostly flashes like what you would see in the flash pan of a flintlock rifle... not exactly impressive[/COLOR]

You would be correct IF they never explained in Star Wars what the hyperspace index means. Plus also the correct quote is:

[random quote here]

Notice he didn't say 1.5 times the speed of light, or anything like that. We also get the point that the ship is traveling very, very fast from the fact that it makes it to another star system in a short amount of time.

[COLOR="Red"]Whoop dee doo - as they ALSO never give an accurate measure of DISTANCE, we could easily assume the star systems were very close together, not that the drive was very fast. And .5 past light speed implies, to the average, intelligent, normal person, that the ship could do 1.5x light speed... which is .5 past 1c, and last I checked, .5x + 1x (or in this case, .5c + 1c) = 1.5x (or 1.5c). Thus, your Millennium Falcon goes 1.5 times the speed of light... not exactly impressive.[/COLOR]

So sisnce they NEVER correct the meaning or terminology in Star Trek and even go so far as to use it as a measurement of weight one would suppose they were using the scinetific terminology. So yes I am being nice.[/QUOTE]

What is scinetific terminology? Do you mean Scientific? And perhaps they DO mean weight, at which point you have 200 isotonnes of matter and anti-matter combining instantaneously to form one HELL of an explosion... so either way you are fubar.

However I am INCLUDING visuals of Photons striking a planet or asteroid. There are many incidences of full strength torpedo strikes on a planet that would be considered sub twenty kilotons. We see torpedoes crash through bulkheads rather than explode and take out the vessel in question.

[COLOR="Red"]Have you ever considered:

A) Variable Yields
B) The desire to disable rather than outright destroy
C) Orbital views that show the planet in full on screen resulting in small appearance for explosions on the surface
D) The desire to NOT cause massive collateral damage on the surface[/COLOR]


A) Yes and discounted as it would require removal of warhead material.
B) Yes and discounted as in most cases of the visuals they were going for all out destruction.
C) Yes and compensated. If the test of the atomic bomb shed a certain amoint light, then a Photon Torpedoe should have as muc if it was more powerful.
D) Yes and discounted as in any case youu want to minimize surface damage should use more precise methods, not explosives.

As for Turbolaser we have NEVER seen a heavy Turbolaser used on a target that wasn't shielded and heavily armored. Also case in point for the Turbolaser, it would be like a shaped charge, not a wide area explosion.

[COLOR="Red"]Oh, like General Grievous's ship when it's shields were disabled? How the turbolaser blasts (the 1% that actually hit a mostly disabled capital ship, lawl) caused what appeared to be mostly flashes like what you would see in the flash pan of a flintlock rifle... not exactly impressive[/COLOR]

Ah excuse me, you not referring to the ship that was heavily armored and did seem to have some shields in areas that were not the Hangar bay. As for the rest of your comment it is just drivel.


You would be correct IF they never explained in Star Wars what the hyperspace index means. Plus also the correct quote is:

Notice he didn't say 1.5 times the speed of light, or anything like that. We also get the point that the ship is traveling very, very fast from the fact that it makes it to another star system in a short amount of time.


[COLOR="red"]Whoop dee doo - as they ALSO never give an accurate measure of DISTANCE, we could easily assume the star systems were very close together, not that the drive was very fast. And .5 past light speed implies, to the average, intelligent, normal person, that the ship could do 1.5x light speed... which is .5 past 1c, and last I checked, .5x + 1x (or in this case, .5c + 1c) = 1.5x (or 1.5c). Thus, your Millennium Falcon goes 1.5 times the speed of light... not exactly impressive.[/COLOR]

Excuse me yet again, but it was explained in EU just like Warp was explained by observing the show instead of outright explanation. As for a reasonably intelliegent person thinking another starsystem could be minutes away at 1.5 light, you're kidding right? Earth is eight nminutes for the sun at lightspeed. Stars would be packed so tight no plaent would ever have nightfall again.

Truth of the matter is Star Trek did a piss poor explanation and did Star Wars, however Star Wars fully explained it in EU and Star Trek has barely explained any thing.


So since they NEVER correct the meaning or terminology in Star Trek and even go so far as to use it as a measurement of weight one would suppose they were using the scientific terminology. So yes I am being nice. ”

[QUOTE] And perhaps they DO mean weight, at which point you have 200 isotonnes of matter and anti-matter combining instantaneously to form one HELL of an explosion... so either way you are fubar.[/QUOTE]

Small problem with the 200 isoton weight, in that Sisko can pick up one with only some effort. So unless he's suddenly Kryptonian, the only FUBAR is Star Trek universe.

