Star Wars vs Star Trek

[George1]

See, here's the thing you don't seem to get - technobabble or not, if we see it on screen, it's cannon. Period. End of story. You can't say "oh, I dont' like that, so Trek can't use it"... if we see it, it happened, they can do it. PERIOD.

again, you can just accept everything they throw at you, or you could analyze and determine if it would actually even work against each other. There is no way around bud. No reference point to compare the two from the inside. So we take and analyze it from the outside. and what you get doesn't supports you.

Anyway, if you're done with your silly posturing, it's time for me to head to bed.

i wish you a bad dream.

[James R]

George1 and Kittamaru:

Time to stop the flame war now.

If you cannot, I will be quite happy to ban both of you for an equal amount of time. Just to be fair, you understand.

[George1]

George1 and Kittamaru:

Time to stop the flame war now.

If you cannot, I will be quite happy to ban both of you for an equal amount of time. Just to be fair, you understand.

oh,im ready to end at any time. i kinda ended it some time ago, but Kittamaru didn't got the idea of losing very well, so he just disagreed with everything i had to say. ask him if hes ready!

[TW Scott]

Ah the episode of the Black hole time warp event. The one where B'lanna got promoted to Chief Enginerer if I am not mistaken.

First of all they were very clear that ti was not a full black hole yet. The Black Hole was forming and the even the Voyager flew into was a time bubble outside of event horizon. They actually had to escape before it became the event horizon. Otherwise they'd be very, very, very dead.

[George1]

Ah the episode of the Black hole time warp event. The one where B'lanna got promoted to Chief Enginerer if I am not mistaken.

First of all they were very clear that ti was not a full black hole yet. The Black Hole was forming and the even the Voyager flew into was a time bubble outside of event horizon. They actually had to escape before it became the event horizon. Otherwise they'd be very, very, very dead.

another proof that Kittamaru is incapable of sustaining an argument. i am not familiar with Voyager, i saw most episodes, but i didn't watched them in a long time. He could have said that in the first place. but he didn't, and then he accuses me of stuff.

thanks for clearing that out Scott.

[Kittamaru]

Ah the episode of the Black hole time warp event. The one where B'lanna got promoted to Chief Enginerer if I am not mistaken.

First of all they were very clear that ti was not a full black hole yet. The Black Hole was forming and the even the Voyager flew into was a time bubble outside of event horizon. They actually had to escape before it became the event horizon. Otherwise they'd be very, very, very dead.

Unless I'm mistaken, the problem was that, if they didn't escape before the fissure closed, they would be TRAPPED, not dead. Been a while since I watched that series, so I could be wrong.

@ George - start using logic and at least some basic spellcheck... spelling DOES matter, especially when you're replacing words with other words due to spelling errors.

Also, face facts - Slave 1 was upgraded out the ass by one of the best bounty hunters in the universe. NX-01 was a prototype starship testing a prototype weapons system, but is considered less than a museum piece by current Trek standards.

Now, I don't know about you, but generally as technology progresses, it gets better. How much better, there isn't enough data to really quantify. However, TNG's Q Who provided some interesting volume / mass calculations for phaser vaporization capabilities against a non-adapted Borg ship. Saquist ran the calcs a few pages ago, so go read up if you really want to see why I don't take your "phasers are weak" argument seriously.

Then again, such statements as this:

and Star Wars has a impenetrable defense and unmatched weapons. This is a very good point: they have a technobable rock, SW has a planet buster. your rock will hurt, the laser will torment!
get over it...

just make me laugh... if your Death Star (and indeed, Star Wars ships in general) have such an impenetrable defense, then please explain the following:

Why were snub fighters able to fly right up to the thermal exhaust port and blow up the Death Star?
Why was a relatively slow moving asteroid able to obliterate the bridge of a Star Destroyer?
Why was an A-Wing capable of penetrating the bridge armor on the Executor.
Why was the Rebellion, who was under funded, under equipped, and under manned, able to defeat the Empire?

Hardly impenetrable... in a number of ways (both physical and metaphysical)

again, you can just accept everything they throw at you, or you could analyze and determine if it would actually even work against each other. There is no way around bud. No reference point to compare the two from the inside. So we take and analyze it from the outside. and what you get doesn't supports you.

So because you don't like something, you get to throw it out? Really?

Let me tell you how that would end:

Pro-Wars would throw out Phasers/Disruptors/et al being more powerful than their input energy via operations at the atomic level (proven on screen but as you say, we can ignore it)
Pro-Wars would throw out the durability of Trek shields in many many situations (such as diving into the photosphere of a star) because of one scene in which an imaginary ship disables the shields with "500 GW of particle energy"
Pro-Wars would throw out the effectiveness of Trek's ground forces based on the actions of starship Bridge Officers / Security Details, even though we rarely actually see soldiers in action.

Pro-Trek would throw out Star Wars shields in total because we never ONCE see them work against something like a PHASed Energy Rectification (which is what PHASER stands for) weapon.
Pro-Trek would throw out Star Wars hyperspace speeds because A) They have no map of the Alpha Quadrant and B) It's been "proven" that the Star Wars galaxy is incredibly small (as in, less than 1/10th the size of our own galaxy)
Pro-Trek would laugh at anyone claiming that "force users" would win it because everyone in Trek would be invisible/immune to the force, thanks to there being no midichlorians in Star Trek.

Do you see how silly things get if you take them out of their universes?

No, the way to debate is assume that the way things work in their respective universe is how things work, period. Otherwise you have to start proving some really stupid and tedious stuff, like that HyperSpace even EXISTS in the Star Trek universe, or that Subspace exists in the Star Wars universe.

Seriously, please tell me you see the problem with what you are trying to do...

[George1]

Unless I'm mistaken, the problem was that, if they didn't escape before the fissure closed, they would be TRAPPED, not dead. Been a while since I watched that series, so I could be wrong.

which is again fucking impossible. thanks for clearing that out.

@ George - start using logic and at least some basic spellcheck... spelling DOES matter, especially when you're replacing words with other words due to spelling errors.

Kittamaru, start using your mind to actually understand what a debate is; for your knowledge, it is not taking on someones capabilities, like my grammar. fuck of already.

Also, face facts - Slave 1 was upgraded out the ass by one of the best bounty hunters in the universe. NX-01 was a prototype starship testing a prototype weapons system, but is considered less than a museum piece by current Trek standards.

you have no idea still, how stronger are the strongest weapons ( not supperweapons) of star trek compared to that ACCIDENT. prototype or not.

