View Poll Results: Which universe would win?

Voters
670. This poll is closed
  • Star Trek

    227 33.88%
  • Star Wars

    285 42.54%
  • Spaceballs

    51 7.61%
  • Farscape

    14 2.09%
  • Dune

    54 8.06%
  • Stargate

    39 5.82%

Thread: Star Wars vs Star Trek

  1. #21141
    Penguinaciously duckalicious. Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Posts
    15,966
    Er, Jean Grey. She's female.
    And yeah. She destroyed the entire universe once. And then put it back together.

  2. #21142
    Aus der Dunkelheit Omega133's Avatar
    Posts
    6,281
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Er, Jean Grey. She's female.
    And yeah. She destroyed the entire universe once. And then put it back together.
    I know she's a female, I just forgot how to spell the name.

  3. #21143
    Bleed White and Blue! Shogun's Avatar
    Posts
    7,635
    Ricrery is back, but I still have him on ignore, so I have no idea what the hell he is saying.

  4. #21144
    Quote Originally Posted by Shogun View Post
    Ricrery is back, but I still have him on ignore, so I have no idea what the hell he is saying.
    Aw, a 13 year old who thought Starcraft could beat Warhammer 40,000 is blocking me Good riddance.
    Last edited by ricrery; 08-04-10 at 09:51 PM.

  5. #21145
    Purveyor of Truth and Fact Kittamaru's Avatar
    Posts
    7,352
    Uhm... Jean Grey didn't destroy universes IIRC - it was the Phoenix Entity within her (at least, I think that's how the comics depict it)

    EDIT - he's back... and not even one day into it and he's already insulted someone... wow...

  6. #21146
    Quote Originally Posted by Kittamaru View Post
    EDIT - he's back... and not even one day into it and he's already insulted someone... wow...
    BTW, I was NEVER banned for attacking the Mods, but members like you. Unfortunately, I'm going to see 31st century Fed wank, Borg wank (against 40k), and SW hate. This ought to suck.

  7. #21147
    Ric, if it sucks so much, why do you even stick around? Seriously, what's the point?


    I'm hoping to get something of substance up on Sunday, depending on when I get back from camp. Ric, if you can find it within yourself to debate honestly, without insults or harrassment or anything vitriolic or hostile, just honest, civil discussion and debate, I will respond to you, but only if you cannot behave with civility and basic courtesy/respect to your fellow posters. By resorting to such tactics, you automatically default on your position because if you feel the need to use them, that speaks to an underlying weakness in your own argument is tantamount to an admission that you cannot support it without trying to brow-beat everyone into agreeing with you. There is no excuse for such childish and immature behavior and I have no desire to slog through it.

    That also applies to everyone else, not just ricrery.

  8. #21148
    Valued Senior Member Hellblade8's Avatar
    Posts
    1,099
    Quote Originally Posted by ricrery View Post
    Aw, a 13 year old who thought Starcraft could beat Warhammer 40,000 is blocking me Good riddance.
    I envy him.

    Reading your trolling posts, as amusing as they are, does reduce my faith in humanity to have produced such a bitter 16 year old.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ilithi_Dragon View Post
    Ric, if it sucks so much, why do you even stick around? Seriously, what's the point?


    I'm hoping to get something of substance up on Sunday, depending on when I get back from camp. Ric, if you can find it within yourself to debate honestly, without insults or harrassment or anything vitriolic or hostile, just honest, civil discussion and debate, I will respond to you, but only if you cannot behave with civility and basic courtesy/respect to your fellow posters. By resorting to such tactics, you automatically default on your position because if you feel the need to use them, that speaks to an underlying weakness in your own argument is tantamount to an admission that you cannot support it without trying to brow-beat everyone into agreeing with you. There is no excuse for such childish and immature behavior and I have no desire to slog through it.

    That also applies to everyone else, not just ricrery.
    He can't. That's his problem; this isn't about the debate, it's about his ego. Now, we all let our ego get in the way of our debates sometime, for better or for worse, but for ricrery, it's all about mending that broken ego he has in the real world. He thinks that because he gets bullied in real life, that means it's fine to do the same to other people on the net.

    I bet he still thinks 'nerd' is a dirty word.

    He's just here to make himself feel like a winner by grasping onto the biggest E-Wang he can find and screaming about how amazing he is and how we're all a bunch of liars, dishonest crooks, and so forth.