And Iso is a common prefix meaning one. it is used in words such as Isoliner and Isolation. In the word usage here iit pretty much is saying one ton.

[QUOTE=TW Scott;2456586]However I am INCLUDING visuals of Photons striking a planet or asteroid. There are many incidences of full strength torpedo strikes on a planet that would be considered sub twenty kilotons. We see torpedoes crash through bulkheads rather than explode and take out the vessel in question.

[COLOR="Red"]Have you ever considered:

A) Variable Yields
B) The desire to disable rather than outright destroy
C) Orbital views that show the planet in full on screen resulting in small appearance for explosions on the surface
D) The desire to NOT cause massive collateral damage on the surface[/COLOR]


A) Yes and discounted as it would require removal of warhead material.
B) Yes and discounted as in most cases of the visuals they were going for all out destruction.
C) Yes and compensated. If the test of the atomic bomb shed a certain amoint light, then a Photon Torpedoe should have as muc if it was more powerful.
D) Yes and discounted as in any case youu want to minimize surface damage should use more precise methods, not explosives.

[COLOR="Red"]
A) No it wouldn't - the torpedoes are charged from the main antimatter stores before launching... thought that was common knowledge.
B) But not always :) And plus, we know the effects would be lessened by Shields/SIF's/Warp Fields
C) No, because it could turn more of it's power into destruction, instead of light. That's like saying a 200 pound satchel charge is less powerful than a 200 pound bomb just because there's less collateral damage.
D) As before, not at all - shaped charges, directed explosives, etc... you've never heard of em?[/COLOR]

As for Turbolaser we have NEVER seen a heavy Turbolaser used on a target that wasn't shielded and heavily armored. Also case in point for the Turbolaser, it would be like a shaped charge, not a wide area explosion.

[COLOR="Red"]Oh, like General Grievous's ship when it's shields were disabled? How the turbolaser blasts (the 1% that actually hit a mostly disabled capital ship, lawl) caused what appeared to be mostly flashes like what you would see in the flash pan of a flintlock rifle... not exactly impressive[/COLOR]

Ah excuse me, you not referring to the ship that was heavily armored and did seem to have some shields in areas that were not the Hangar bay. As for the rest of your comment it is just drivel.

[COLOR="Red"]Indeed? I would post a video to show just how wrong you are, except all the youtube videos of the attack on the Malevolence I can find have been removed due to copyright infringement... lucky for you.[/COLOR]


You would be correct IF they never explained in Star Wars what the hyperspace index means. Plus also the correct quote is:

Notice he didn't say 1.5 times the speed of light, or anything like that. We also get the point that the ship is traveling very, very fast from the fact that it makes it to another star system in a short amount of time.


[COLOR="red"]Whoop dee doo - as they ALSO never give an accurate measure of DISTANCE, we could easily assume the star systems were very close together, not that the drive was very fast. And .5 past light speed implies, to the average, intelligent, normal person, that the ship could do 1.5x light speed... which is .5 past 1c, and last I checked, .5x + 1x (or in this case, .5c + 1c) = 1.5x (or 1.5c). Thus, your Millennium Falcon goes 1.5 times the speed of light... not exactly impressive.[/COLOR]

Excuse me yet again, but it was explained in EU just like Warp was explained by observing the show instead of outright explanation. As for a reasonably intelliegent person thinking another starsystem could be minutes away at 1.5 light, you're kidding right? Earth is eight nminutes for the sun at lightspeed. Stars would be packed so tight no plaent would ever have nightfall again.

Truth of the matter is Star Trek did a piss poor explanation and did Star Wars, however Star Wars fully explained it in EU and Star Trek has barely explained any thing.

[COLOR="Red"]However, because EU is sub-sub-sub cannon, and conflicts itself MULTIPLE times, and the final word is the Movies, which state simply .5 past light speed, the EU is overruled, and thus, you are screwed.[/COLOR]


So since they NEVER correct the meaning or terminology in Star Trek and even go so far as to use it as a measurement of weight one would suppose they were using the scientific terminology. So yes I am being nice. ”



Small problem with the 200 isoton weight, in that Sisko can pick up one with only some effort. So unless he's suddenly Kryptonian, the only FUBAR is Star Trek universe.