Now, I don't know about you, but generally as technology progresses, it gets better. How much better, there isn't enough data to really quantify. However, TNG's Q Who provided some interesting volume / mass calculations for phaser vaporization capabilities against a non-adapted Borg ship. Saquist ran the calcs a few pages ago, so go read up if you really want to see why I don't take your "phasers are weak" argument seriously.

i did not said they are weak douchbag. i said you have no data on how strong they are. i'll go read those,THE FUCKING MINUTE YOU PROVE YOU WILL READ OR WATCH SW.

Why were snub fighters able to fly right up to the thermal exhaust port and blow up the Death Star?

cuz they were so small and had so extremely EXTREMELY small chances, the only reasond they did was Luke using the Fucking Force.

Why was a relatively slow moving asteroid able to obliterate the bridge of a Star Destroyer?

one the size of a castle. their shield was already weaken by other asteroids as well. start interesting before going on thing you have no idea.

Why was an A-Wing capable of penetrating the bridge armor on the Executor.

their shield was down. clearly you have no idea on kinetic weapons. that guy's ship went on a full head collision with the bridge. A direct impact between two fast moving objects: the Executor was moving to. Start learning on kinematics.

Why was the Rebellion, who was under funded, under equipped, and under manned, able to defeat the Empire?

another misconception of trekkies. The Rebellion was well found and well equipped. They had a lot to defeat the Empire. Thei only problem was that they in full mobilization when the Empire had 20 years to build up fleet, army and command. The Rebels had that to, but had no shipyard or stable command center. That until the Mon Calamari liberate themselves. i might ask the same: how was America, with an army of "peasants", yes, that was what they were considered by the leaders of the English army, defeat the grates and biggest empire in history and become themselves the grates nation in present. you will see that the answer to that, is the answer to the other.

Hardly impenetrable... in a number of ways (both physical and metaphysical)

by your standard.

So because you don't like something, you get to throw it out? Really?

THAT WHAT YOU DID.

Pro-Wars would throw out Phasers/Disruptors/et al being more powerful than their input energy via operations at the atomic level (proven on screen but as you say, we can ignore it
Pro-Wars would throw out the durability of Trek shields in many many situations (such as diving into the photosphere of a star) because of one scene in which an imaginary ship disables the shields with "500 GW of particle energy"
Pro-Wars would throw out the effectiveness of Trek's ground forces based on the actions of starship Bridge Officers / Security Details, even though we rarely actually see soldiers in action.

i am not an ignorant like you think. Those are answers completely up to your own preference.

Pro-Trek would throw out Star Wars shields in total because we never ONCE see them work against something like a PHASed Energy Rectification (which is what PHASER stands for) weapon.

which is why you can't even do that.

Pro-Trek would throw out Star Wars hyperspace speeds because A) They have no map of the Alpha Quadrant and B)

and like they can't get one.

It's been "proven" that the Star Wars galaxy is incredibly small (as in, less than 1/10th the size of our own galaxy)

what a retard. it has been proven by anyone, but asshole. That's just a stupidity quotes of people who just can't accept that the hyperdrive is hundreds of thousands of times faster than any warp drive. another pathetic attempt to disprove what what you don't even know.

Pro-Trek would laugh at anyone claiming that "force users" would win it because everyone in Trek would be invisible/immune to the force, thanks to there being no midichlorians in Star Trek.

again, midichlorians are not the source of the Force. But they would win.

Do you see how silly things get if you take them out of their universes?

do you see how stupid things get when you talk?

No, the way to debate is assume that the way things work in their respective universe is how things work, period. Otherwise you have to start proving some really stupid and tedious stuff, like that HyperSpace even EXISTS in the Star Trek universe, or that Subspace exists in the Star Wars universe.

Hyperspace, if you even bother to read what it is, the universe as seen when traveling millions of times the speed of light. They use the hyperdrive to propel the ship in a TACHYON state. Subspace is also mentioned in Star Wars, with the same meaning: interstellar communication.
do you see how messy things get when you take on topics you don't even have a clue about?

Seriously, please tell me you see the problem with what you are trying to do...

right after you admit you actually have no fucking clue about SW, i'll think about my "problem".

[George1]

oh, and about the Voyager:
i checked the entire episode guide of Voyager (no need to say it toke some time) i have found the episode: Parallax, season 1 episode 3.

one of the most ridiculous episode of star trek and science fiction in general.
quote from Memory Alpha:

In 2371, the USS Voyager became trapped within the event horizon of a type-4 quantum singularity in the Delta Quadrant. Encountering time-delayed reflections from the interior of the horizon, the Voyager crew initially believed that they had encountered another vessel being pulled into the singularity. Eventually, they were able to locate a breach in the event horizon, which they had created when they initially entered the phenomenon, by saturating it with warp particles. Although the breach had decreased in size since their arrival, they were able to widen it with a dekyon beam and escape. (VOY: "Parallax")

Really? an event horizon is, well, mostly associated with black holes.

quoting Wikipedia

The most well-known example of an event horizon derives from general relativity's description of a black hole, a celestial object so dense that no nearby matter or radiation can escape its gravitational field. Often, this is described as the boundary within which the black hole's escape velocity is greater than the speed of light. However, a more accurate description is that within this horizon, all lightlike paths (paths that light could take) and hence all paths in the forward light cones of particles within the horizon, are warped so as to fall farther into the hole. Once a particle is inside the horizon, moving into the hole is as inevitable as moving forward in time, and can actually be thought of as equivalent to doing so, depending on the spacetime coordinate system used.

in other words, escaping an event horizon is just as impossible as it seams: IMPOSSIBLE! if you are in,YOU CAN'T GET OUT. technobable won't help. the only way you could escape a black hole is to be way way faster than light. Just being as fast as light requires infinite energy. warp drive is not faster than light. its not even actually movement. it's APPARENT movement. according the episode, they made a breach (a breach in a horizon is as possible as my cat getting the size of Earth) that they made while entering. The horizon is not like a normal surface object, which you can breach. its like trying to make a breach in water; and its a perfect comparison. Voyager should have ended there, really, and escaping that makes the series even less credible that it was before; and believe me, it's can get even lover.

i usually don't take on Voyager. it's the less credible trek. but this episode...i cry for who ever made that up.

