Star Wars vs Star Trek

Discussion in 'SciFi & Fantasy' started by Pollux V, May 9, 2002.

?

Which universe would win?

  1. Star Trek

    227 vote(s)
    35.5%
  2. Star Wars

    268 vote(s)
    41.9%
  3. Spaceballs

    47 vote(s)
    7.3%
  4. Farscape

    12 vote(s)
    1.9%
  5. Dune

    50 vote(s)
    7.8%
  6. Stargate

    36 vote(s)
    5.6%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    I wasn't talking about your list but yes that was mostly wrong too.
    Yes you are.

    Who is Vivftp?
    I have given my math in the sources 2 pages back for my analysis of the Q Who phaser strike which you ignored.

    Visual canon.
    Yes you are.

    Your use of logic for defining pulverized puts the NASA objective at a disadvantage of necessity. As in, it's not necessary to actually pulverize the 1 mile asteroid to save the Earth. It's an unrealistic objective for primitive Earth abilities of our time and your logic for a kiloton detonation becomes forfeit. Please don't place your temper tantrums in place of logical syllogisms.

    A non sequitor: a logical fallacy where a stated conclusion is not supported by its premise.

    So since YOU CALLED THIS A KILOTON Explosion:

    "it would take as little as 5 to 10 kilotons of energy to divert an asteroid."~http://dvice.com/archives/2010/06/asteroid-headed.php

    ~"If it's about 15 days away, it would take a 300-kiloton bomb to obliterate an asteroid about 1000 feet in diameter, with only a small percentage of the debris still reaching the earth, and probably burning up in the planet's atmosphere."~http://dvice.com/archives/2010/06/asteroid-headed.php

    1000ft equals 304.8 meters.
    Proportional Firepower for 700 meter Asteroid is 690 Kilotons at 100,000 miles which is more than half the distance to the moon. however in this Star Trek Episode the Asteroid is seconds from impact and the debris is considered globally dangerous meaning 300 meters or more which would impact several thousand times the Tsar Bomb. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-Earth_object

    This means of course that it was necessary to completely destroy the asteroid. At just seconds meaning a hundred to 200 miles above atmospheric interface they HAVE to have above a MEGATON to neutralize the Asteroid. Thus the remains we see surrounding the Enterprise were not of sufficient size no matter how large they appear on screen. We could conclude that the remains we see are not from the last minute destruction but perhaps a much earlier intercept or the photon blast. Thus this is not a kiloton range explosion.

    Firstly: If I'm wrong, I don't have a problem with it. I don't know everything and I'm not a physic major. I'm not familar with equating the Kinetic Energy of a moving object in terms of mass but rather in speed.

    What I do know is t that the estimate of the impact is irrelevant because the vessel itself DOES NOT EXPEND ALL IT"S ENERGY INTO THE SURFACE LIKE ANY IMPACT SHOULD. The vessel keeps going with no signs of deceleration. The individual you brought in from the other forum DID NOT object.

    None of this has anything to do with contradictory statements against my showing evidence.
    Red Herring

    I don't believe you. You haven't afforded yourself to being trust worthy.
    Sure it does. It show the destruction of an Asteroid just as the other examples do.

    Ad hominem:
    The Uber fire ball is all that matters. It's CGI, not a scientific documentary. Your expectations are illogical and unreasonable. No one is going to properly show what you expect to see, nor are they expected to.

    Ad hominem:
    My mistake. I have confirmed your previous statement.

    Ad hominem:
    Baseless speculation
    The difference would be one is Fusion induced.
    Unless fusion occurs on the surface of a sun regularly this statement is fallacious.

    Ad hominem:
    Appeal to Emotions
    Tantrums do not, an articulate argument, make.

    One word retorts, do not, an articulate argument, make.

    Your post was immensely incoherent.
    You didn't articulate your thoughts properly and you didn't address the content of the reply directed toward you. Given the chance to explain yourself further you chose be evasive. Your frustrations is becoming extremely self apparent.

    In the absence of proof logic is perfectly acceptable and admissible.

    We do not know the vessel was unshielded. This is claim that you have not proven.

    Again. In the absence of Direct Proof, Logic is a proper and admissible.
    Just because canon shows one thing doesn't mean we ignore the events that contradict it. I can't simply assume SD weapons are strong that the asteroid impacts they received. That's bias that I'm not prone to but apparently you are.

    Ad hominem:
    You made the claim that the shields were down. You have to prove it.
    Logic properly assumes the shields are up.
    You have to prove against logic that your claim is valid.
    ..And Ricery...I know have to do this. Don't bust a nut...

