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. #2861
    Plutarch (Mickey's Dog)
    Posts
    9,214
    Kron:

    A galaxy is a VERY large place, and I sincerely doubt that the majority of planets are used in the SW galaxy. Han Solo is scared of getting lost is space without a navcomp database. He memorises starmaps for this reason. If he could just jump to 2 or 3 random planets and find civilization, he wouldn't be scared.
    Some areas of the galaxy are underdeveloped owing to a poverty of the planetary system. Moreover, not all planets are brimming metropolis. Some may simply be a world inhabited by a few thousand or less people. But the majority of Stars with native terrestial planets, likely have at least some development from SW, outside of Wild Space and the Corporate Sector.

    However, even if SW uses only 1% of all it's stars, it is still phenomenally large. Much larger than Dune's colonization of the galaxy. Yet, the galaxy is still an incredibly enormous place, 100,000 probes won't cut it.
    Darth Vader managed to find the Rebels through such processes. The Rebels, owing to the largeness of the galaxy (and the incapacity to use any non-Force based determination of position) could have litterally hidden forever in a pocket of space.

    If an illiterate boy can build an AI, then all Dune needs is one Face Dancer to read his brainwaves, and Dune then has AI technology.
    Save this Face Dancer would have no idea how to manufacture the parts, mass produce them, implement them, programme them for Dune languages...

    Any Star Wars prescients could easily be shielded from viewing the Duneverse. Leto II can easily produce a blind spot of Palpatine's level.
    Same with Palpatine.

    Dune's greatest asset is it's incredible control of information. Artificial religions, prescience, no-fields, face-dancers are all different methods of extracting and withholding information from your enemies. Surveillance and deception. Star Wars is woefully lacking in comparison according to me, even though it clearly has military superiority. Even processing information (military genius) is much rarer in SW than Dune.
    Military genius? Thrawn was nearly unstoppable - as was Revan. The Empire only fell because Sidious was central to it (just like Leto's empire collapse dupon his death)...

    Also, Star Wars has the equivalent of Face Dancers: Clawdites.

  2. #2862
    Yes! Wait a minute... no Coolies!'s Avatar
    Posts
    69
    I don't know why I voted for Stargate world. I think because it has dominating over lords in it that can command many millions of soldiers to fight every1. but then again what about the Borg, the HIV of the Sci fi world, they could battle with a fair few billion prob. But I don't know cos star wars has huge battleships but not the sopisticated stuff that star trek has. I love Star Trek Voyager, The Doctor rules!! and species 8472, and the borg Queen.

  3. #2863
    First of all Impulse Engine are Ion engines, thus the Ion trail.
    I don't think so,

    Ion Engines were used on the Casini Space craft launched from the Space Shuttle. It is an extremely effiecent yet slow form of acceleration by forcing streams of Ionized particles through contriction.

    In other words it's a form of chemical propulsion

    Star Wars uses Ion/Fusion Engine

    It uses a greater amount of constriction and thrust through fussionable materials....It is a form of chemical propulsion

    Star Trek: Impulse Engine Fusion reactor.

    The Impulse engine uses an fusion reaction and then colapses the reaction into a wave that ONLY a set of driver coils are designed to react to. The wave pushes against the coils which are attached to ship and proppel the ship forward.

    By reversing the Drive coil polarity to be drawn to the wave a ship may fly backwards.

    This is a form of Field Propulsion

    The Star Trek book: Star Fleet Flight Chronology

    This book states that Ion Impulse engine techonology is ancient tech....used on board the Botany Bay...(Khan's infamous ship)

    However advance Star Wars maybe their sublight drive is an ancient means of travel by trek terms.

    We're not talking speed here. The books show that X wings can travel to the speed of light. However they fight at decidedly sublight...even atmospheric speeds.

    Zero point weapons are a nifty concept but fail to produce effect that are more impressive thant Tomahawk cruise missle loaded with convential explosives. Meanwhile that little hand grenade Leia threatened Jabba with was a 4 kiloton nuclear device.
    The word technology does not in anyway connotate more powerful. The Quantum Torpedo is designed to penetrate techonology and Armor. Those effects are seen effectively in DS9 and First Contact

    It is a superior development over Star WArs but not Star Gate which draws power from zero point modules...where Star Trek uses minute amounts of the universal Quintessence to produce 5 times a normal torpedos explosive effect.