[Kittamaru]

snip

Here's the thing George... and the thing that you keep MISSING - it's science FICTION (Star Trek) vs science FANTASY (Star Wars). NEITHER ONE IS REAL.

Even if it's impossible, it's admissible. Why? Well, simple:

Technically, going by today's physics:

It's IMPOSSIBLE for Hyperspace to exist.
It's IMPOSSIBLE for Warp drive to exist.
It's IMPOSSIBLE for PHASERS to exist.
It's IMPOSSIBLE for TurboLasers to exist.
It's IMPOSSIBLE for Neutronium "alloys" to exist (and thus the hulls in Star Wars).
It's IMPOSSIBLE for the Force to exist.
It's IMPOSSIBLE for dilithium crystals to exist.

The list goes on and on.

George, simply put, you cannot seem to wrap your mind around what "suspension of disbelief" means... even if it IS impossible in real life, if we see it in the show, we can accept it. Period.

That's just how it works...

[George1]

Here's the thing George... and the thing that you keep MISSING - it's science FICTION (Star Trek) vs science FANTASY (Star Wars). NEITHER ONE IS REAL.

if your really were a scify fan, which is the sole condition on this forum, then you would understand why i don't care.

Even if it's impossible, it's admissible. Why? Well, simple:
Technically, going by today's physics:
It's IMPOSSIBLE for Hyperspace to exist.
It's IMPOSSIBLE for Warp drive to exist.
It's IMPOSSIBLE for PHASERS to exist.
It's IMPOSSIBLE for TurboLasers to exist.
It's IMPOSSIBLE for Neutronium "alloys" to exist (and thus the hulls in Star Wars).

special note: hulls in sw are not made out of neutronium. that's a very special material, only used in highly special cases. again, you demonstrate a lack of understanding of SW.

It's IMPOSSIBLE for the Force to exist.
It's IMPOSSIBLE for dilithium crystals to exist.

goddamn ignorance. i do know that, but i do wrap around it because i like to talk with others about it. it doesn't have to be real; only it has to be a little bit NOT pulled out of someones ass just for the sake of the story.

George, simply put, you cannot seem to wrap your mind around what "suspension of disbelief" means... even if it IS impossible in real life, if we see it in the show, we can accept it. Period.

period for you. those that care go around with a few thing: 1) argument about if its possible and 2)determine how good or bad the show is with that in it. got it? that's how i go around debating scyfy. when i actually watch it, i close my eyes on it. but this is a debate, so i DON'T. you go ahead and accept every lame ass thing that they pull out, star wars or star trek ( i don't like hell of a lot of things about Wars, but i admit it, and we haven't got at those yet).

That's just how it works...

that's how it works for you. but reality is that in order to determine which would win, we have to compare them, and since there isn't any way to compare them just by "accepting" it, we have to analyze them in detail. if it stands, go ahead and use it, i and the others who might think so will accept it. but if it doesn't, use it, and no one who takes it seriously will buy it, and your back to square one bud. i saw that on many forums: trekies or warish use things just like that, no back up, no anything, and they eventually both lose. you start looking like them:
"Just take it!"

[Kittamaru]

if your really were a scify fan, which is the sole condition on this forum, then you would understand why i don't care.

See, right here... this is the problem. You don't care or you don't understand the difference? Because if you knew the difference, you would care.

special note: hulls in sw are not made out of neutronium. that's a very special material, only used in highly special cases. again, you demonstrate a lack of understanding of SW.

Really? Seems like you are the one who doesn't understand Star Wars...

Durasteel was an incredibly strong and versatile metal alloy, created from carvanium, lommite, carbon, meleenium, neutronium, and zersium.

So... who's the ignorant one? The one who has facts backing him up, or the one ranting and screaming like the upset teenager that he is...

special note: hulls in sw are not made out of neutronium. that's a very special material, only used in highly special cases. again, you demonstrate a lack of understanding of SW. goddamn ignorance. i do know that, but i do wrap around it because i like to talk with others about it. it doesn't have to be real; only it has to be a little bit NOT pulled out of someones ass just for the sake of the story.

Uhm... so you get to decide what dictates "science fiction" now? You may want to let the following people know that:

Adams, Douglas
Alexander, Lloyd
Anderson, Poul
Anthony, Piers
Asimov, Isaac
Baum, L. Frank
Bear, Greg
Blish, James
Bova, Ben
Bradley, Marion Zimmer
Bradbury, Ray
Brin, David
Brooks, Terry
Bujold, Lois McMaster
Burroughs, Edgar Rice
Capek, Karel
Card, Orson Scott
Cherryh, C. J.
Chesterton, G.K.
Chopra, Deepak
Clarke, Arthur C.
Crichton, Michael
Davidson, Avram Dick, Philip K.
Ellison, Harlan
Farmer, Philip Jose
Foster, Alan Dean
Gibson, William
Greeley, Andrew
Heinlein, Robert A.
Henderson, Zenna
Herbert, Frank
Hickman, Tracy
Hubbard, L. Ron
Jordan, Robert
King, Stephen
L'Engle, Madeleine
Larson, Glen A.
Le Guin, Ursula K.
Leiber, Fritz
Lem, Stanislaw
Lewis, C. S.
Lucas, George
McCaffrey, Anne
Niven, Larry
Orwell, George Perry, Anne
Pohl, Frederik
Rice, Anne
Robinson, Kim Stanley
Roddenberry, Gene
Sagan, Carl
Shelley, Mary
Silverberg, Robert
Simmons, Dan
Smith, Cordwainer
Stapledon, Olaf
Stephenson, Neal
Straczynski, J. Michael
Sturgeon, Theodore
Tolkien, J.R.R.
Turtledove, Harry
Verne, Jules
Vonnegut, Jr., Kurt
Miller, Jr., Walter M.
Wells, H.G.
Willis, Connie
Wolfe, Gene
Wolverton, Dave
Zelazny, Roger

period for you. those that care go around with a few thing: 1) argument about if its possible and 2)determine how good or bad the show is with that in it. got it? that's how i go around debating scyfy. when i actually watch it, i close my eyes on it. but this is a debate, so i DON'T. you go ahead and accept every lame ass thing that they pull out, star wars or star trek ( i don't like hell of a lot of things about Wars, but i admit it, and we haven't got at those yet).

