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. #21321
    Quote Originally Posted by Ilithi_Dragon View Post
    The author was a known and active pro-Wars debater in the VS community, and he consulted with known and active and militantly pro-Wars members of the VS community while writing the book. That is the definition of bias. Saxton was heavily biased in favor of weighting the figures in Wars' favor, and he consulted with people who were just as if not more so heavily biased as he was. The incentive to stack the deck in Wars' favor is absurdly high, and painfully obvious.
    Doesn't matter. You can't call a CANON SOURCE bias. You can't say that, that is against debating rules. In fact, Saxton was more consistent than bias. A source said that a single Imperial Star Destroyer could turn a planet to slag in an hour.

    To vaporize the oceans requires 1 exaton, and to melt the crust requires 7 exatons. That is 8 exatons, and going off Saxton's 2.218 PT/s numbers for the ISDII, you get 7.992 exatons done in an hour. That is VERY consistent.

    Star Wars Technical Commentaries:
    Considering a plausible heat capacity (about 732 J/kg/K) and density (about 2.5g/cm3) for rock, melting the crust of a habitable terrestrial world to a depth of only one metre (an insignificant fraction of the whole crust) involves an enormous amount of energy. Raising the temperature of this material by merely one degree would require the uniform injection of about 1x1021joules of energy. Reaching melting point requires a temperature rise on the order of one and a half thousand degrees. Then further heat is required to accomplish the change of phase from solid to liquid at the melting point. Including this latent heat, the combined power of the turbolasers of a star destroyer firing throughout a circumplanetary orbit of what must be at least a few minutes' duration cannot be done without a total energy injection of
    1E^21 J = 239 gigatons. Again, consistent.

    As such, the AOTC:ICS books is an invalid source of data for ANY scientific endeavor.
    Too bad, because it's canon.

  2. #21322
    Purveyor of Truth and Fact Kittamaru's Avatar
    Posts
    7,361
    Quote Originally Posted by ricrery View Post
    Star Wars EU IS canon, Star Trek EU isn't canon. Btw, you can't say that a work is bias, because it doesn't work like that. YOU made the claim it's wrong, YOU prove it, not "LALA SDN IS WRONG BT ST VS SW IS RIGHT LALALA", btw, here's calcs from this very site, made from a person who doesn't BIAS kick in.
    He already did... you're just too stubborn to accept it.

    The Highest Canon (the movies) and the next highest (the series) override what your precious ICS says a dozen times over and yet you cling to it like a baby suckling his mothers teat... do grow up child, your antics are no longer amusing.

  3. #21323
    Purveyor of Truth and Fact Kittamaru's Avatar
    Posts
    7,361
    Quote Originally Posted by mandalore14 View Post
    "Star Wars EU IS canon"
    i agree with ricrery
    It IS canon - lower canon. Any time the higher canon (movies and/or tv shows) contradict it, the movies and tv shows are what you MUST go with, as per the very "laws" that dictate SW canon.

    In this case, the ICS is wrong on damn near every account save for the sizes of the vessels and the pictures of them, and even then they screwed up a few times

  4. #21324
    Purveyor of Truth and Fact Kittamaru's Avatar
    Posts
    7,361
    Quote Originally Posted by mandalore14 View Post
    I did some research on star destroyer.net and a website called st-v-st.com honestly i find both to be biased.

    "Star Wars: Expanded Universe canon, which consists of all the SW official canon material, plus all of the "EU" materials, arranged in receding ascendancy below the official canon sources, overridden by the official canon sources"

    From what i understand of star wars cannon policy is that their are 5 levels of cannon
    1. g cannon/ movies and novelization
    2. t cannon/ tv shows
    3. c cannon/ books,and games
    4. s cannon /crossovers and some games
    5.n wich is non cannon

    source
    wikipedia
    Of course both are biased... however, STvSW.net at least attempts to stay within the boundaries of reality with their claims, using multiple images and videos to display examples of what is being claimed.

    SD.net just makes big claims from the ICS, which is immediately assumed to be right because "oh noes, it's a book mentioned in the canon list, it's fo realz!!!!!1111oneoneleventeenhunred"

    The truth is, it doesn't work that way

  5. #21325
    Purveyor of Truth and Fact Kittamaru's Avatar
    Posts
    7,361
    Quote Originally Posted by ricrery View Post
    Doesn't matter. You can't call a CANON SOURCE bias. You can't say that, that is against debating rules. In fact, Saxton was more consistent than bias. A source said that a single Imperial Star Destroyer could turn a planet to slag in an hour.