  9. #21149
    Quote Originally Posted by Kittamaru View Post
    Uhm... Jean Grey didn't destroy universes IIRC - it was the Phoenix Entity within her (at least, I think that's how the comics depict it)

    EDIT - he's back... and not even one day into it and he's already insulted someone... wow...
    I see there is always a replacement for TWSCOTT.

  10. #21150
    Penguinaciously duckalicious. Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Posts
    15,966
    Quote Originally Posted by Kittamaru View Post
    Uhm... Jean Grey didn't destroy universes IIRC - it was the Phoenix Entity within her (at least, I think that's how the comics depict it)
    Strictly speaking that's sort of true. But at the time no-one knew there was any difference.
    Claremont's original idea was to have Jean become that powerful, and the "split" between Phoenix and Grey was a later, retroactive, thing.
    I.e. when written Jean Grey/ Marvel Girl was the one that did it.

    @Hellblade:
    I bet he still thinks 'nerd' is a dirty word.

    Nice!

  11. #21151
    Quote Originally Posted by Ilithi_Dragon View Post
    Ric, if it sucks so much, why do you even stick around? Seriously, what's the point?
    Because of dishonest, awful debaters like Mith. He says that the fucking instance in Nemesis where they were going at 40 meters each second was actually a large fraction of c.

  12. #21152
    Quote Originally Posted by ricrery View Post
    Because of dishonest, awful debaters like Mith. He says that the fucking instance in Nemesis where they were going at 40 meters each second was actually a large fraction of c.
    Well, he does have a point about Nemesis being an oddity. We see Trek ships endure much higher energy levels without shields on many other occasions, and even the Scimitar's lack of shield response when we have seen numerous previous impacts generate a visible shield response, is not properly explained (it can be, but not easily). We also know that Trek ships are capable of vastly higher accelerations than what we observe in Nem. The E-E's damage (and the fact that her impulse engines are reported as offline in the background, and aren't reported as back online until just before Picard gives the order to ram) can potentially explain that, but the rate of acceleration we see is ridiculously minuscule compared to the several km/s to several thousand km/s accelerations we have observed from Trek ships on other occasions.

    Hellblade takes the position that the low speed we see in NEM is a VFX error similar to the TNG "Darmok" phaser firing from the E-D's torpedo tube, and that the actual speed is much higher that this VFX error would indicate. He is not lying about anything, as he has stated this all openly and made it quite clear that that is his position, several times.

  13. #21153
    Quote Originally Posted by Ilithi_Dragon View Post
    Hellblade takes the position that the low speed we see in NEM is a VFX error similar to the TNG "Darmok" phaser firing from the E-D's torpedo tube, and that the actual speed is much higher that this VFX error would indicate. He is not lying about anything, as he has stated this all openly and made it quite clear that that is his position, several times.
    Really? When there is an instance of removing the crust, he jumps to that, even though what we see shows their firepower to be in the tons (consistent with other instances), he cries this not to be true. When there is an instance of megawatts damaging shields, he cries it's an outlier. He's a dishonest debater, and infamous for it on Spacebattles.

  14. #21154
    Hellblade's position, which he has stated repeatedly, that story takes precedence over specific dialogue and visuals with the recognition that script writers and VFX techs don't always put in the effort to match what is said or seen with what the story is. He is hardly being dishonest, since he has consistently maintained this position and reiterated it several times. I do not necessarily agree with it, and obviously you don't, but that does not make him (I assume Hellblade is a him, anyway) dishonest.

    Furthermore, Hellblade has hardly grabbed at the TDiC and insisted on using it, he has merely pointed it out as a higher-end example that COULD be used, and repeatedly stated that he does not feel this is the norm/standard output for Trek.

    But I am not here to debate the credibility of Hellblade. I do not care about what kind of person he is, so long as he presents facts, verifiable data, and sound logical reasoning to support his position. What kind of person he is is completely irrelevant.

    Regarding TDiC, since when do sub-kiloton explosions generate massive, hemisphere-spanning atmospheric shockwaves/distortions, or fireballs (even compound fireballs from multiple weapons) the size of Western Europe? THAT is being absurd. If YOU are going to insist on ignore the size of the fireballs and the size and speed of the very visible atmospheric distortions to get absurdly low yield figures based solely on the lack of sufficiently bright long-enduring fireballs, and visible orbital debris, I can choose to completely ignore the lack of debris and the duration and brightness of the fireballs and go purely on the visible shockwave effects and breadth of the fireballs to get obscenely high yield figures.