    Logical deduction requires to isolate each occurence independent from the others. That's what a proper determination is. You can not assume greater firepower just because you found it in other examples...It's not scientific, it's not a proper scientific baseline and it's not a proper scientific conclusion. It's bias and nothing else. You want me to join you in your bias but I will treat each situation as it's own isolated event.


    Irrelevant:
    Tantrum dismissed
    A Unintelligent and inarticulate expletives is not a link quote, source or reference.

    Did you read what you quoted?
    I'm not seeing any request for proof in that quote.
    You're becoming...erratic.

    Ad hominem:
    For one I don't use insults as a crutch. I believe in my arrangements and I rely solely uppon them. You rather that speaking intelligently resort to your insults, put up little information and you don't understand what a claim is apparently.

    Ad hominem:

    I will accept that as a decline to conduct an combined effort to discover the complete average of Fire power for Star Trek and Star Wars. Considering your beligerence and tantrums I would say this has to because you're afraid of what the results would yield. But you got one thing right...you are allowed to ignore me. And if that's what makes you happy you may withdraw.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2010
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256

    At first I thought he was acting like TWScott but he's worse.
    He thinks these tantrums make him look credible.
    No proof
    No evidence
    Poor Logic
    But a heck of a lot raving. I hope he really is done with me because there was more profanity than there was intelligence in that post.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    @ Ricery

    You assumed the Scimitar's shields were UP even though we know that there have been shield to shield impacts previous...
    That's a LOGICAL CONCLUSION. SYLLOGISM: The ship is in danger there for the Captain raises it's shields.

    You agreed that the shields were up on the Scimitar.
    As did I...

    Suddenly you go reverse on your logic.
    You know it's illogical for Shinzon to lower his shield in battle.
    But you don't make the same conclusion for Star Wars Asteroid Impacts.

    ...You're biased and you using your poor understanding of formal debates to fend me off.
    Stop using your ego to fight and use your head.
    Stop contradicting yourself and be consistent.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2010
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Apocalypse2001 System Lord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    693
    (speaking of distance moved: There's also artistic licence like you've said previously. Seeing a Klingon ship get off of a water surface, or seeing the "O'Neill" (Stargate SG-1) take off, to leave orbit, are obviously done at an accelerated rate. Because, for example, the "O'Neil" would take much much much longer to get off the surface of the Asgard planet than was originally shown.)
     
  8. Apocalypse2001 System Lord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    693
    Really? I guess you haven't opened a dictionary. Or right, TW Scott's warped ideas is the alpha and omega for you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. ricrery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,616
    Breaking a rock into rocks fractions of its original size =/= reducing rock to millions of grain sized pieces.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. ricrery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,616
    No, we hear Data state that the shields are at 70%. That's a fact.

    1) My claim is going off a canon statement.

    2) Yours an assumption based off nothing. It's even contradicted in the novelization.

    That would be you. You have no idea what you're talking about, but you keep on talking anyway.

    Take your own advice.

    Lol.
     
  11. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,478
    although i do not believe this subject matter is worthy of any emotional stress..

    ricery

    you keep trying to validate your opinions at the expense of your reasonability..

    give in once in awhile, it would gain you better respect..(the subject matter isn't important enough to be so rigid.)
     
  12. ricrery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,616
    Non-sequitur, dipshit.

    Uh huh, how about you actually show a video?

    Yes you are

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I could care less what you think. Mike Wong's calculator is easily more legit than a prat who doesn't understand the formula for kinetic energy.

    Or a logical fallacy where a claim that doesn't follow what was said before is brought up.

    Basic physics fail. You can't quantify an explosion in space. You can only quantify what it did.

    Oh what size, composition, momentum, initial velocity, final velocity, and mass?

    Ditto what was said before. Define "obliterate", too.

    Which can be shattered by 28 kilotons if inert.

    Based off what? You saying so? How about you learn how to debate? Anyway, the Rise asteroid required 25 megatons to shatter, and that was with a 200 Isoton torpedo. How do you explain that?

    No no, I don't listen to what you say. The dialog AND visuals support it was merely shattered.

    And this is basic science and math.

    And how is that possible?

    Which means less energy was exerted into the Voyager. If it didn't decelerate, then it received a small fraction of the total KE of the instance. This means it took several GJ of energy, and yet it was still damaged.

    And I don't listen to anything you say either.

    Really, the size doesn't matter? I bet you don't know the difference in firepower in shattering a 1 meter asteroid and a 1 kilometer asteroid.

    Have you ever heard of "suspension of disbelief"? I'm not surprised you are using this pathetic excuse. Can this be added to the top of each post you make?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please just stop posting altogether.

    Yes we do.

    Assuming it was only traveling at 1 km (it exploded), and was around 40 meters in diameter (not much larger than the MF), it hit it with 8 kilotons of energy. 8 kilotons harmlessly exploded off an unshielded vessel.

    No it isn't. It is canonically confirmed that vessels can survives thousands of times with shields to what they couldn't without shields. The vessel didn't have shields up.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Even vaporizing a 20 meter asteroid in the 8th of a second requires 1.9 megatons. How about you learn basic math, and get back to me?

    Shifting burden of proof. You claimed it was an example of shield durability. You prove it had shields up.

    It assumes the opposite.

    Ignoring you is better because you have already confirmed that you don't want to debate with canon, but with your opinion. Calling you an idiot and walking away is more logical.
     
  13. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    It doesn't mean he didn't lower the shields.
    Your senseless reasoning has a destroyer running a guantlet of deadly asteroids with no shields which would make a bout as much sense. So don't tell me, "No."


    Which there is no reference or source for...(No surprise)

    If logic is nothing to you then you can't be expected to hold a logical debate with me. I wouldn't expect you to be logical in your conclusions.


    I hope I'm not annoying you. You seemed to have ignored an entire post.
    Are you tiring. That's another bias. Like I said at the outset...anyone can win a argument just be closing their eyes and ears as you are...but it takes intelligence to debate and articulate.



    I have. I avoided and dodged all your insults and ridicule. In fact I can tell you with confidence that I will never reduce myself to your standards of thinking, speaking and reasoning. I respect myself too much to jump into the mud with you.


    They say laughing helps the pain...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    Then ignore me.
    You wouldn't know logic if you had created it yourself...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    It really isn't.

    It's his religion.:m:
     
  16. ricrery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,616
    Except they don't state that the shields down. Next, they ram them a minute later. The ISDs were canonically tanking large asteroid while unshielded.

    Lol, is that why Data says that the shields were still up and almost full?

    Logic is not proof. I will take evidence over logic any day.

    Which is something you don't have.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    On a serious note, you ignore entire physics just so you win. You are not a debater. You're a mentally challenged little child who is told that they're special, and you thus you force yourself to believe this and argue for your side even if your "logic" is flawed. I mean, you're arguing for this side, so it clearly must be right, right?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I wouldn't expect you to be able to debate at all. All of your arguments are style over substance anyway.
     
  17. ricrery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,616
    Remember kids, you must always ignore physics and instead choose author's intent. Fuck suspension of disbelief too, as it has no room in the debating world. /Saquist, erm /sarcasm
     
  18. Apocalypse2001 System Lord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    693
    oh right I forgot...you think metal is like glass, no wonder you said --->

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    And again, you ignore your own stupid mistakes by applying a contextomy fallacy. Proof that you pretend to forget what you said to Saquist.
    Nice try. Believe me, I'll stay true to what I said in that past post.
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    = yet another 7 day ban from sciforums.

    ricrery only got off this lightly due to some previous infraction points expiring. Next ban will be 14 days.
     
  20. Apocalypse2001 System Lord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    693
    more persoanl attacks and insults
    the first one: you have never accepted either. Hundreds of pages, here, prove that.
    the second one: you ridicule Saquist, even though it's obviously something YOU never had. But that's nothing new. You've always been in denial; we've provided posts of yours that proves that very FACT.
    the third one: again, more denial. He's done it; you have not.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2010
  21. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,478
    um..first yur talking to a banned person...

    second quit calling the kettle black..
     
  22. Apocalypse2001 System Lord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    693
    1) I posted that before James put a post about the ban.
    2) you're one to talk. The person I've attacked constantly is ricerony. And with you it was briefly when we first talked to each other. If you don't want that to start again. Don't get me started. Or else if you DO start that again, it'll be your own damn fault.
    EDIT: notice how I've never attacked, like ricerony has, Saquist, Kittamaru, IlithiDragon, etc... because I know when to accept a sound argument from people like them instead of making stupid little illogical comments like a 6 year old about, 'having fun' or, 'ruining a thread', or what have you . . .
     
  23. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    Wow...Banned....


    Correct me if I'm wrong but did Ricery just say, "I will take evidence over logic any day."?

    No wonder I couldn't reason with him.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page