    To vaporize the oceans requires 1 exaton, and to melt the crust requires 7 exatons. That is 8 exatons, and going off Saxton's 2.218 PT/s numbers for the ISDII, you get 7.992 exatons done in an hour. That is VERY consistent.



    1E^21 J = 239 gigatons. Again, consistent.



    Too bad, because it's canon.
    And yet, said source was a novel, a novel that is overridden by the movies and the shows... and in the shows, we see SD's blasting at things and causing detonations that appear to be kiloton at best.

    As per your own canon rules, the shows override the books, and thus, kiloton it is.

    PERIOD

    Now, grow up or get out.

  6. #21326
    No more than a kiloton? Are you slow, or just that dense? The asteroid incident would require many kilotons, and someone a lot smarter than you and a bit more debate-understanding than Illithi did do the math that you were too lazy to look at.

  7. #21327
    Purveyor of Truth and Fact Kittamaru's Avatar
    Posts
    7,361
    Quote Originally Posted by ricrery View Post
    No more than a kiloton? Are you slow, or just that dense? The asteroid incident would require many kilotons, and someone a lot smarter than you and a bit more debate-understanding than Illithi did do the math that you were too lazy to look at.
    I'm not talking the asteroid scene... I was referring to the attack on the Malevolence to be precise.

  8. #21328
    Quote Originally Posted by Kittamaru View Post
    I'm not talking the asteroid scene... I was referring to the attack on the Malevolence to be precise.
    That is overruled by the asteroid scene.

  9. #21329
    Purveyor of Truth and Fact Kittamaru's Avatar
    Posts
    7,361
    Quote Originally Posted by ricrery View Post
    That is overruled by the asteroid scene.
    Not necessarily - we're comparing different guns (HTL's and LTL's supposedly)

  10. #21330
    Quote Originally Posted by Kittamaru View Post
    Not necessarily - we're comparing different guns (HTL's and LTL's supposedly)
    And when are the ESB turbos ever named for their type?

  11. #21331
    Purveyor of Truth and Fact Kittamaru's Avatar
    Posts
    7,361
    Quote Originally Posted by ricrery View Post
    And when are the ESB turbos ever named for their type?
    Never that I know of - but IIRC, the claim for the asteroid scene is that they were only using Light Turbo Lasers to destroy the asteroids

  12. #21332
    Quote Originally Posted by Kittamaru View Post
    Never that I know of - but IIRC, the claim for the asteroid scene is that they were only using Light Turbo Lasers to destroy the asteroids
    Those light turbos were firing up to 60 kilotons of energy each shot. What you've ignored is that I said that I'm not much of a Warsie.

  13. #21333
    Quote Originally Posted by ricrery View Post
    Those light turbos were firing up to 60 kilotons of energy each shot. What you've ignored is that I said that I'm not much of a Warsie.
    60 kilotons ONLY if you ignore the fundamental principles of thermodynamics, an over-sized asteroid, and a ridiculously dense asteroid. The angle and distance of the asteroid to the camera puts it at 3 to 20 meters in diameter, much lower than the 40 Wong calculates, and a 3-20 meter asteroid of common silicate of average density would take a couple terajoules of energy to blast apart, at most. Gigajoule-range is much more likely. The energy required to blast it to smithereens like we see drops even lower if it was the much more common 'dirt clod' type of asteroid instead of solid rock.

    The asteroid wasn't vaporized completely in an instant, that violates thermodynamics. It was blown apart into very small bits. It is physically impossible for a DET to instantly vaporize anything except the section of the target it impacts on. Rock is especially hard to vaporize because silicates are poor conductors, and are very brittle and prone to shattering. They also have low densities and so can be accelerated away faster with less energy.

    In short, a silicate rock will explode into tiny pieces long before it is completely vaporized. Any claim that the entire asteroid was vaporized instantly is fallacious.

  14. #21334
    The ICS books are canon as much as any other EU. Some people don't like this, some don't care, some think they're the second coming and opposing them is heresy. However, opinions don't matter in face of Lucasfilm's official canon policy. At the end of day ... they are canon.

    Whether and to what extent they are actually contradicted by other canon is a whole other issue.

    Me, I've mostly given up on trying to quantify Star Wars. It's perfectly clear from the cartoon series the people in charge don't give squat about consistency with published material, and that makes the SW canon a hopelessly contradicting mess.

    Oh, how I miss West End Games ...