Hardly... but believe whatever you want you damn troll...

that's how it works for you. but reality is that in order to determine which would win, we have to compare them, and since there isn't any way to compare them just by "accepting" it, we have to analyze them in detail. if it stands, go ahead and use it, i and the others who might think so will accept it. but if it doesn't, use it, and no one who takes it seriously will buy it, and your back to square one bud. i saw that on many forums: trekies or warish use things just like that, no back up, no anything, and they eventually both lose. you start looking like them:
"Just take it!"

Again, it's pretty obvious you are either simply trolling, or honestly have NO CLUE what you are talking about. Either way, you do not belong in this debate and have made it pretty clear you have no intention of backing anything you say with factual evidence... the fact that you didn't even know Durasteel was made with Neutronium shows that you don't know even the first thing about Star Wars, much less how a debate should work... just leave and don't come back.

I ought to just put you on ignore and leave you to wallow in your own ignorance.

[George1]

See, right here... this is the problem. You don't care or you don't understand the difference? Because if you knew the difference, you would care.

again ignorance doesn't hurts.

Really? Seems like you are the one who doesn't understand Star Wars...
So... who's the ignorant one? The one who has facts backing him up, or the one ranting and screaming like the upset teenager that he is...

TRACES dose NOT qualifies as MADE OUT OF. or did you forgot to mention the other elements??

Uhm... so you get to decide what dictates "science fiction" now? You may want to let the following people know that:

no, but neither can you...which you tried douche. remember? "accept it!"? i said my opinion. you, of course, don't like it, cuz it pretty much discards what you claimed if taken.

Hardly... but believe whatever you want you damn troll...

hardly what? which part? douch.

Again, it's pretty obvious you are either simply trolling, or honestly have NO CLUE what you are talking about. Either way, you do not belong in this debate and have made it pretty clear you have no intention of backing anything you say with factual evidence... the fact that you didn't even know Durasteel was made with Neutronium shows that you don't know even the first thing about Star Wars, much less how a debate should work... just leave and don't come back.

i won't leave because someone who doesn't take (or like) what i said, even with the evidence and numbers and math I DID PROVIDED, but you rejected as...why again? whatever. IT STANDS.
again, neutronium is A PART of durasteel. you said quote:

It's IMPOSSIBLE for Neutronium "alloys" to exist (and thus the hulls in Star Wars).

neutronium is a part of it. something to make it stronger. quoting wookipedia:

According to Cracken's Threat Dossier, neutronium is a naturally occurring metal that can be found in mineral veins on moons. This would be impossible with conventional science fiction neutronium, as its density would cause it to immediately sink to the center of whatever body it was in, so it seems likely that in Star Wars, neutronium is actually a name for a either a special compound or metallic phase of another element, like metallic hydrogen is for hydrogen. Neutronium actually cannot be a new element due to the relationship between isotope stability, beta decay, and atomic number.

in other words, neutronium is just a NAME, and not the description of the element itself. it's therefor makes you wrong.AGAIN.

I ought to just put you on ignore and leave you to wallow in your own ignorance.

SAME HERE. wanna know the difference? i will just ignore what you say, and not put you on ignore like a creationist-like person would do...meaning you! you block my messages? wow! how debating that is huh?
you are just what you said: an ignorant! you take bits information that suits you, and don't care, don't want or don't consider the rest. of course you will now comment on how ignorant i am, childish and stuid. bla bla bloo. or take on my grammar again, to prove i don't know scratch. or something like that, that doesn't even relates. you sir are the loosing party here: but you just can live with it, so your in denial. i put the math. IT STANDS! i put the proof. IT STANDS. i put arguments. THEY STAND.
ACCEPT AND LIVE WITH IT!

[TW Scott]

George-1 you can stop your ad hominem attacks

Star Wars neutronium behaves in all ways similiar to Star Trek Neutronium. Remeber the Planet Killers that were supposedly made of the substance or the Dyson spphere that had a layer of carbonneutronium.Not to mention the ancient ruins that rebel Gem H'dar were using as a base. In all these instances neutronium was a dense ultra hard, ultra tough, energy resistant material. Just as it is portrayed in Star Wars. Thus for our purposes there they are classifiable as similiar enough to be the same.

I will note that NO Star Trek vessel has Neutronium in it's make up, not even borg vessels. Meanwhile even common everyday Star Wars Droids have durasteel flames.

[Kittamaru]

again ignorance doesn't hurts.

Right...

TRACES dose NOT qualifies as MADE OUT OF. or did you forgot to mention the other elements??

And without that Neutronium, it wouldn't be durasteel, now would it. Pretty simple I thought.

no, but neither can you...which you tried douche. remember? "accept it!"? i said my opinion. you, of course, don't like it, cuz it pretty much discards what you claimed if taken.
hardly what? which part? douch.

Reported again for double insults... the goddamn admin told you to knock it off, and you don't even listen to HIM, so that shows just how immature you really are.

And I never tried to dictate what was sci-fi worthy... I just went with Paramount and Lucas Arts cannon policy, something you seem to be incapable of grasping.

i won't leave because someone who doesn't take (or like) what i said, even with the evidence and numbers and math I DID PROVIDED, but you rejected as...why again? whatever. IT STANDS.
again, neutronium is A PART of durasteel. you said quote:
neutronium is a part of it. something to make it stronger. quoting wookipedia:

in other words, neutronium is just a NAME, and not the description of the element itself. it's therefor makes you wrong.AGAIN.
SAME HERE. wanna know the difference? i will just ignore what you say, and not put you on ignore like a creationist-like person would do...meaning you! you block my messages? wow! how debating that is huh?
you are just what you said: an ignorant! you take bits information that suits you, and don't care, don't want or don't consider the rest. of course you will now comment on how ignorant i am, childish and stuid. bla bla bloo. or take on my grammar again, to prove i don't know scratch. or something like that, that doesn't even relates. you sir are the loosing party here: but you just can live with it, so your in denial. i put the math. IT STANDS! i put the proof. IT STANDS. i put arguments. THEY STAND.
ACCEPT AND LIVE WITH IT!

In other words, you are a good for nothing TROLL who changes the rules as (s)he sees fit in order to get what (s)he wants... yeah, totally adding you to my ignore list kid. Come back when you grow up a little.

[James R]

Moderator note: George1 has been banned for 3 days for insulting other members.

[Kittamaru]

George-1 you can stop your ad hominem attacks

Star Wars neutronium behaves in all ways similiar to Star Trek Neutronium. Remeber the Planet Killers that were supposedly made of the substance or the Dyson spphere that had a layer of carbonneutronium.Not to mention the ancient ruins that rebel Gem H'dar were using as a base. In all these instances neutronium was a dense ultra hard, ultra tough, energy resistant material. Just as it is portrayed in Star Wars. Thus for our purposes there they are classifiable as similiar enough to be the same.

I will note that NO Star Trek vessel has Neutronium in it's make up, not even borg vessels. Meanwhile even common everyday Star Wars Droids have durasteel flames.

No, Star Wars neutronium does not act, at all, similar to Star Trek Neutronium...

For one thing, the Neutronium in Star Trek only exists within a very strong gravitational field (or artificially in the case of the Dyson Sphere/Doomsday Machine, etc). The fact that Han Solo was able to not only FIND neutronium on a moon that he could stand on without being SQUISHED, but that he was able to PICK UP a fist-sized chunk of it and crush it between his hands... where as in Star Trek it decays the moment you remove it from a neutron star (hence why it's virtually unused)... that right there kind of shows the massive difference between the two.

Trek Neutronium - incredibly ultradense (as is the material of a neutron star)

Wars Neutronium - a fist sized chunk can be picked up and crushed by a normal sized human

Yeah... TOTALLY the same thing... oh wait, no it isn't...

The Neutronium Fallacy

The opposition can really come up with some doozies.

One of the strangest claims in the Star Wars non-canon Expanded Universe is that Star Wars ships have neutronium in their hulls. Neutronium is a term used to describe the substance thought to exist in neutron stars. However, the most important aspect of it for our purposes is the fact that it is often referred to as being impervious to any and all Federation weaponry.
Neutron Stars

To get a good neutron star, you need to take a really old star . . . preferably one of sufficient age that it has an iron core (because once you hit iron, you actually have to put more energy into fusion than you get out of it, and most stars don't bother). The necessary stellar mass is apparently still being worked out (many ranges are quoted), but suffice it to say you'd need a star much larger than our own sun to end up with a suitable iron core (the core must mass about 1.4 solar masses in order to cause a collapse). Then, one supernova later, you have a fair chance of ending up with a neutron star. The pressures and densities involved in the catastrophic collapse of the star turn normal, well-adjusted iron atoms into a neutronium soup. This neutronium soup is actually composed of the former protons and electrons of the iron core, which find themselves requiring too much energy to maintain their separation in the intense pressure . . . so they don't. The combination of protons and electrons forms neutrons and neutrinos. The neutrinos escape (as they are prone to doing), taking heat energy with them, but the neutrons remain.

These neutrons . . . about 1.4 solar masses worth . . . find themselves compressed into a sphere with a radius of ten kilometers or so. This sphere will have a surface gravity that is zillions of times Earth's gravity, causing anyone who magically appeared on the surface of the neutron star to bear a striking resemblance to former President Taft for a zillionth of a second, until they were squished into nothingness. That's assuming the extreme temperatures didn't roast him, first.

With those exceptions, someone standing there wouldn't notice anything too exotic. Well, not counting the fact that the neutron star spins like crazy (hence pulsars). The surface is primarily composed of plain old iron, which at the outer crust still manages to exist. The deeper in you go, though, the more the density increases, until all you see are free neutrons hanging out with each other (not like they have a choice). Even deeper within a neutron star, the *really* weird stuff can happen.

In any case, a neutron star is a superhot, superdense, supermagnetic stellar corpse, formed by the collapse of a star which, had it been larger, could have been a black hole. Neutronium is the phase of matter which exists under the crushing gravitational pressures of a neutron star. The common statement made by many is that a teaspoonful of neutronium would weigh a billion tons. This is correct, mathematically, given the density . . . but the neutronium would not remain neutronium outside the neutron star. This is an important point.

Digressing a bit, certain pro-Wars debaters try to claim that Star Destroyer hulls are made of durasteel, which is one part neutronium, one part lomite, and one part zersium. The obvious response is to point out that neutronium would be expected to need a neutron star of ten kilometers radius to exist, and that Star Destroyers are only 1.6 kilometers in size, or that once you have neutronium, you can't have anything else, by default.

"No," they say, "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. The books say there's neutronium in the hull, so obviously there's neutronium in the hull. Phasers and photon torpedoes can't hurt neutronium, so ha-ha, we win."

Okay, then. Maybe, somehow, some sort of superstrong artificial gravity field technology could be created that would turn anything into neutronium and prevent it from decaying, so you wouldn't even have to try to go digging for it in a neutron star (good luck trying). As for the lomite and zersium . . . well, that's peculiar, and I'll come back to that. So, is that how it works?

"No," they say, "according to 'Timetales', quoting the "Cracken's Threat Dossier", neutronium, lomite, and zersium were found together in a rich vein under the reddish soil of the fourth moon of a planet called Dathomir. The Star Wars Sourcebook, Rebel Dawn, et cetera say neutronium is a heavy metallic element, and that those three elements make up Imperial dura-armor and durasteel. Ha-ha, we win."

Oh, reeeeeeaaaallly?

Extraordinarily sophisticated technology is one thing . . . far be it from me to dispute Clarke. However, Warsies are claiming that you can kick the dirt on a moon and stub your toe on neutronium. They are claiming that somehow, magically, neutronium has escaped from a neutron star and decided to bury itself just under the surface of a moon.

At no point is this moon referred to as being ultradense, ultramagnetic, ultragravitational, et cetera. It's just a moon, and once you kick some dirt away, you don't find an iron shell of a neutron star, nosirree bob, you kick straight to neutronium, conveniently disguised as a vein of some heavy metallic element.

Further, when the hell did compressed neutrons become a metallic element? You can look all day on the periodic table and not find a metallic element called neutronium, or sharing any of the characteristics of neutronium, for the simple reason that every metallic (or even non-metallic) element, by default, has protons and electrons, whereas real neutronium doesn't!

Finally, why would the Imperial Fleet from TESB be worried about the asteroids? If they had neutronium hulls (not to mention hull strengths a la the Ep2ICS), being nervous in the asteroid field would be like an M1A1 Abrams tank being nervous about going out in the rain.

So, if you're ever out in the fray and hear that Star Wars ships are impervious to Star Trek weapons because their hulls contain neutronium, just remind them that:
"Star Wars neutronium is a metallic element found in veins under the dirt of a moon."