And Iso is a common prefix meaning one. it is used in words such as Isoliner and Isolation. In the word usage here iit pretty much is saying one ton.[/QUOTE]

Which means saying 200 IsoTonnes obviously makes no sense, thus we should probably look for a more reasonable explanation. Such as the following:

In Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual a figure of 1,5kg of antimatter is given as the maximum warhead material of a photon torpedo. (pg. 129) Using standard physics calculations a direct 1:1 explosion would equal to about 64 megatons. Warhead materials are however premixed to achieves the level of destructive force of an antimatter pod rupture containing 100 cubic meters of antideuterium. (pg. 69) Antimatter is stored as liquid or slush on starships. (pg. 68) Density of mere liquid antideuterium is around 160 kg per cubic meter. According to this comparison the high annihilation rate energy release would be comparable to about 690 gigatons. Furthermore it is not clear if the 1,5 kg should be compared to the 200 isoton figure given on-screen, or the 25 isoton figure given in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual.

Finally, it doesn't matter, as it is stated IN CANNON:

* A photon torpedo explosion of 25 isotons could destroy an entire city within seconds. (VOY: "Living Witness")

* A 54 isoton yield gravimetric charge could blow up a small planet. (VOY: "The Omega Directive")

* An 80 isoton yield gravimetric torpedo was used by USS Voyager to destroy a harmonic resonance chamber containing approximately 144 million omega molecules (72% of approximately 200 million) in 2374. (VOY: "The Omega Directive")

* A bomb with 90 isotons of enriched ultritium had the explosion radius of 800 kilometers. Such a bomb was used to blow up a ketracel-white facility in Cardassian space in 2374. (DS9: "A Time to Stand")

* 200 isotons was the explosive yield of a photon torpedo with a class-6 warhead. (VOY: "Scorpion, Part II")

* A 5 million isoton explosion of a multi-kinetic neutronic mine could affect an entire star system. The shock wave had a dispersive force radius of 5 light years. (VOY: "Scorpion, Part II")

* A Malon export vessel, eleventh gradient could transport 90 million isotons of antimatter waste. (VOY: "Night")

* In the year 2375, the Malon civilization produced 6 billion isotons of antimatter waste as an industrial byproduct daily. (VOY: "Night")

* Another type of Malon export vessel could transport 4 trillion isotons of antimatter waste. (VOY: "Juggernaut")

So, we see that obviously, Isoton is NOT being used as the RL example (which, btw, is not even a fucking WORD you idiot)

Finally:

200 (iso)tons of antimatter = 1.8 X 10^22 joules = 4.5 teratons of TNT.

So, fine, it is a measure of weight, and thus, our torpedoes are incredibly densely packed with explosive.

NCC Numbers.

[QUOTE] Post by [B]me[/B] in Halo vs Star Trek.

I could really go on all day. The entire argument for this silly idea is basically "the numbers go higher".

USS Galaxy's RN was NCC-70637.
Enterprise-D's RN was NCC-1701-D. It's obviously a special status, since it's obviously continuing the Enterprise lineage. It was commissioned in 2363.
USS Phoenix's RN was NCC-65420 and commissioned in 2363. It was a Nebula-class.
USS Sutherland's RN was NCC-72015.

The problem arises when you consider the issues in the context of how many ships the UFP supposedly built up to the 2370s if the sequential NCC idea is accurate. The NCC numbers only went up in the TNG era to the ~75,000 mark. What, prior to the TNG era they were building jack all starships and then all of a sudden it shoots up so the built almost 10% worth of every ship they built in history up to that point in the space of only four years?

Given what we saw in the Dominion War, I find 60,000 combat ships highly dubious. Looking over this it'd mean the Federation lost about 50,00 ships in a few years of war - the combined Dominion/Cardassian and Breen fleet was (IIRC 2375) 30,000 ships, and the Klingons/Romulans/UFP would have to be at least close to that number to stand a chance (making allowances for the fact that the majority of Dominion/Cardassian/Breen ships are individually smaller and weaker).

Same with USS Phoenix and USS Sutherland - 6,595 ships built in between 2363 and 2367? What's that, close to 9% of every ship built in Starfleet history? In four years? Its simply rubbish.

You're assuming they work a certain way, and that assumption is completely baseless. There's no reason to assume they mean anything at all. The fact that they merely go up proves zero.

Let us take, for example, the USS Thunderchild, NCC-63549:-

You think it means it's the 63,549th ship built since the beginning of when the Federation built starships.