  15. #21335
    Quote Originally Posted by HeartlessCapitalist View Post
    The ICS books are canon as much as any other EU. Some people don't like this, some don't care, some think they're the second coming and opposing them is heresy. However, opinions don't matter in face of Lucasfilm's official canon policy. At the end of day ... they are canon.
    Well, it's canon for the Star Wars: Expanded Universe, but not a part of the official Star Wars canon. Lucas and others have made it fairly clear that there are two canons in Wars, the 'features only' which includes the CGI and live-action movies and episodes, their scripts and their respective novelizations (in that order of precedence), and then there is the 'EU' canon, which is the 'features only' material plus all of the EU material falling below it in tiered ranking. Star Trek has actually adopted a similar policy, and has for many years now been attempting to maintain a more or less self-consistent 'EU' Trek universe within the novels.

    As I have maintained, I am comparing official-canon SW to official-canon ST, and as such, the ICS books are not canon. If you want to bring the SW EU into the debate, it's only fair that we also bring in the ST EU as well.

    Additionally, the ICS books are a heavily-biased, compromised source, as I have stated several times. No ethical scientific analysis can use such a source and expect a non-biased, uncompromised result.


    Quote Originally Posted by HeartlessCapitalist View Post
    Me, I've mostly given up on trying to quantify Star Wars. It's perfectly clear from the cartoon series the people in charge don't give squat about consistency with published material, and that makes the SW canon a hopelessly contradicting mess.

    Oh, how I miss West End Games ...
    lol Yes, when looking at the SW:EU, things do get... hairy, to say the least. Even in the EU books, yields, power, endurances and capabilities vary wildly (with a curiously significant increase in later books, especially after 2002). That's another reason why I don't like to compare ST:EU to SW:EU: the level of inconsistency in both extended franchises becomes extreme. When dealing with just the official canon of both franchises, there is much greater consistency in both.

  16. #21336
    Quote Originally Posted by Ilithi_Dragon View Post
    Well, it's canon for the Star Wars: Expanded Universe, but not a part of the official Star Wars canon. Lucas and others have made it fairly clear that there are two canons in Wars, the 'features only' which includes the CGI and live-action movies and episodes, their scripts and their respective novelizations (in that order of precedence), and then there is the 'EU' canon, which is the 'features only' material plus all of the EU material falling below it in tiered ranking. Star Trek has actually adopted a similar policy, and has for many years now been attempting to maintain a more or less self-consistent 'EU' Trek universe within the novels.

    As I have maintained, I am comparing official-canon SW to official-canon ST, and as such, the ICS books are not canon. If you want to bring the SW EU into the debate, it's only fair that we also bring in the ST EU as well.
    I've always heard it was a single overall continuity. Do you mind providing the quote establishing this? If it's been given already I apologize, but I hope you'll understand me if I as a newcomer don't feel like wading through 1,000+ pages of text in the thread.

    Additionally, the ICS books are a heavily-biased, compromised source, as I have stated several times. No ethical scientific analysis can use such a source and expect a non-biased, uncompromised result.
    "Bias" is irrelevant to whether it's canon or not, I'm afraid. Using suspension of disbelief for analysis, author's intent is not considered. Although the ICS is contradicted enough in the rest of the EU that it's basically useless as a source in most cases, anyway.

    lol Yes, when looking at the SW:EU, things do get... hairy, to say the least. Even in the EU books, yields, power, endurances and capabilities vary wildly (with a curiously significant increase in later books, especially after 2002). That's another reason why I don't like to compare ST:EU to SW:EU: the level of inconsistency in both extended franchises becomes extreme. When dealing with just the official canon of both franchises, there is much greater consistency in both.
    Agreed. It's not like the prequel and original trilogies always mesh, or if the Trek series always work when taken together (especially Enterprise), but it's not quite the same confused mess. The sad thing is, the old SW EU used to be at least somewhat consistent ... and it was largely thanks to the WEG editors who took pains to reconcile the often very confused novels in their RPG books so the players could have a working overall continuity. As I said, how I miss those days ...

  17. #21337
    Quote Originally Posted by HeartlessCapitalist View Post
    I've always heard it was a single overall continuity. Do you mind providing the quote establishing this? If it's been given already I apologize, but I hope you'll understand me if I as a newcomer don't feel like wading through 1,000+ pages of text in the thread.
    lol Yeah, I've only been here for the last 45-50 pages or so (and most of those were trolls stirring up back-and-forth half-flame posts or outright flame wars). I posted this a while back, but I have no problem posting it again.

    This is the best compilation and analysis of the canon policies of both franchises I have ever encountered. (<---- said with the same air as one would use while thunking down a massive, 20x14x8-inch tome.)