    You have heard of diminishing returns. Things have improved but at a slower rate. Still they started off well beyond Star Trek and their advancement along the line of technology still puts them learning faster.
    FALSE: Have you heard the expression Graphs are killers?
    Its obvious the Federation has progressed further in 300 years than the Republic ever did in 100,000 years.

    Even the 27th century would have been crushed, hell take it out to the 40th or 5oth and they will still be crushed
    You are aware your opinion is not admissable as evidene? I have thus noted your position on the issue in any case.

    First of all those weapons bypass trek shields the best the Federation fields is still less that 600 gigawatts.
    I will not follow you into a power usage debate. STar Trek statements on gigawatts are arbitary. While Star Wars says nothing. Therefore this means every statement of power outage for Star Wars will be a complete guess work.

    The Dominion or the Borg wouldn't even be a challenge for the Hutts and the Hutts know to kiss the asses of the Empire and the New Republic.
    This too I have noted as your opinion.

  4. #2864
    Plutarch (Mickey's Dog)
    Posts
    9,214
    Saguist:

    Star Wars uses hypermatter reactors capable of producing super-nova level energies.

    To say the least: They've passed by the "zero-point energy" nonsense. Which again, has on screen evidence (the surest way to decide power sources) which demonstrate its relative weakness.

  5. #2865
    Minister of Technology
    Posts
    4,149
    Quote Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
    I don't think so,

    Ion Engines were used on the Casini Space craft launched from the Space Shuttle. It is an extremely effiecent yet slow form of acceleration by forcing streams of Ionized particles through contriction.

    In other words it's a form of chemical propulsion

    Star Wars uses Ion/Fusion Engine

    It uses a greater amount of constriction and thrust through fussionable materials....It is a form of chemical propulsion

    Star Trek: Impulse Engine Fusion reactor.

    The Impulse engine uses an fusion reaction and then colapses the reaction into a wave that ONLY a set of driver coils are designed to react to. The wave pushes against the coils which are attached to ship and proppel the ship forward.

    By reversing the Drive coil polarity to be drawn to the wave a ship may fly backwards.

    This is a form of Field Propulsion

    The Star Trek book: Star Fleet Flight Chronology

    This book states that Ion Impulse engine techonology is ancient tech....used on board the Botany Bay...(Khan's infamous ship)

    However advance Star Wars maybe their sublight drive is an ancient means of travel by trek terms.
    First of all, all Star Trek ships produce and ion signature form their Impulse engines as witnessed by hundreds of different events in Star Trek form TOS to VOY. While a non canon Star Trek manual may claim they produce a a form of attraction drive, canon Star Trek material clearly shows the engines emit particles and gasses. Otherwise there would be no need for an exhaust manifold. Please keep to Paramount approved Canon, as everything else is garbage.

    Also note that just becuase a technology is old does not mean it stays stagnant and fails to improve. Take knives for example, our earlier knives were crudely shaped flint or obsidian, today they make knives out sophisticated allys or ceramics. Another example is the battery, we have come a long way since the simple lead acid battery (thought we still use them).

    What matters is performance. Could the Impulse engines of the Galaxy Class star ship even budge a Star Destroyer? No.

    We're not talking speed here. The books show that X wings can travel to the speed of light. However they fight at decidedly sublight...even atmospheric speeds.
    So, Star Trek hasn't fought any faster except under the influece of the one super computer.

    The word technology does not in anyway connotate more powerful. The Quantum Torpedo is designed to penetrate techonology and Armor. Those effects are seen effectively in DS9 and First Contact
    No, what was shown is that they are terribly short ranged but powerful. In DS9 they blew up bigger targets becuase they woere powerful. In First Contact they were being fired into a Borg ship that was already without shielding and heavily damaged.

    It is a superior development over Star WArs but not Star Gate which draws power from zero point modules...where Star Trek uses minute amounts of the universal Quintessence to produce 5 times a normal torpedos explosive effect.
    Zero Point energy modules? Oh you mean matter energy conversion? Well, even so it only takes one nuclear reactor to turn on a device even the Asgardians were not capable of duplicating. So I am guessing that the power needs and out puts of everything Star Gate is not all that much in the sceme of things. As for the Quintessence shit, quite reading non canon materials, they do not pelong in discussion here.