It could easily mean the following:-

63rd production run (or whatever)
5th variant
49th vessel

Or it could mean completely nothing at all. The possibilities are myriad.

Your arugment that each number is a distinct ship simply falls apart on examination.

Let's take the USS Voyager, NCC-74656. It was launched in 2371.

The USS Defiant, NCC-75633 (ex-Sao Paulo), was launched in 2376.

You're telling me, in the space of 5 years, Starfleet built 977 starships? When we know that it would've taken almost a year for Starfleet to recover from the loss of 39 ships at Wolf 359? What, their shipyard capacity went up by 10 times?

Or let's take a look at the USS Stargazer, NCC-2893. You know what the registry number of the USS Constellation was, i.e. the first of class? NCC-7100.

How about another one?

The USS Phoenix was commissioned in 2363. Its registry number is NCC-65420

USS Galaxy - the first of class - has the number NCC-70637. When was Enteprise-D - not the first of class - commissioned? 2363.

Do you see the problem? There is a difference of 5,217 between USS Phoenix and USS Galaxy. What, in between when USS Galaxy was commissioned and USS Phoenix was commissioned, a differnece that can be no more than one or three years at most, they built 5,000 ships?

Or USS Voyager (2371) and USS Phoenix (2363) also points out how absurd it is - in a space of eight years, they built almost 10,000 ships?

Your idea that the numbers are exactly sequential is hugely problematic.

So, 1,500 Klingon ships (the ships that can resist the Breen weapon) are outnumbered 20-to-1 against the combined fleet of the Dominion, Breen and Cardassians - i.e. 30,000 ships.

So basically, you are claiming that the UFP alone outnumbers the fleet of all three of the enemy powers. Even though we know from DS9 - The Pale Moonlight that the UFP needed the Romulans to join them with the Klingons just to be able to go on the offensive against just the Dominion and the Cardassians.

When It Rains occurs in 2375, Stardate unknown. The middle of the Dominion War.

The Breen have entered the war on the side of the Dominion and Cardassians, and the Klingons have by accident discovered a modification to their ships to prevent the Breen energy dampening weapon from being effective on them.

We learn two things from this episode.

First, we learn that at the Second Battle of Chin'toka, where the Klingon/Federation/Romulan fleet was soundly crushed, with only one ship surviving - that the combined strength of the allied fleet was 312 ships.

Interestingly, this indicates an average fleet size for each member of the alliance as around ~100 ships, which is in line with the strength of the ill-fated seventh fleet, which had a strength of 112 ships.

The more relevant aspect though is this exchange:-


“ ROSS
Well, Gentlemen, it would seem
that the Klingon fleet is the
only thing standing between us
and the Dominion.

ROMULAN
(under his breath)
What have we come to... ?

Martok shoots him a look

MARTOK
By tomorrow, we'll have eleven
hundred Klingon vessels ready for
deployment.

ROMULAN
(dismissive)
With the Breen, the Cardassians
and the Jem'Hadar you're still
outnumbered twenty-to-one.

MARTOK
(sharp)
I'm aware of that, general. ”

Note this is the script, in the episode he says 1,500, but it doesn't matter to the point.

Obviously, the conclusion to draw is that in 2375, the combined Dominion/Cardassian/Breen fleet is roughly 30,000 ships, and for the sake of simplicity, 10,000 ships each, though we have no idea whether say the Dominion and Cardassians greatly outnumber the Breen. Whatever, it doesn't matter.

Obviously, the combined UFP/Klingon/Romulan fleet must be within this vicinity, and in terms of absolute numbers, likely has less. This is an obvious conclusion when one realises that the majority of the Dominion fleet are sub-200m 'fighters' that are no match, one for one, against the larger warships of the AQ powers, the UFP and Romulans especially. The Cardassian Galor / Keldon class warships aren't terribly impressive size / capability wise either. This is borne out by the battle in Sacrifice of Angels, where it was deemed viable to send ~600 Federation ships against a Dominion/Cardassian fleet of ~1,200.

So, basically to believe a 60,000 strong fleet, you expect people to believe that the UFP started the war with more ships than three other major powers?

Another example of why sequential NCC-numbers is bullshit - USS Valiant and USS Defiant. Defiant is NX-74205, Valiant is NCC-74210. A difference of only 5. And yet Valiant was launched in 2372, a full two years prior to Defiant (2370). It speaks for itself.

For another example, USS Phoenix and USS Enterprise-D were both commissioned the same year, 2363. USS Galaxy couldn't have been commissioned after Enterprise-D, it's the first of class, and certainly not enough to justify the difference of 5,217 between the NCC number of Phoenix and Galaxy- so what, we're supposed to believe 5,000 ships were built that year? All for a stupid idea for which there's no explicit evidence in the first place?


“ DAX
And risk war with the Romulans?
No, thank you. We're losing
enough good people as it is. The
last thing we need is a war on two
fronts.
BASHIR
What we need is to bring the
Romulans into the war on our side.
With the combined forces of the
Federation, the Klingons and the
Romulans we could finally go on the
offensive. ”

Conclusion: the Klingons and UFP alone are incapable of going on an offensive against just the Dominion and Cardassians. The Breen had not yet joined the war.

And there's this:-


“ FEMALE SHAPE-SHIFTER
We will establish a new defense
perimeter along this line. With
less territory to defend, we can
concentrate our forces and hold
off any attack -- if the enemy
attacks at all.

WEYOUN
(catching on)
The Federation is by its very
nature timid. When they see we've
pulled back, their first impulse
will be to leave us alone.

BROCA
What about the Klingons and the
Romulans?

Everyone turns and looks at him -- the most junior
man in the room should keep his mouth shut at this
point. He tries to backtrack.

BROCA
I meant no disrespect... I was
simply asking --

WEYOUN
Without the Federation, the
others are no threat to us. ”

Conclusion: the Klingons and Romulans alone are no threat to the Dominion, Cardassians and Breen without the UFP, in the Dominion's opinion.

----

In other words, in order for the claim of 60,000 ships to be true, we must assume that:-

* At the start of the war the UFP had an overwhelming numerical advantage over the Dominion and Cardassians which was completely lost, i.e. the UFP lost around ~50,000 ships in between 2373 and 2375.

Clearly, this is nonsense. Its not borne out by any evidence in the show - it'd require the catastrophic loss of dozens fleets worth of ships, over and over again.[/QUOTE]

I will also go into firepower and warp speed later.

Edit: [QUOTE]SBC PoW in Halo vs Star Trek

Ok, first off I would like to apologize for what previous user of this account, my little brother, who has been using my computer without me knowing and also using my user name form SpaceBattles.com here at this site.

This is the thread that made me aware of what has been up to from SBC:

[url]http://forums.spacebattles.com/showt...76#post4537976[/url]

The thread was made by a memeber of SciForums.

Now given that my little brother has been copying the posts of SBer's I'll be giving the Seber's due credit since my brother has been trying to past it off as his own.

*Snip*

Thread: Was a recent SW vs ST thread at SBC (Forget name, was 50 pages). SBer: Leo 1. He is the one who refuted the NCC numbers and gave the planet hopping quotes.

I believe that takes care of it all. And I once again apologize for what my little brother has done here.[/QUOTE]

This was taken from a thread in another forum trying to determine the true nature of Isoton.

If we interpret isoton as referring to quantity of antimatter, the 25 isoton torpedo would have a yield of 562.5 gigatons.

The 200 isoton class six warhead would be, as I said, 4.5 teratons.

The 5 million isoton mines in Scorpion would be 112,500 teratons, or about a thousand times more powerful than the explosion that killed off the dinosaurs. Of course, they're technobabble.

This is just looking at this page.

Edit: this is assuming the unit is measured as an explosive containing equal amounts of matter and antimatter. If it's just antimatter, double all the figures.

[QUOTE=Kittamaru;2456769]This was taken from a thread in another forum trying to determine the true nature of Isoton.[/QUOTE]

There is literally no need. In any Sci-fi atmosphere if a term is not explained one breaks it down by it root parts. Since Isoton was never expalined and seems to refer to both firepower and measurement of weight.

[QUOTE]If we interpret isoton as referring to quantity of antimatter, the 25 isoton torpedo would have a yield of 562.5 gigatons.

The 200 isoton class six warhead would be, as I said, 4.5 teratons.

The 5 million isoton mines in Scorpion would be 112,500 teratons, or about a thousand times more powerful than the explosion that killed off the dinosaurs. Of course, they're technobabble.[/QUOTE]

Of course therein lies the problem. Star Trek does not possess a powersource more efficent than Antimatter/Matter reactors. Thus the desired devices would be more than 50, 400, and 10 million ton devices. Which we all know is patently ridiculous.