    Quote Originally Posted by HeartlessCapitalist View Post
    "Bias" is irrelevant to whether it's canon or not, I'm afraid. Using suspension of disbelief for analysis, author's intent is not considered. Although the ICS is contradicted enough in the rest of the EU that it's basically useless as a source in most cases, anyway.
    Perhaps, perhaps not, but at any rate, the definite bias of the author must be taken into consideration in any scientific evaluation of the available data, especially when giving weight to the data presented in the AOTC:ICS book.



    Quote Originally Posted by HeartlessCapitalist View Post
    Agreed. It's not like the prequel and original trilogies always mesh, or if the Trek series always work when taken together (especially Enterprise), but it's not quite the same confused mess. The sad thing is, the old SW EU used to be at least somewhat consistent ... and it was largely thanks to the WEG editors who took pains to reconcile the often very confused novels in their RPG books so the players could have a working overall continuity. As I said, how I miss those days ...
    Yeah, I can understand that. I do have to say, though, that Trek is rather surprising in its consistency, once you get past the apparent surface inconsistencies. Many things seem inconsistent at first, but actually fit fairly well together when you really stop and think about them.

  18. #21338
    Quote Originally Posted by Ilithi_Dragon View Post
    lol Yeah, I've only been here for the last 45-50 pages or so (and most of those were trolls stirring up back-and-forth half-flame posts or outright flame wars). I posted this a while back, but I have no problem posting it again.

    This[/URL] is the best compilation and analysis of the canon policies of both franchises I have ever encountered. (<---- said with the same air as one would use while thunking down a massive, 20x14x8-inch tome.)
    Isn't that Robert Scott Anderson, though? He's basically the same as Mike Wong, but for Star Trek rather than Wars. You'll pardon me if I'm a little ... dubious about his neutrality.

    Wookieepeedia lists a canon hierarchy that's fairly easy to understand.

    Perhaps, perhaps not, but at any rate, the definite bias of the author must be taken into consideration in any scientific evaluation of the available data, especially when giving weight to the data presented in the AOTC:ICS book.
    That's not how I approach novels, at least. It's verging into "author's intent" territory. What we should examine are the facts in the book themselves, and do so as objectively as possible. That's my opinion, at least.

    So, ICS is a canon source of equal value to others. Although a minority source.

    Yeah, I can understand that. I do have to say, though, that Trek is rather surprising in its consistency, once you get past the apparent surface inconsistencies. Many things seem inconsistent at first, but actually fit fairly well together when you really stop and think about them.
    Don't read much Trek EU nowadays (and even when I did it was usually series/movie novelizations), so I can't really give either informed agreement or disagreement here. But it does appear that they are getting more consistent, while the SW EU is getting less so.

    EDIT: Heh, I couldn't even quote your link, apparently ...

  19. #21339
    Valued Senior Member Hellblade8's Avatar
    Posts
    1,099
    Quote Originally Posted by HeartlessCapitalist View Post
    I've always heard it was a single overall continuity. Do you mind providing the quote establishing this? If it's been given already I apologize, but I hope you'll understand me if I as a newcomer don't feel like wading through 1,000+ pages of text in the thread.
    There's two canon policies:

    G+T Canon, which is what Lucas often refers to as 'his world' and then there's the G+EU world (also including T), which is the traditional canon hierarchy that SW fans use.



    "Bias" is irrelevant to whether it's canon or not, I'm afraid. Using suspension of disbelief for analysis, author's intent is not considered. Although the ICS is contradicted enough in the rest of the EU that it's basically useless as a source in most cases, anyway.
    A good point.

    Quote Originally Posted by HeartlessCapitalist View Post
    Isn't that Robert Scott Anderson, though? He's basically the same as Mike Wong, but for Star Trek rather than Wars. You'll pardon me if I'm a little ... dubious about his neutrality.
    I've actually talked to him before. While I don't always agree on what he says, he isn't really a nutter.

    That's not how I approach novels, at least. It's verging into "author's intent" territory. What we should examine are the facts in the book themselves, and do so as objectively as possible. That's my opinion, at least.

    So, ICS is a canon source of equal value to others. Although a minority source.
    The only time you should verge into author'sintent is when you're looking at grammar structure or ran into an obvious error; ie, they use terrajoules instead of terrawatts or something.

  20. #21340
    Bleed White and Blue! Shogun's Avatar
    Posts
    7,635
    I have a question:

    Due to Feynman's Equation, antimatter is matter going backwards in time. So when the Enterprise and the Borg went back in time, why did they not turn into antimatter? And during the process ( assuming they went faster than C ) why did their mass now grow ( I believe it is called Lorenz equations ), also if someone is beyond C, it cannot decelerate back to less then C......

    I am confused by their time travel....

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
  •