    FALSE: Have you heard the expression Graphs are killers?
    Its obvious the Federation has progressed further in 300 years than the Republic ever did in 100,000 years.
    Oh right, somehow the Federation built a drive that can cross a galaxy in hours, built a weapon that can destroy a planet, made an entire planet into a city and have it be habitable, makes starships so common place it is the equivalents of the 221st century car......

    You are aware your opinion is not admissable as evidene? I have thus noted your position on the issue in any case.
    Are you aware non canon evidence makes you look like a complete idiot?

    I will not follow you into a power usage debate. STar Trek statements on gigawatts are arbitary. While Star Wars says nothing. Therefore this means every statement of power outage for Star Wars will be a complete guess work.
    It is canon that a 400 gigawatt attack not only dropped the Enterprise D shileds but cuased some system and structural damage. A second blast damaged the shielding and thee structural integrity on several decks.

    As for Star Wars out put I have submitted calculation based on the asteroids seen vaporized in Episode V even giving the benefit of using some of the easiest to heat and melt substances that are found in asteroid belts and ignoring later cannon info that places Uranium, Tungsten, Nickle, and Silicon in those asteroids. Even with my low number the Turbo laser has well more than 100 times the power it takes completely destroy the shields of the Enterprise D

  6. #2866
    Star Wars uses hypermatter reactors capable of producing super-nova level energies.

    To say the least: They've passed by the "zero-point energy" nonsense. Which again, has on screen evidence (the surest way to decide power sources) which demonstrate its relative weakness.
    "Super Nova level Engines" That's not true. You're grandizing
    Although the hyper-matter explains alot of things for Star Wars...
    Hyperspace is not something that has ever been mentioned in Trek. Likely space is stretched differently in the two universes.

    First of all, all Star Trek ships produce and ion signature "ionized gas"
    Yes the excess of was not imploded in the Impulse process. HOWEVER...

    In the episode "Relics" Geordi detects the Enterprise Impulse wave wake not an Ion wake. In this episode and in another the Impulse engines were thrown into reverse. The ship was not turned to retro fire but merely activated its' engines...

    Star Trek VI: The Enterprise reverses without coming about.

    STar Trek TNG: Enterprise backs away from a probe at FULL impulse then swielvings without loosing and ounce of speed and continues it's retreat.

    Think logical, please. The behavior you've witness is not that of an inertia driven engine. This is not a combustion. No Exhaust is visible as said Star Wars ships just a glow.

    Not only does the Star Fleet Chronology speak lowly of Ion engines so does Geordi. Not to mention the TNG tech manuel which actually explains how the engine works.

    Now I'm not among Trek fans...I presume. So I'll not desend this conversation into the cannon /not cannon conversation. Use your noggins and think logicaly. A reasonable person doesn't have to be told what is "cannon" to make sense of what is visual and what is factual.

    The person that believes everything they are told is merely naive, but the person that ignores what is obvioius is ignorant. GENTLEMEN....you don't strike me as that sort.

  7. #2867
    It is canon that a 400 gigawatt attack not only dropped the Enterprise D shileds
    correct.

    As for Star Wars out put I have submitted calculation based on the asteroids seen vaporized in Episode V
    I will review your calculations. I will expect them to include. The actual "cannon" size of the asteroid and the "cannon" composition of the asteroid in percentages and the "cannon" distrubution of it's elements.

    "cannon" is important to you isn't? Then you should rely on it in everyway....I look forward to you proving your claims "cannon" wise.

    What matters is performance. Could the Impulse engines of the Galaxy Class star ship even budge a Star Destroyer? No.
    Is this based off more "cannon" calculations?

    Borg ship that was already without shielding and heavily damaged.
    Is that too cannon? I recall the "shield" statement but not the latter. Could you give a quote for the record to support your claim?

  8. #2868
    First of all, all Star Trek ships produce and ion signature form their Impulse engines as witnessed by hundreds of different events in Star Trek form TOS to VOY.
    By the way...guys. Haven't any of you ever work on an engine before? Do you understand what Geordi La Forge means by manifold? Do youappreciate the mechanics of an engine?