Update: In an effort to try to keep neutronium any way they can, Warsies will say many things. For instance, they have argued that the neutronium under the moon's surface was from a crashed ship, even though this concept is contrary to what we are told about the ore on the moon. They also choose not to mention how neutronium, which requires extreme pressure in order to exist, would manage to maintain itself under the surface of a moon as part of a destroyed starship.

One "counterargument" used by pro-Wars debaters is to say something to the effect of "oh, yeah, well, Star Trek neutronium isn't real, either". Alas, this, too, is inaccurate:

Let's take a look at the known facts:

Star Wars Neutronium

1. Found in veins on a moon. (Cracken's Threat Dossier)
2. A heavy metallic element. (SWS, Rebel Dawn, etc.)
3. When alloyed with the other metals iomite and zersium, can be made into durasteel. (CTD)
4. Durasteel rods can be bent by an angry woman.
("Daala turned and ripped one of the electric-blue glowtorches from the floor behind her. 'Enough!' she shouted. She raised the durasteel staff high and smashed it down upon the tabletop. The glowcrystal exploded into shards with crackling blue sparks, and transparent fragments flew in all directions. She hammered the rod down again and again, denting the table, bending the staff, and fragmenting the end." (Darksaber, p. 133)

Star Trek Neutronium

1. Found in neutron stars, and decays outside of that environment. ("Evolution")
2. Can be "alloyed" with carbon, serving as the ultra-strong material of the Dyson Sphere ("Relics")
3. Can be crafted into a very roughly conical object, impervious to weapons, with a structure capable of withstanding 97.835 megaton impulse reactor explosions. ("The Doomsday Machine")
4. Can be crafted into a building by the Iconians which remain standing for ~200,000 years, with no apparent damage. ("To the Death")
5. The Dominion has managed to create at least two doors from it, impervious to all weapons.
6. Can be crafted into not-so-rough spacecraft (curiously, also roughly conical, though I doubt that's an important point). ("Think Tank")
7. The surface stratum of an artificial asteroid was "some sort of neutronium alloy". ("The Phage")

In light of these facts, it is clear that there is nothing in common between Star Wars neutronium and real life neutronium. Further, it is apparent that there is nothing in common between Star Wars neutronium and Star Trek neutronium. Why?

In the case of SW neutronium, there is no available method to rationalize the horrendous inconsistencies between it and real-life neutronium. Real-life neutronium isn't a metal, cannot be found in veins on a moon, cannot be alloyed with "other" metals, and you'd have a helluva time bending it.

In the case of ST neutronium, there are available methods of rationalizing the apparent inconsistencies. ST neutronium is within neutron stars, just like the real thing. However, ST neutronium can be "alloyed" with carbon. But, by default, this does not imply a metallic alloy of any sort, since carbon is not a metal, either, and one of them has to be in order to be an alloy in the usual way. The concept of impure neutronium is quite peculiar, but in reality all you need is neutronium at the point where it is a neutron superfluid, where protons and entire nuclei can still (barely) exist.

ST neutronium can also apparently exist under conditions where it should not, because the objects mass far less than what is required for such a material to form and be maintained (doors, buildings, ships), and we do not see the gravitational effects one would expect from such structures. Finally, these structures are not compressed to the point of being spherical, but instead appear in a variety of shapes. Does this cause ST neutronium to be neutronium in name only, and not the real thing at all? No. Given that ST neutronium is identified as neutron star material, we have just cause to try to find a rationalization for its existence outside of neutron stars. It simply will not do to claim that there are two separate materials, since this represents a multiplication of entities unsupportable by the dictates of Occam's Razor, or good sense.

So, what is needed is "neutronium containment". How do we get it? Easy.

Fortunately, a perfectly viable explanation is already in play, thanks to the technologies we have seen in the Star Trek universe. We know, for example, that shields operate due to some sort of graviton-based spatial distortion. This is demonstrated by La Forge's screen in Generations. We know also that the Federation has the ability to utilize gravitons in precise applications, such as Geordi's "heavy graviton beam" discussed (but not implemented) in "Best of Both Worlds". And, naturally, there were inertial dampening systems in place on spacecraft as early as 2063, with artificial gravity definitely observed as early as 2151.

How do these facts help?

1. Some sort of neutronium containment system would be required to maintain (and/or create) neutronium outside its natural environment, and this could be a very strong artificial gravitational field.
2. This field must be nullified beyond a certain point (at least in the case of starship interiors, doors, and structures which, as observed, do not cause people to fly into them and turn to chunky salsa, and worse).
3. So far, the only examples of neutronium use have been from more technologically advanced races than the Federation, such as the Iconians (creators of galaxy-crossing stargates) and the builders of the Dyson Sphere.

It is, therefore, not a leap to posit that the required technologies for neutronium use are seen in their infancy in the Federation, but that these technologies have been well-developed by certain races, cultures, or groups, to the point that neutronium becomes a viable material for use in various applications.

It makes sense, it fits the canon facts, and does not ignore the basic scientific theories of neutronium.

Moderator note: George1 has been banned for 3 days for insulting other members.

Gratzi James

EDIT - and for those that didn't understand WHY I brought up Neutronium *cough* - in Star Trek, Neutronium is impervious to virtually all known weapons, including Phasers, Photon Torpedoes, and even Quantum Torpedoes. Star Wars fanatics use the fact that SW hulls have Neutronium in them to claim "haha, we win because you can't hurt us"... thing is, SW neutronium is NOTHING like Trek Neutronium (as Trek Neutronium is stated, in series, to come from a Neutron Star). Obviously, such super-dense material cannot exist in a form on a moon in which a HUMAN can pick up a fist sized chunk - just being NEAR such an amount of the material would likely rip you apart from gravitational forces.

[ricrery]

You mistake me for someone whom cares what you think. You think I hate you? I think your a petulant toddler. I don't hate you, I laugh at you. Big difference

That's still a compliment, cupcake. I'm afraid you missed the point completely

You don't debate, you whine, big difference.

Using science and proof is an example of debater, opposed to the likes of you and Apocalypse. You are, however, hopelessly daft, though, and you'll still try to argue this

Do you have any links to where exactly I said "fuck you" to physics? Do I consider myself viable? Viable for what?

GE vs Dominion thread. When plasma defeating Star Trek shields (oh right, atmospheric reentry being a problem wasn't already proof it already I see) came up, you claimed that this was a fictional universe and real science had no relevance in it. You also showed that your joule-ton conversion is about as accurate as a stormtrooper's aim as well.

I suppose that a career as a burger flipper doesn't require you to use that one brain cell a whole lot but comeon, the least you can do is create a statement that makes sense.

Falling back on those tosser insults already? Sorry, little one, but I'm not quite phased by this. Shame, eh? All that hard work, did it take all night making it, or just several hours? Too bad it was useless, right?

Careful Ricrery, the best thing that can come of you picking a fight is you getting banned again and giving the rest of us a break.

Oh, I'm not scared of that, as I'd be able to protect myself from your contamination, and I'd be on a board with a bit more competent people, like Spacebattles.

Ricrery, I hate to break it to you, but people in star wars have an intellect comparable to something I pick out from under my nails.

Oh, and he's debating about Trek at the same time? He must be really confused right now about what he's talking about.

The body armor stormtroopers wear cannot protect them from stone arrows launched by overstuffed teddy bears.

Context, Fed, ya need it. The only punctures were in the black areas where the joints are. We clearly see them carrying megajoule handguns as well anyway. The Fed phaser, with all of its reality fucking and impossibility, can't defeat cargo crates.

Bet that bit of cherry-picking will get you in a bunch, won't it? You'll cry that it's an outlier. Then, and only then, will you realize how people with functioning brain stems feel about your posts.

They have ships that can supposedly destroy a planet yet they still build the largest space station in their universe to destroy a planet which they could already do with a ship less then a percentage point of the size and cost.

Again, you are lying. The Death Star was not meant to be a weapon of mass destruction. It was meant to be a weapon of fear. There are planets with planetary shields that can tank months of orbital bombardment with fleets to defeat a shield without stopping. With the Death Star, this is not a problem. See how much better it is when you actually understand what you are talking about?

Their first death star was destroyed because of a trash can sized hole that allowed two torpedos to enter and somehow perform a ninety degree turn within about a meter while going at what? At least a few dozen times the speed of sound?

A hole that required the schematics to be made aware of? Once more, how about you do some research before opening your big mouth?

And how do they solve this problem and the second death star? Well they take away the whole defensive trench and instead put the hole out in the open, OH WAIT, this time it is big enough to fit not just a tie fighter, not just an X-wing, but the Millenium Falcon.

LOL. This is just more evidence that you are insane and have never watched the movies. The Death Star II didn't have the previous flaw the Death Star I had. They just weren't finished constructing it (oh, you didn't have did you? Shouldn't expect more from you though), and they lost their shields.

That you can claim that the destructive potential of their weaponry far exceeds the power output of their own nuclear fusion reactor. Which considering it is a civilization supposedly thousands of years more advanced then ours and yet it uses nuclear fusion which is as stupid as the US army being beaten by 3 foot tall teddy bears with bows and arrows.

Oh really? Explain this. To mass scatter a planet with fusion, one would need 30 quintillion tons of fusible material to cause that. That measly 16 km reactor could never do that with fusion, and they don't, since hypermatter is their canonical power source.

Hell, screw Trek vs. Wars, I'm betting the marine corps could give the empire an ass whipping they won't ever forget.

Oh right, this is based off what? You saying so? The Empire is orders of magnitudes ahead of the Feds on the ground and in space. The Federation's soldiers (if those retarded Redshirts can be even called soldiers) would get effortlessly whooped even by unarmed modern people. Glocks and up are massive overkill against them.

Please, explain to me how Wars is so great if it is monumentally stupid and idiotic.

Oh, I'm sorry, but I never said that, but given your track record for missing the point, this would not be a surprise.

Tell me, if according to your estimates of power output for a single salvo from a capital ship then why didn't the rebels just hyperspace at endor and have a light frigate fire at the shield generator for the second death star?

Because they had soldiers down there, oh, and the whole planet was populated. Besides that, let's talk about other sources. TESB: They have Imperial Star Destroyers vaporizing 20-40 meter asteroids in the 8th of a second. That's megatons right there. RotS novelization: They have turbolasers that can vaporize small towns. Another megaton showing. RotJ novelization. Thermonuclear yields are mentioned. AotC: Jango Fett's fighter generates gigajoules-terajoules of energy, but only carves a small hole into Obi Wan's fighter. Care to explain any of this?

Hell, according to you they should be able to incinerate everything in a few dozen square miles.

Um, a megaton+ explosion would do that, thank you.

But they didn't. Which leads me to believe that all the star wars statistics are utter horsesh*t.

Lol, and who are you to decide?

Star wars loses because they are utter and irrevocable idiots.

Again, you are talking about Star Trek, where people believe kiloton explosions are capable of destroying the crust of a planet. Oh, and how about Shinzon failing to escape Picard's E-E ramming his Scimitar? Or how about... anything you see in Trek.

You use lasers and ion cannons and trek can bring antiproton and tetryon weapons.

Lol. Star Wars use plasma weapons (ships) and particle ones (blasters). Your logic is some of the dumbest crap I've seen on the Internet. A megajoule proton or tetryon weapon is apparently better than a 1 trillion megajoule plasma weapon. You have no sense of OoM, you use no limits fallacy, and you can't even watch simple movies.

I don't care if an antiproton burst is a percentage point as energized as your turbolasers, the fact that it is antiprotons hitting your hull means that your hull literally explodes on contact with it.

Cept that it only blew up around what it can from its yield. All weapons have the same effect at the same yield. A megaton antiproton beam would be the same as a megaton laser beam. Hope you go to high school someday.

Hell, the planet killed could devour the death star easily. It doesn't matter how much plasma you shoot at it, the thing is made out of solid neutronium. How is plasma going to melt neutronium? Oh yeah, it won't.

Oh, is that why 98 megatons (a yield that the TOS ships couldn't generate without sacrificing themselves) can defeat the Planet Killer? A small Acclamator could defeat it, easily. Your Planet Killer is a piece of shit, like everything else in Trek.

But hey, at least you can take consolation that I don't hate you.

That's not a good thing

[Kittamaru]

That's still a compliment, cupcake. I'm afraid you missed the point completely



Using science and proof is an example of debater, opposed to the likes of you and Apocalypse. You are, however, hopelessly daft, though, and you'll still try to argue this

So what are you, someone who relies on insults, poor reasoning, and other people who do the work for you?