    We must take all available data points in their entirety. We cannot simply dismiss or disregard parts of them because they do not give us the figures we want. We see massive, high-velocity atmospheric shockwaves, we see massive, continent-sized fireballs that appear briefly and with fairly low brightness. We also know that 30% of the crust was destroyed based on the report from the Romulan officer, and that the 20-ship fleet expected to be able to obliterate the crust and mantle of the planet in 6 hours. We also know that the main weapons fired were phasers and disruptors, with relatively few torpedoes, and THIS gives us our explanation for the stated effects and the observed effects. We know for a fact that phasers have a yield-magnifying NDF effect that 'vaporizes' matter with relatively low-luminosity glow effects, some very minor explosive effects relative to the yield effects, and little or no debris ejecta (mostly because it's 'vaporized' - phased out, converted to neutrinos, and/or consumed in the continuation of the NDF reaction).

    The observed effects of phasers in other instances, especially of the E-D's phasers against the unadapted Borg Cube in "Q Who?", match very closely to the effects observed on the planet's surface, and would explain the lack of massive fireball explosions, orbital ejecta, etc. The massive atmosheric distortions/shockwaves also center primarily around the impact points of the phaser and disruptor beams, and not the torpedoes.

    Given all of this, I posit that the Western Europe-sized glows that we see are not actually fireballs, but the glow effects of the NDF reaction vaporizing the planet's crust, and that most of the work done in the bombardment was caused by the fleet's phaser and disruptor NDF effect against the completely non-resistant material of the planet's crust.
    Last edited by Ilithi_Dragon; 08-05-10 at 02:54 PM.

  15. #21155
    Also, there is NO ejecta, thus, them doing any damage to the crust, is bullshit.

  16. #21156
    Quote Originally Posted by ricrery View Post
    Also, there is NO ejecta, thus, them doing any damage to the crust, is bullshit.
    Ahem:

    Quote Originally Posted by Ilithi_Dragon View Post
    We also know that the main weapons fired were phasers and disruptors, with relatively few torpedoes, and THIS gives us our explanation for the stated effects and the observed effects. We know for a fact that phasers have a yield-magnifying NDF effect that 'vaporizes' matter with relatively low-luminosity glow effects, some very minor explosive effects relative to the yield effects, and little or no debris ejecta (mostly because it's 'vaporized' - phased out, converted to neutrinos, and/or consumed in the continuation of the NDF reaction).

    The observed effects of phasers in other instances, especially of the E-D's phasers against the unadapted Borg Cube in "Q Who?", match very closely to the effects observed on the planet's surface, and would explain the lack of massive fireball explosions, orbital ejecta, etc. The massive atmosheric distortions/shockwaves also center primarily around the impact points of the phaser and disruptor beams, and not the torpedoes.

    Given all of this, I posit that the Western Europe-sized glows that we see are not actually fireballs, but the glow effects of the NDF reaction vaporizing the planet's crust, and that most of the work done in the bombardment was caused by the fleet's phaser and disruptor NDF effect against the completely non-resistant material of the planet's crust.

    There was no massive ejecta because the main damage-inflicter was the fleet's phasers and disruptors. The affected material was 'vaporized', with relatively little explosive effects and no residual debris. Just as with the Borg Cube's hull in "Q Who?", we see no massive amounts of debris cast out because of the NDF effect that does the majority of damage does not leave debris, and does not create massive, concussive explosions to eject debris about as a raw release of energy would.

  17. #21157
    Quote Originally Posted by Ilithi_Dragon View Post
    There was no massive ejecta because the main damage-inflicter was the fleet's phasers and disruptors. The affected material was 'vaporized', with relatively little explosive effects and no residual debris. Just as with the Borg Cube's hull in "Q Who?", we see no massive amounts of debris cast out because of the NDF effect that does the majority of damage does not leave debris, and does not create massive, concussive explosions to eject debris about as a raw release of energy would.
    Yes, and the surface they hit is exactly the same as it always was. Kind of makes sense when the Survivors bombardment scared the hell out of the Federation's flagship, yet the crust, atmosphere, and surface, were intact.