    No engine works at 100%
    That means they don't convert all materials to energy. Even a impulse engine does not. What's left must be explelled. Since it is a fusion device there is plasma involved.

    The left over are expelled just like a modern car in an exhaust manifold. The difference between an Ion fussion engine and an Impulse engine:

    The impulse Engine is not using the exhaust to proppel the ship....THAT IS EVIDENT. You can NOT proppel a ship or a car for that matter with a MANIFOLD....

    I hope you guys realize how stupid that is. The Space shuttle is a chemical combustion engine producing thrust in the for of VECTORED EXHAUST. No rocket uses a manifold.

    Ion Engines produce that thrust in a Fusion VECTORED EXHAUST. (The Millenium Falcon's thrustered approach on the Star Destroyer Avenger)

    Nothing with a MANIFOLD could ever direct that much heat. They're are meant to expel heat not direct thrust.
    Last edited by Saquist; 01-10-07 at 10:05 AM.

  9. #2869
    Plutarch (Mickey's Dog)
    Posts
    9,214
    Saguist:

    In a non-star wars related discussion, I asked Ye Olde Minds of Sciforums, to tell me some energy calculations (and a question of Relativity) in the physics area. Consider their responses:

    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=60976

    Specifcally Pete's:

    "Hi QQ,
    To accelerate a 1kg mass to 99.9999999999999999999% c takes about:
    2 x 10^37 joules, or
    the energy output from the Sun for 1700 years, or
    the energy output of Quasar 3C 273 in one fortieth of a second, or
    One ten-thousandth the energy released in a supernova
    the energy equivalent of the mass of all Earth's oceans."

    "Super Nova level Engines" That's not true. You're grandizing
    Although the hyper-matter explains alot of things for Star Wars...
    Hyperspace is not something that has ever been mentioned in Trek. Likely space is stretched differently in the two universes.
    Yes. they follow different rules of physics for FTL. This much is known.

    However, from Pete's answer, we can say that the hypermatter reactors aboard the Deathstar (how it collects such massive energy) do indeed produce super-nova levels of energies (or rather - about 1/10,000th, but still...we're talking cosmic level power here) or really tremendous amounts of energy really quickly. On the other hand, we have found nothing similar to this in Trek outside of Species 9472 (sp?) and they require an entirely different dimension (a water space).

    STar Trek TNG: Enterprise backs away from a probe at FULL impulse then swielvings without loosing and ounce of speed and continues it's retreat.
    Why did they need to do this if it was fine to go at full impulse and in warp backwards?

    And not to be a dick, but just to note, it is "canon" not "cannon". The latter is a type of artillery piece.

    I will review your calculations. I will expect them to include. The actual "cannon" size of the asteroid and the "cannon" composition of the asteroid in percentages and the "cannon" distrubution of it's elements.

    "cannon" is important to you isn't? Then you should rely on it in everyway....I look forward to you proving your claims "cannon" wise.
    The canon is the film.

  10. #2870
    Minister of Technology
    Posts
    4,149
    Quote Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
    Yes the excess of was not imploded in the Impulse process. HOWEVER...
    No the main thrust of the engine according to Paramount approved canon sources.

    In the episode "Relics" Geordi detects the Enterprise Impulse wave wake not an Ion wake. In this episode and in another the Impulse engines were thrown into reverse. The ship was not turned to retro fire but merely activated its' engines...
    I have read the script for Relic, he looked for an Impulse wake, not an Impulse wave wake. Plus it has been shown many times that those engine produce thrust via some emission. Including the time Ensign Roe made the bogus plan of passing through the sheilds of the Enterprise D where the Ion engines vented through the shields. If it was simple exhaust why would it disrupt shields? As for reversing thrust Episode 3 of Star Wars showed perfectly well how you can reverse fixed engines. Not to mention the fact that no ship designer would ever mount just a single set of engines on a space craft.

    Think logical, please. The behavior you've witness is not that of an inertia driven engine. This is not a combustion. No Exhaust is visible as said Star Wars ships just a glow.
    Actually it is of an Inertain engine with Intertial dampers. I never said it was combustion, just Ion emission..