No, if we go scientific method a torpedo is the equivalient of 25 to 500 tons of TNT. Not a figure to be laughed at as I will give you video reference.


[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1a0v-9eNHS0"]429 tons[/URL]

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15UwvcMt8NM"]100tons[/URL]

And yet you insist on posting bullshit figures that put our weapons around the same as a few hundred tons of TNT, when they are capable of fully stripping an atmosphere from a planet or turning it's crust to molten slag in minutes... obviously far beyond a few megatons of tnt...

Also, Prophet of Wisdom, I met your older bro today... nice chap... seems to have a bit of a beef with you though... *grins devilishly* seems you've pissed him off by taking over his computer without his permission :)

[QUOTE=Kittamaru;2456916]And yet you insist on posting bullshit figures that put our weapons around the same as a few hundred tons of TNT, when they are capable of fully stripping an atmosphere from a planet or turning it's crust to molten slag in minutes... obviously far beyond a few megatons of tnt... [/quote]

Actually, the slagging of the panet surface we did not see. In "The Die is Cast" the visuals did not support the dialog. and Rules #1 is that the visuals always win over dialog.

As for the burning off of an atmosphere, the Bird of Prey had ignited an already unstable and volatile atmosphere. Much like shooting a flare into a Methane cloud.

Leave it to you to take two extreme upper end examples of weapons used in extraordinary cases and assume that is the lower end of the weapons.


BTW thank you Prophet of Wisdom for a very accurate post.

[QUOTE=TW Scott;2456940]Actually, the slagging of the panet surface we did not see. In "The Die is Cast" the visuals did not support the dialog. and Rules #1 is that the visuals always win over dialog.

As for the burning off of an atmosphere, the Bird of Prey had ignited an already unstable and volatile atmosphere. Much like shooting a flare into a Methane cloud.

Leave it to you to take two extreme upper end examples of weapons used in extraordinary cases and assume that is the lower end of the weapons.


BTW thank you Prophet of Wisdom for a very accurate post.[/QUOTE]

Wrong and wrong:

it is stated by a high ranking officer that the Defiant has the capability to slag a planet on it's own in under half an hour. As there is NOTHING (no evidence what so fucking ever) to counter this, then the burden is up to YOU to disprove.

It is also stated that the Enterprise A could, readily and easily, burn away the atmosphere of a Class M (READ - EARTH TYPE) Planet with a single phaser blast by IGNITING the atmosphere and turning it into a high-energy plasma.

In other words, you lose.

[QUOTE=Kittamaru;2457387]Wrong and wrong:

it is stated by a high ranking officer that the Defiant has the capability to slag a planet on it's own in under half an hour. As there is NOTHING (no evidence what so fucking ever) to counter this, then the burden is up to YOU to disprove.

It is also stated that the Enterprise A could, readily and easily, burn away the atmosphere of a Class M (READ - EARTH TYPE) Planet with a single phaser blast by IGNITING the atmosphere and turning it into a high-energy plasma.

In other words, you lose.[/QUOTE]

I believe these are called BLUFFS. Untill they are backed by visuals then it just isn;t so. In fact we have seen visuals that support the reverse. MANY powerful warships were firing on a single planet in the "The Die is cast." They did not ignite the atmosphere or incinerate the crust. In fact the suface is only levelled.

you have to prove they can be done, and only viduals will do that.

[QUOTE=TW Scott;2457451]I believe these are called BLUFFS. Untill they are backed by visuals then it just isn;t so. In fact we have seen visuals that support the reverse. MANY powerful warships were firing on a single planet in the "The Die is cast." They did not ignite the atmosphere or incinerate the crust. In fact the suface is only levelled.

you have to prove they can be done, and only viduals will do that.[/QUOTE]

Uhm, sorry, but this is Star Trek, not Star Wars - OUR officers don't bluff their OWN CREW when doing so puts them in a position to DIE PAINFULLY with NO MEANS of escape. Unlike your untrained morons, our crews are actually important.

As for The Die is Cast, a simple explanation - they didn't WANT to slag the planet, just remove the civilization from it. More than likely, they had wanted to capture the raw materials and such... after all, we don't randomly blow up planets we don't like, we capture them and turn them for our own use.

[QUOTE=Kittamaru;2457469]Uhm, sorry, but this is Star Trek, not Star Wars - OUR officers don't bluff their OWN CREW when doing so puts them in a position to DIE PAINFULLY with NO MEANS of escape. Unlike your untrained morons, our crews are actually important.[/quote]

Hye, sometime you exaggerate to your crew. Sometimes people smack talk. Unless we got technical data or visuals to back it up, it's just smack talk, nothing more.



[quote]As for The Die is Cast, a simple explanation - they didn't WANT to slag the planet, just remove the civilization from it. More than likely, they had wanted to capture the raw materials and such... after all, we don't randomly blow up planets we don't like, we capture them and turn them for our own use.[/QUOTE]

The Romulan and Cardassian had said their intent was to destroy all the Founders. To decimate their world and leave it an unsalvagable ruin. Which would imply a nice atmosphere burn off would be best as uit would be easiest and maximize effectiveness

[QUOTE=TW Scott;2458186]Hye, sometime you exaggerate to your crew. Sometimes people smack talk. Unless we got technical data or visuals to back it up, it's just smack talk, nothing more.

[COLOR="Red"]Then I guess the force is as impotent as a limp [I]schize[/I] as we never see it, in the movies, do anything more impressive than lifting a few objects and mind-fucking weak-minded clones. Oh yeah, and choking a person. Whoop de doo, I can do that without the force. It's call mustard gas, tractor beams, and crotical stimulators.[/COLOR]



The Romulan and Cardassian had said their intent was to destroy all the Founders. To decimate their world and leave it an unsalvagable ruin. Which would imply a nice atmosphere burn off would be best as uit would be easiest and maximize effectiveness[/QUOTE]

Did you ever stop to think that maybe a "simple atmospheric burn off" wouldn't have been enough? Hell, maybe disruptor based weapons (what the Rommies and cardassians use) arent' capable of atmospheric burn. Would make sense - the nadion particles of a Phaser beam are rather exotic. *shrugs* Who knows, but you're digging on a single plot hole to try to explain away the weapons power of EVERY major power in the entirety of Star Trek - sorry, that simply doesn't work. Every race had unique weapons and technology, unlike in Star Wars where everyone used the same damned thing just with a different color!

Hey, sometime you exaggerate to your crew. Sometimes people smack talk. Unless we got technical data or visuals to back it up, it's just smack talk, nothing more.

[COLOR="Red"]Then I guess the force is as impotent as a limp schize as we never see it, in the movies, do anything more impressive than lifting a few objects and mind-fucking weak-minded clones. Oh yeah, and choking a person. Whoop de doo, I can do that without the force. It's call mustard gas, tractor beams, and crotical stimulators.[/COLOR]

Small problem. Since for Star Wars EU is canon we know the Force can do a a great many more things.

BTW things the force can do as seen in the movies:
*Telekinesesi with no real weaight limit.
*Telepathy with no distance limit
*Clairvoyance with no distance limit
*Hypnosis (BTW Storm Trooper circa A New Hope and beyond are not clones)
*Audio Illusion
*Precognition
*Increase physical speed and other abilities
*Improve skills


The Romulan and Cardassian had said their intent was to destroy all the Founders. To decimate their world and leave it an unsalvagable ruin. Which would imply a nice atmosphere burn off would be best as uit would be easiest and maximize effectiveness ”

[COLOR="red"]Did you ever stop to think that maybe a "simple atmospheric burn off" wouldn't have been enough? Hell, maybe disruptor based weapons (what the Rommies and cardassians use) arent' capable of atmospheric burn. Would make sense - the nadion particles of a Phaser beam are rather exotic. *shrugs* Who knows, but you're digging on a single plot hole to try to explain away the weapons power of EVERY major power in the entirety of Star Trek - sorry, that simply doesn't work. Every race had unique weapons and technology, unlike in Star Wars where everyone used the same damned thing just with a different color![/COLOR]

Well, since it was a Kling on Bird of Prey that ignited and atmosphere in TNG with distrupter fire (albeit on a very volatile atmosphere), your argument is moot. Besides all races have phaser coils as well, it's kind of a universal ship weapon.

Basically untill we see it done in ST we can't know it is smack talk or not. Especially since all previous image conflict directly with what the officers were saying.

Besides Star Wars is much more realistic. A galatic culture would share technologies if they were under a single governement. After all even the Federation would abandon the Photon and Quantum torpedo if it had a better option.

as for different races having different tech, that is true for SW on a smaller scale. Wookies have Bowcasters, Mandolorians have battle armor, Verpines have their own special weaponry...