GE vs Dominion thread. When plasma defeating Star Trek shields (oh right, atmospheric reentry being a problem wasn't already proof it already I see) came up, you claimed that this was a fictional universe nd real science had no relevance in it. You also showed that your joule-ton conversion is about as accurate as a stormtrooper's aim as well.

Falling back on those tosser insults already? Sorry, little one, but I'm not quite phased by this. Shame, eh? All that hard work, did it take all night making it, or just several hours? Too bad it was useless, right?

Oh, I'm not scared of that, as I'd be able to protect myself from your contamination, and I'd be on a board with a bit more competent people, like Spacebattles.

Oh, and he's debating about Trek at the same time? He must be really confused right now about what he's talking about.

Context, Fed, ya need it. The only punctures were in the black areas where the joints are. We clearly see them carrying megajoule handguns as well anyway. The Fed phaser, with all of its reality fucking and impossibility, can't defeat cargo crates.

Bet that bit of cherry-picking will get you in a bunch, won't it? You'll cry that it's an outlier. Then, and only then, will you realize how people with functioning brain stems feel about your posts.

Again, you are lying. The Death Star was not meant to be a weapon of mass destruction. It was meant to be a weapon of fear. There are planets with planetary shields that can tank months of orbital bombardment with fleets to defeat a shield without stopping. With the Death Star, this is not a problem. See how much better it is when you actually understand what you are talking about?

A hole that required the schematics to be made aware of? Once more, how about you do some research before opening your big mouth?

LOL. This is just more evidence that you are insane and have never watched the movies. The Death Star II didn't have the previous flaw the Death Star I had. They just weren't finished constructing it (oh, you didn't have did you? Shouldn't expect more from you though), and they lost their shields.

Oh really? Explain this. To mass scatter a planet with fusion, one would need 30 quintillion tons of fusible material to cause that. That measly 16 km reactor could never do that with fusion, and they don't, since hypermatter is their canonical power source.

Oh right, this is based off what? You saying so? The Empire is orders of magnitudes ahead of the Feds on the ground and in space. The Federation's soldiers (if those retarded Redshirts can be even called soldiers) would get effortlessly whooped even by unarmed modern people. Glocks and up are massive overkill against them.

Oh, I'm sorry, but I never said that, but given your track record for missing the point, this would not be a surprise.

Because they had soldiers down there, oh, and the whole planet was populated. Besides that, let's talk about other sources. TESB: They have Imperial Star Destroyers vaporizing 20-40 meter asteroids in the 8th of a second. That's megatons right there. RotS novelization: They have turbolasers that can vaporize small towns. Another megaton showing. RotJ novelization. Thermonuclear yields are mentioned. AotC: Jango Fett's fighter generates gigajoules-terajoules of energy, but only carves a small hole into Obi Wan's fighter. Care to explain any of this?

Um, a megaton+ explosion would do that, thank you.

Lol, and who are you to decide?

Again, you are talking about Star Trek, where people believe kiloton explosions are capable of destroying the crust of a planet. Oh, and how about Shinzon failing to escape Picard's E-E ramming his Scimitar? Or how about... anything you see in Trek.

Lol. Star Wars use plasma weapons (ships) and particle ones (blasters). Your logic is some of the dumbest crap I've seen on the Internet. A megajoule proton or tetryon weapon is apparently beter than a 1 trillion megajoule plasma weapon. You have no sense of OoM, you use no limits fallacy, and you can't even watch simple movies.

Cept that it only blew up around what it can from its yield. All weapons have the same effect at the same yield. A megaton antiproton beam would be the same as a megaton laser beam. Hope you go to high school someday.

Oh, is that why 98 megatons (a yield that the TOS ships couldn't generate without sacrificing themselves) can defeat the Planet Killer? A small Acclamator could defeat it, easily. Your Planet Killer is a piece of shit, like everything else in Trek.

That's not a good thing

Please provide proofs of any of your statements here... like how an anti-proton beam would only have an effect equal to its input power for one...

[ricrery]

According to Wong's own caculator Vaporizing this rock would take LESS THAN Hiroshima Bomb of 18 Kilotons to vaporise at 7.5 kilotons...LESS THAN HALF....

Aww, look, you're trying to scale based on diameter. I'm afraid you're ignoring volumetrics. A 5 meter sphere will have 8 times less volume than a 10 meter sphere would, despite being only half its size in diameter. So, the yield would be 2.1 TJ, not including wasted energy and the fact that it was destroyed in a fraction of a second. Oh, and it's wrong. I probably don't need to do this, but what the heck?



Here's a picture of the bolt when it was just fired.



Here's a scaling of an ISD and the trench. This puts the bolt front sphere at over 9 meters in diameter, and the asteroids at 27 meters or so. To vaporize such an asteroid would require over 618 terajoules, or 147 kilotons. Pretty strange how that's the yield of the asteroid that hit the bridge. Apparently their shields can't tank their own turbolasers. Plus, the energy would not uniformly vaporize the asteroid, but instead be wasted on it, so let's just double the total yield. It was also done in approximately an eighth of a second. The total yield to vaporize the asteroid is 2.365 megatons (except it probably wasn't completely, so it's slightly less ).

This may completely debunk Mike Wong's power estimates.

Lol, you may get an A for effort, but your calculation is far from debunking his calcs.

[ricrery]

So what are you, someone who relies on insults, poor reasoning, and other people who do the work for you?

Where is this coming from? The only work I need to do is debunk Saquist's hugely flawed calcs and sigh at his replies.

Please provide proofs of any of your statements here... like how an anti-proton beam would only have an effect equal to its input power for one...

Que? Did you read what I posted?

Nuclear fusion only has 1% of the energy used, ala 220 kilotons per kilogram of fused material. M/AM is around 200 times more times that with the same amount of material. However, 500,000 kilograms of fusible materials generates 100 gigatons of energy. 2.5 kilograms of M/AM generates around 130 megatons. M/AM may be superior fusion, but a large quantity of fusible material can be much more powerful than a small amount of deuterium. According to Fedr808, 2.5 kilograms of deuterium is better than 500,000 kilograms of fusible material just because it's superior ton for ton. He doesn't understand that even if it's better generation, it doesn't change the equivalent energy whenever going up against an inferior form of generation and therefor 1 megaton of M/AM is not going to be equivalent to 100 megatons of fusible material.