    Not only does the Star Fleet Chronology speak lowly of Ion engines so does Geordi. Not to mention the TNG tech manuel which actually explains how the engine works.
    The Star Feet Chronology and TNG Tech manual are not approved canon. Geordi may have spoken ill of a simple Ion engine, but his ship is propelled by an advanced one. Like comparing muskets to assault rifles. However Star Wars didn't give their advanced engine a fancy name, just called it what it was, an Ion Engine.

    Now I'm not among Trek fans...I presume. So I'll not desend this conversation into the cannon /not cannon conversation. Use your noggins and think logicaly. A reasonable person doesn't have to be told what is "cannon" to make sense of what is visual and what is factual.
    I actually am a Star trek fan and unlike you I can spell canon and can read canon. I can also interpret what I see and hear.

  11. #2871
    Minister of Technology
    Posts
    4,149
    Quote Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
    correct.
    I know I am right.

    I will review your calculations. I will expect them to include. The actual "cannon" size of the asteroid and the "cannon" composition of the asteroid in percentages and the "cannon" distrubution of it's elements.

    "cannon" is important to you isn't? Then you should rely on it in everyway....I look forward to you proving your claims "cannon" wise.
    Oh so you are gonna be complaining becuase I made the Asteroid too small, too warm, and of easily melted materials and did not factor in enrgy loss due to photon emission and convection?

    Is this based off more "cannon" calculations?
    No, based off the fact that a set of engines that can barely lift a light armored 200 meter craft off a 1G planet is not gonna budge a heavily armored 1.6 km craft that sports a hypermatter reactor.

    Is that too cannon? I recall the "shield" statement but not the latter. Could you give a quote for the record to support your claim?
    Just the appearance was enough to say that. The pit in the side was big enough to park a parallel a Galaxy class, the sovereign and a pair of Relaint class ships.

  12. #2872
    Plutarch (Mickey's Dog)
    Posts
    9,214
    I'd also like to go on the record that I like Star Trek. TOS and DS9 especially.

  13. #2873
    Why did they need to do this if it was fine to go at full impulse and in warp backwards?
    That's a simple answer. Tactics...
    First it's a matter of piloting: Is the Pilot proficient in manuvering a vessel backwards?

    2nd and more importantly: If Captain Picard expected to make a real escape to warp it would require (at least for the Galaxy class) a forward orientation to jump to warp and sustain a warp field. Federation ships are constructed and balanced with the forward bow shock of the warp field in mind to provide maximum efficiency and speed. That is the whole purpose of the saucer design.

    However, from Pete's answer, we can say that the hypermatter reactors aboard the Deathstar (how it collects such massive energy) do indeed produce super-nova levels of energies (or rather - about 1/10,000th, but still...we're talking cosmic level power here) or really tremendous amounts of energy really quickly. On the other hand, we have found nothing similar to this in Trek outside of Species 9472 (sp?) and they require an entirely different dimension (a water space).
    I'm still waiting for cannon figures. You see It's not so terrible to think of ways how a techonology works. But that's not what you're doing....You're adding your own variables. I can not accept your variables after that argument about cannon that was thrown up a day ago

    Actually it is of an Inertain engine with Intertial dampers. I never said it was combustion, just Ion emission..
    ERRR...wrong...sorry. It's a combustion Engine because what it uses as propellant no what ever aids it uses to reach it's speeds. Even Trek ships use IDF to lighten the ship....It doesn't make them Interial engines and nor does it do the same in Star Wars.

    The Star Feet Chronology and TNG Tech manual are not approved canon.
    I don't care about cannon especially not your definition of it. The entire EU Universe is un cannon. I politely suggest you get of your cannon soap box.

    actually am a Star trek fan and unlike you I can spell canon and can read canon. I can also interpret what I see and hear.
    You shouldn't need an interpreter if you understand something.

    And not to be a dick,
    Errr. ... then don't. With all due respect Prince James...I'm not in the comfort of home but admist my colleagues at work and I'm busting my chops doing two to three things at once. I'ts 7:51 am Houston, Tx.

    I'm taking time out to participate in a discussion that will hopfully yield enlightenment of both sides, not to mention I really do enjoy such discussions. However...It's is classless to point out differences in dialect and pronuciation as it is to point out a spelling error.

    For future notice, there will be many "an" spelling error in the post to come. I sincerely inquire of you. Do you really think I'm incapable of spelling or running my post through a "speelll cheque?"

    And is this truely how you wish to spend my time on the Forums?

    I assume we're done with this aswell as speculations on how impulse power works, If there are no more outstanding theories to address?
    The canon is the film.
    I will continue to issue my statement on continuity:
    Saquist is not limited to what Paramount or the Producers of Trek consider cannon. Obviously they don't know what it is. Ultimately it's what the fans decided is acceptable.

    All that is required is that the studios and comanies behind the copy write authorize it's production. If the literature is not canon then it should have never have been produced in the first place.

    For Fans: Where Canon and literature conflict they must make there own reasonable conclusion on what is a part of the story line and what isn't. Fans hold the power not the studio not the producers. They can not tell you what to believe. If they do stop watching and suddenly the issue of cannon won't be an issue anymore because the show won't exist. (ie ENTERPRISE)

  14. #2874
    "Canon" or Cannon
    There for I'm letting you know what I think is canon.

    "All information published by an authorized distrubtor under the genre's logo that doesn't conflict with visuals."

    Everthing else is fed to the cannon"

    You may do what you wish your definition.

  15. #2875
    Plutarch (Mickey's Dog)
    Posts
    9,214
    Saguist:

    That's a simple answer. Tactics...
    First it's a matter of piloting: Is the Pilot proficient in manuvering a vessel backwards?
    I wouldn't see why they wouldn't be taught this at the academy, if it is possible.

    Moreover, isn't the phaser array forward facing? That would mean a Parthian shot retreat would be far superior,.

    2nd and more importantly: If Captain Picard expected to make a real escape to warp it would require (at least for the Galaxy class) a forward orientation to jump to warp and sustain a warp field. Federation ships are constructed and balanced with the forward bow shock of the warp field in mind to provide maximum efficiency and speed. That is the whole purpose of the saucer design.
    Is it? Why then do we find ships of all varieties in the galaxy which do not share in such? Surely they are not using grossly inefficient designs?

    I'm still waiting for cannon figures. You see It's not so terrible to think of ways how a techonology works. But that's not what you're doing....You're adding your own variables. I can not accept your variables after that argument about cannon that was thrown up a day ago
    It blows up a terrestial planet. Moreover, the power of the Deathstar is held to be as such in the movies and books and everything else.

    I don't care about cannon especially not your definition of it. The entire EU Universe is un cannon. I politely suggest you get of your cannon soap box.
    Actually, it is canon. Lucas decides for us. Paramount for you.

    For future notice, there will be many "an" spelling error in the post to come. I sincerely inquire of you. Do you really think I'm incapable of spelling or running my post through a "speelll cheque?"
    Well you repeatedly made the mistake. So yeah...I guess you -were- incapable of spelling.

    I will continue to issue my statement on continuity:
    Saquist is not limited to what Paramount or the Producers of Trek consider cannon. Obviously they don't know what it is. Ultimately it's what the fans decided is acceptable.
    Then you are using virtually no foundation for your argument aside from personal preference. This is both intellectually dishonest and frankly, rather juvenile.

  16. #2876
    I wouldn't see why they wouldn't be taught this at the academy, if it is possible.

    Moreover, isn't the phaser array forward facing? That would mean a Parthian shot retreat would be far superior,.
    Why isn't really important here so I'm reluctant to spend a lot of time on the subject.

    Is it? Why then do we find ships of all varieties in the galaxy which do not share in such? Surely they are not using grossly inefficient designs?
    Do your research on warp field theory. I'm sure Picard knows his ship.

    Prince James, do you not realize that we're talking about the ION engines not the Death Star. Did I miss something in your post?

    You have my statement on cannon you can beat the dead horse if you like. No one decides anything for me. place your mental faculities in whoever hands you wish.

    Then you are using virtually no foundation for your argument aside from personal preference. This is both intellectually dishonest and frankly, rather juvenile.
    I really don't care. I suggest you get over it. Life is full of twist and turns.

    Anyway it seems to be fending you off fairly effectively.
    Last edited by Saquist; 01-11-07 at 10:55 AM.

  17. #2877
    Thus far both of you to some extent have offered up your opinion on what you think is cannon.

    1. Still haven't seen your "caluculations" based on what is "canon" of the asteroid vaporization

    2. You've used a variety of "like" terms to explain what you believe...yet we're still low on "E" on the "cannon" facts from your end.

    Lets see some cannon facts. hmmm...
    Lets see where you get your firepower stats, Let's see how many diversions you take to get to the heart of the matter...

    And feel free to comment on my spelling. I look foward to further "mature" and un "juvenile" critiques.

  18. #2878
    Plutarch (Mickey's Dog)
    Posts
    9,214
    Saguist:

    Why isn't really important here so I'm reluctant to spend a lot of time on the subject.
    Isn't it vital to considering whether or not impulse drives do as you say?

    Do your research on warp field theory. I'm sure Picard knows his ship.
    Apparently not, as Birds of Prey have nothing similar to the Enterprise and are just as fast.

    Prince James, do you not realize that we're talking about the ION engines not the Death Star. Did I miss something in your post?
    That was a quote I was replying to later on in your argument. You were switching between T.W. Scott and me.

    T.W. SCott:

    Want to copy and paste the asteroid calculations?

  19. #2879
    Minister of Technology
    Posts
    4,149
    Quote Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
    That's a simple answer. Tactics...
    First it's a matter of piloting: Is the Pilot proficient in manuvering a vessel backwards?
    What piloting, it's all done by ploting course unless you engage manual helm, which has been done one.

    2nd and more importantly: If Captain Picard expected to make a real escape to warp it would require (at least for the Galaxy class) a forward orientation to jump to warp and sustain a warp field. Federation ships are constructed and balanced with the forward bow shock of the warp field in mind to provide maximum efficiency and speed. That is the whole purpose of the saucer design.
    Actually the purpose of the Saucer design is a sort of emergency last ditch life boat. If your secondary hull is heavily damaged or your engines are about to suffer a breach, the saucer section has a greater chance of survivability. If the Constitution class ships could ditch their secondary hull (though not reattach) Read your history and federation philosophy. BTW for those of you wonder the Kling boom section on a D7 K'tanga class serves the same purpose.

    I'm still waiting for cannon figures. You see It's not so terrible to think of ways how a techonology works. But that's not what you're doing....You're adding your own variables. I can not accept your variables after that argument about cannon that was thrown up a day ago
    Well the canon equations are never actually presented. In fact what is done is going based off a visiualization, we use physics to reconstruct the raw energy needed.

    http://members.fortunecity.com/livin...blues/id75.htm


    ERRR...wrong...sorry. It's a combustion Engine because what it uses as propellant no what ever aids it uses to reach it's speeds. Even Trek ships use IDF to lighten the ship....It doesn't make them Interial engines and nor does it do the same in Star Wars.
    Actually no a combustion engine means something is being oxidized in order to provide power. From your twisted defination you would see a C02 cartridge to push a papper airplane as a combustion engine, and you'd be wrong again

    An Ion engine does use propellant, but it is not a combustion engine.

    As for Inertia Dampers, Star Trek uses them to creat an inertialess ride and help the ship from shaking a apart. They use a contragravity generator to lighten the ship.

    I don't care about cannon especially not your definition of it. The entire EU Universe is un cannon. I politely suggest you get of your cannon soap box.
    It's canon, and Star Wars EU is considered canon. Star Trek is limited to Shows and Films. So sayeth Paramount for Star trek and Lucas for Star Wars.

    You shouldn't need an interpreter if you understand something.
    And I don't need one, but you obviously do.

    I assume we're done with this aswell as speculations on how impulse power works, If there are no more outstanding theories to address?
    True we are done. Canon back my assertion and completely demies yours.

    I will continue to issue my statement on continuity:
    Saquist is not limited to what Paramount or the Producers of Trek consider cannon. Obviously they don't know what it is. Ultimately it's what the fans decided is acceptable.

    All that is required is that the studios and comanies behind the copy write authorize it's production. If the literature is not canon then it should have never have been produced in the first place.

    For Fans: Where Canon and literature conflict they must make there own reasonable conclusion on what is a part of the story line and what isn't. Fans hold the power not the studio not the producers. They can not tell you what to believe. If they do stop watching and suddenly the issue of cannon won't be an issue anymore because the show won't exist. (ie ENTERPRISE)
    Paramount owns Star Trek and therefore has the undisputable last say. Fans can say anything they want, but they are in the just fans and not the owners.
    Last edited by TW Scott; 01-11-07 at 10:48 PM.

  20. #2880
    Registered Member
    Posts
    51
    Because Star Trek and Star Wars are completely fictitious constructs, there is no right or wrong manner in which to wage this debate, just as there is no right or wrong answer; however, most of you have taken an extremely quantitative approach to this argument. You’re citing data from various technical manuals and “canon” source material, all of which suffer one major pratfall – there’s absolutely nothing quantitative about the manner in which these sources were created. They’re essentially a compilation of random numbers and highly embellished extractions of modern quantum mechanics theory. Trust me. I know. In my pre-teen years, I collected and absorbed these manuals as if they were science books, and I will simply say that anyone can write about a fictitious laser producing 999 gagillion gigawatts of energy. (See. I just did it.)

    So, if you will indulge me for a moment, I would like to offer a slightly more qualitative means of beating this dead hor…er…arguing this point.

    Rather than incessantly alluding to “technical manuals” and “canon material” written solely to pad the pockets of George Lucas and/or Paramount Studios, let’s compare and contrast the shows themselves.

    For instance, in Star Trek, our chief protagonist is the United Federation of Planets. They’re a well-meaning bunch, though somewhat arrogant and self-righteous, especially during the time of Next Gen, DS9, and Voyager. They obviously suffer delusions of grandeur and just can’t seem to shake those unrealistic visions of building Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. But, despite all pretenses, Federation members only want what’s best for everyone and are always endeavoring to do the right thing. Unfortunately, the same sentiments do not apply to their neighbors. The Federation is surrounded on all sides by hostile races who simply do not share their Utopian ideals; as such, Starfleet is forced to fight a major war once every 50 to 75 years.

    In Star Wars, the situation is markedly different: Prior to the Clone Wars, the Old Republic had enjoyed centuries of relative peace with a few minor skirmishes here and there. The emergence of the Empire, however, shattered that peace, largely because the Jedi had grown bloated and complacent…or, perhaps more aptly stated, fat and lazy.

    In essence, the Star Trek universe is perpetually embroiled in some fierce conflict while the Star Wars universe has seen only two major (albeit monumental) wars. And, if necessity really is the mother of invention, this crucial difference between the two universes has unquestionable technological consequences: War has forced the Federation to spend substantial time and resources developing new weapons technologies, while centuries of peace have allowed the Old Republic to concentrate on more scientific endeavors, such as exploration. Consequently, the Old Republic has developed far more advanced FTL systems, and the Federation has created far more devastating weapons systems.

    I make no apologies. I am a Trekker, though I do enjoy Star Wars, but this is my contention, anyway and there is film evidence supporting it: When Han Solo drops out of hyperspace in the Alderaan system and found the planet destroyed, he expressed great disbelief, stating that such destruction would take a thousand ships with more firepower than he’d ever seen. In contrast, consider the episode entitled “Doomsday Machine” from TOS. The Planet Killer sliced and diced worlds with great ease and quickness (so quick, in fact, that Captain Decker could do nothing to save his crew, who were stranded on a world that the Planet Killer destroyed and devoured), yet both the Enterprise and Defiant took a number of direct hits from the Planet Killer itself. Also, in another TOS episode, Garth of Izar held Captain Kirk hostage on Elba II using a planetary force field through which the Enterprise could not beam. Scotty, who was commanding the Enterprise at the time, was initially unwilling to use the ship’s phasers against the field for fear of destroying the entire world.

    In my opinion, Star Trek weaponry is more powerful than Star Wars weaponry; however, the Empire is substantially larger than Star Fleet. But size differential is no guarantee of victory. After all, a band of colonist from a small island did manage to topple all of Native North American Civilization, which spanned an entire continent. Muskets versus bows. Phasers versus lasers. You decided.

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
  •