  18. #21158
    Quote Originally Posted by ricrery View Post
    Yes, and the surface they hit is exactly the same as it always was. Kind of makes sense when the Survivors bombardment scared the hell out of the Federation's flagship, yet the crust, atmosphere, and surface, were intact.
    1. At the distance we were viewing the planet from, depressions in the surface caused by the vaporization of the crust, especially when those depressions would be on the side facing us, would not be readily visible, especially with the heavy cloud cover we saw blocking most of the view of the surface.

    2. The Husnock vessel that fired on the E-D in TNG "Survivors" was NOT the Husnock vessel that attacked the colony - it was an illusion created by Uxbridge to scare the E-D. The illusion's initial attack, which may or may not have been comparable to the firepower of the original Husnock vessel, was not deemed a significant threat to the E-D. The illusion's second attack was specifically intended to frighten the E-D away as being too powerful for the ship to engage and survive. We have no way of knowing the actual effective yield, nor even the nature of Husnock weaponry.
    Last edited by Ilithi_Dragon; 08-05-10 at 03:43 PM.

  19. #21159
    Quote Originally Posted by Ilithi_Dragon View Post
    1. At the distance we were viewing the planet from, depressions in the surface caused by the vaporization of the crust, especially when those depressions would be on the side facing us, would not be readily visible, especially with the heavy cloud cover we saw blocking most of the view of the surface.
    And I still doubt they destroyed the crust.

    2. The Husnock vessel that fired on the E-D in TNG "Survivors" was NOT the Husnock vessel that attacked the colony - it was an illusion created by Uxbridge to scare the E-D. The illusion's initial attack, which may or may not have been comparable to the firepower of the original Husnock vessel, was not deemed a significant threat to the E-D. The illusion's second attack was specifically intended to frighten the E-D away as being too powerful for the ship to engage and survive. We have no way of knowing the actual effective yield, nor even the nature of Husnock weaponry.
    No, the planet had taken damage from the Husnok attacks as well.

  20. #21160
    Quote Originally Posted by ricrery View Post
    And I still doubt they destroyed the crust.
    Your doubt is illogical and unsustainable. It is directly stated that 30% of the planet's crust was destroyed with the opening bombardment, which approximately fits with the previously stated expectation of destroying the planet's crust and mantle in 6 hours. We have visual effects that logically fit with the known behavior of the weapons observed to be used in the attack. What logical reason do we have to doubt the destruction of the crust?



    Quote Originally Posted by ricrery View Post
    No, the planet had taken damage from the Husnok attacks as well.
    True, but we have no way of knowing the nature nor yield of those weapons. We can gauge a very rough approximation of the amount of total energy discharge the Husnocks' weapons had the effect of, based on the observed destruction effects (though even that is hard to do without getting a full perspective of the damage inflicted upon the planet), but all that can tell us is the total effective yield of the Husnock attack. It does not give us any information on the effect of the individual weapons, the total firepower sported by Husnock ships, nor the size, firepower and quantity of the Husnock ship relative to its own fleet or the Federation fleet.

    In short, we have a very rough idea of what the Husnock weapons did, but we have no idea how hard it was for them to do that, what more they were capable of. For all we know, the Husnock weapons are comparable in performance against Fed ships to Starfleet's own weapons, but lack the NDF effect's effective yield increase. They might have much lower energy outputs but much higher effective yield increases, or be comparable to the Federation's weaponry in every way. We just don't know, so we cannot draw conclusions about Federation firepower based on the minuscule amount of information we have on Husnock firepower.

Similar Threads

  1. By Fettman in forum SciFi & Fantasy
    Last Post: 10-18-11, 02:02 PM
    Replies: 33
  2. By USS Athens in forum SciFi & Fantasy
    Last Post: 03-16-10, 04:47 PM
    Replies: 291
  3. By superstring01 in forum SciFi & Fantasy
    Last Post: 03-11-10, 01:57 PM
    Replies: 60
  4. By Orleander in forum SciFi & Fantasy
    Last Post: 07-11-09, 08:33 PM
    Replies: 27
  5. By Asguard in forum Computer Science & Culture
    Last Post: 09-13-08, 02:15 AM
    Replies: 0

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •