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. Apocalypse2001 System Lord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    693
    Well it's not really a joke when you're using quantificational fallacies with which to prove something that was not there.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Quantum_Dragon Registered Member

    Messages:
    33
    Agreed that Lucas was more concerned with story than scientfic explanations on everything. And I yes its fantasy.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Anyhow, I gotta go for now, I will respond to Saquist later, cya guys till then.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2010
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Quantum_Dragon Registered Member

    Messages:
    33
    Ok I know I said I was gonna go, but this I just couldn't help myself on...


    I was joking, seriously joking...And I am not going to debate too heavily on that fact, (seriously?) but if it will help, as you said here:

    Yes, I did know it was an easter egg...lol.

    I feel like I am Kirk talking to Spock (and your picture doesn't help...lol -take that as a compliment on your debating skills).
    However, keeping in Kirk tradition though

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    :

    The last thousand or so pages have been arguing about how "everything" in the movies is canon, not "everything excluding easter eggs", easter eggs weren't stated to be dismissed in this thread, and thus in this thread that scene is valid canon.
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2010
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    Quantum Dragon, I honestly think the Q element is a bit irrelevant in the vs debate. At best Q stands just as much chance doing nothing as doing something in favor of Star Trek or Star Wars. He also stands a better chance of getting disciplined for those actions event though we've never seen him actually stopped by the continuum. And he doesn't make for an interesting battle.

    Wars vs Trek is about tech and races and I really think it should be kept on that level.
     
  8. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,478
    lol..in an upcoming episode Q transports Data back in time to the Republics universe and into the role of Darth Vader, how would he handle that role?

    because only a few ST vs SW fans are that technically enabled..
     
  9. ricrery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,616
    Except it isn't. An orbital explosion that lasts less than one second cannot be in megaton range. You provide ACTUAL proof that it was in the megaton range with science or GTFO.

    Oh, so now you should concede that the instances in SW are just FX visuals and don't count, and instead just give up and make ICS prime canon. No, doubtless that your board cares little for how actual debating works, but I won't accept your opinion on this matter. You use science, or GTFO.

    Speak English.

    Is that why you were doing the exact opposite right now?

    Which you have to prove is canon.

    Which is why you don't acknowledge once it is shown to you?

    WAAAH I CONSIDER MY OPINION FACT WAAAH! /Saquist

    Is that why you, several times already, have shown not to be able to fulfill your burden of proof?

    No, because of your "logic", there is no way for you to win the debate. All you do is lie and make positive claims without proof because of logic. You aren't a debater, you are a waste of time, and this is confirmed since you don't even dare go on other boards, due to being scared of being humiliated in all the debates that you are in.

    No, suspension of disbelief is first and foremost. Evidence > Logic

    ... But you still use fallacies, despite failing burden of proof in every post you make.

    I actually can. You can't prove they were down. Let me make it simple so even you could understand. Shields > Hull. Hull survives large asteroid impacting it with no damage. Shields survives what destroys hull thousands of times over. Now it's your turn to provide evidence.

    I didn't make the claim (but doubtless that the mods here don't understand the difference... or how to debate), you did, so you back it up.

    I don't use "logic" because of the likes of retards like yourself

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    And you can't provide a single shred of evidence, use faulty physics, and hide on this board in fear of showing what a idiot you are to the Internet

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Correction. I'm attacking a brick wall (you) that talks. It just won't budge.

    Yes, you understand neither.

    I denounce logic because it has NO reason for being in the debating world. I follow suspension of disbelief and proof, because those are actually a requirement (oh no, guess you're out

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ) of debating.

    His posts, like yours, are utter nonsense I don't want to receive brain damage from by responding to with an argument.

    No, I dismissed it because it evades burden of proof (coincidence how it happened here because of your "logic"? I think not). You WILL provide evidence (it'll be your first), or GTFO/

    Then how about your prove that they removed shields while in orbit? Come on, you won't accept evidence when it goes against what your irrational mind wants, but you have to fulfill your burden of proof once in your life.

    The whole ISD bridge and Skins of Evil arguments aren't evidence already?

    I start attacking when someone fails to debate properly after several posts, which is why I'm attacking you.

    Then I guess he's better than you.

    I've only been banned because the mods don't care about debating, since they aren't debaters. No, they aren't, but you know what they are? Care bears. When someone starts beings mean, they will drop the banhammer on them, despite that person having the best debating skills and arguments thus far. You can ask James R. all about that.

    While providing evidence and making decent arguments, unlike you.

    Basic stuff. kE=.5mv2, although I'm surprised why you didn't take the time to look it up yourself.

    Using a calculator for a debate is proof of actually trying to debate appropriately.

    No, logic is the faith of the debating world. Faith is nonsense the real world, as is logic in the debating world.



    Why is that? Because it doesn't get you want and it's made by someone who's been mean to you?

    Please note that 1566 Icarus is 1.4km across, has an orbital velocity of 22 km/s and weighs in at a whopping 3-4 billion metric tons.

    So no, a 600 megaton warhead will not obliterate such an asteroid, or even reduce the inertial mass of the remains.

    They are wrong here. At 150 K, 600 MT will vaporize 3.29E^11 kg (even if some of the energy is wasted), or 329 million tons of nickel iron. Icarus has an average density of 2,000 kg/m^3, so it definitely isn't a mostly nickel iron asteroid. It's not inert, either (as I've said before)

    Oh, I don't give a shit about your opinion on this. I will take the scientific method for explosions, whether you are too much of fanboy to acknowledge this or not.

    You prove this both. The visuals show that the ISD is still alright, with only the bridge affected. You will also prove the script is canon.

    Except we know that it exploded off the hull, and we also know that the ISD is not inert either.

    Learn some physics then. There is no such thing as a persistent explosion in space. An explosion would dissipate in less than a second while in space.
     
  10. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    No it wouldn't ricrery... an example being, say, a supernova. that's an explosion, and it lasts a fair bit longer than "less than a second"...

    Your fallacious arguments are falling flat on their face...
     
  11. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    Except it is.
    It's not an orbital explosion.
    An orbital explosion would contradict the plot and the logic of firing on the surface. You can't make up evidence and present it as valid that defies all logic. Sorry this is just a blindingly ignorant statement.


    Stawman

    I never said that it doesn't count.


    You're being evasive.
    You're focusing on Strawman
    You haven't given supporting facts to your claims...etc.

    The exact opposite of what?

    (sigh) What is wrong with you?
    Why are you wasting my time?
    You should know the answer to that already.

    You showed nothing.
    No source no reference, just your word for it.
    Sorry..that's not good enough and you're clearly not familiar with sourcing your information properly.

    Strawman Fallacy
    I never said my opinion was fact.

    Red Herring
    Logically your reckless use of the word proof has no association with my logic

    Originally Posted by Ricery
    "I will take evidence over logic any day."
    You don't understand debate is all about logic.
    If you want to defeat another person's "logic" you use logic against them.
    You identify the flaw and error in their logic.
    Instead you've flamed...followed by an avalanche of logical fallacies.
    (shrug)
    You can't use evidence properly if you don't have logic. You put the cart before the horse.

    Not in debate
    nor any where else in science.

    This is just another baseless accusation.
    No proof, no justification.

    Is this your house of cards logic by which you use multiple unverified scenes to support your claims of the scene in question? I can't tell, because there is no point of reference..so again you've not given a direct reply.

    And what claim was that?

    Ad hominem
    You use Logical Fallacies because you can't use logic. (that's my theory)

    False Statement
    A more or less complete list of visual evidence was referenced made by yours truly.

    A personal attack is a personal attack no matter the metaphor.

    Just the opposite, sir.

    Clearly...

    I'm not the one that denounced logic.

    Yes, You denounced logic. By definition you lost the debate.
    Originally posted by Ricery: I denounce logic...

    In orbit of what.

    That has nothing to do with the context of my post.

    Since you denouce logic...
    Originally posted by Ricery: I denounce logic...
    Does that mean you attack yourself because logic is the center of all debate.

    ???
    Relevance, none.


    Right....
    You were warned and banned before.
    You didn't have good reason for your actions.
    You couldn't follow the rules or direction...that's why you were banned.

    Not in abundance....sorry.

    And you're using this formula to solve for the amount of equivalent TNT to destroy asteroids?

    A calculator is not proof of anything concerning a debate.

    False Statement.
    Logic: A method of human thought that involves thinking in a linear, step-by-step manner about how a problem can be solved.

    The Source has been proven wrong before.
    Superfluid Gas Eruptions induced by Fusion are not Coronal Mass Ejections.



    Wrong. It's a 2.9 Billion metric tonnes
    Wongs site (if my SN is correct) says that Asteroid should be 11 Billion Metric Tonnes assuming a perfect sphere (I believe) at 1.4 km across. And it says it only takes 13 megatons to crater it. WHY?

    The Wong caculator says 13 megatons gets you a crater as deep as the craters radius. That's pretty significant and...according to the Wong Caculator the Mass is even greater (assuming he means a sphere)....than the actual asteroid...and yet...only 13 megatons to crater it. Explain this to me. I'm not as good at math as you are.

    Project Icarus is wrong?!
    You know more than a class room of MIT students?! Even after they REVISED their projection from 100 to 600 megatons? That's shocking. You must be Absolutely BRILLIANT.

    Is that 150 K- what? Kilometer distance?
    Well according to that, sir it would take 8,814 similar strikes to vaporize the asteroid. 5,288,400 Megatons to destroy this asteroid completely.



    Neither do I care about your poor use of the scientific method. THEE who is smarter than MIT students. THEE who denounces logic but claims to know science, Thee who pretends to know the language of science but can not apply proper deduction. THEE whose argument has consisted of more than 2 dozen logical fallacies and flames...and precious little of anything else.

    If I have to tell you the obvious then you have no business here.
    You clearly haven't done your research. But what else is new?



    Which tells us nothing.


    Maybe you can hold a class and teach me and the Project Icarus team?

    It's not my fault that you use your own interpretation to misrepresent others post Ricery. That's all on you, I don't have to defend it or really even acknowledge it...That's just a courtesy.
     
  12. Quantum_Dragon Registered Member

    Messages:
    33
    At long last I am replying to Saquist...yay!

    I entirely agree that the books were below standards. However I didn't notice it too much as I usually try and ignore that and enjoy the overall story as you did. Some of the ideas were great, some "ehh". I agree that any series of books with multiple authors is difficult, sometimes shockingly different writing styles, and sudden shift of the story sometimes made me go "wha? is this the next book in the series or did I miss one?"

    I enjoyed and also hated, how the Jedi seemed cocky at times, but there was no challenge to them until the Vong really, and Skywalker being one master trying to train so many Jedi, I can see that happening.

    I haven't actually finished the Vong war yet, but I have enjoyed the overall story and Vong themselves so far. The entirety of the ideas behind their race in general is pretty fascinating, right down to how their ships move.

    True, initially I found that it made sense, considering that it was now a "republic" again, so political meddling, and cowardice was not all that surprsing. However, after a certain point of the story I totally agree it got kinda stupid; war has a tendancy to unite people when there is a common superior enemy, and even politicians would eventually realize the need for action.

    The best lines out of that whole series though, are when the imperial agent is on the Falcon talking to Han and Leia at the beggining of one of the books; The agent spoke about how the Emperor would have just bypassed the political meddling, sent a fleet of star destroyers and been done with it, and tried to point out the harm of the rebellion. But then Han responded with something along the lines of "No, he would have wasted a large amount of resources building some massive over-sized super weapon called it the "The Nostril of Palpatine or something" and it would have blown up at the last moment." That made me laugh so hard.

    They destroyed a couple warships, and two worldships, (could be wrong on the second worldship, but I thought when Anakin did his fancy death, they destroyed the worldship they were on)

    Though some of the warships destroyed were due to some very unconventional tactics. (Gravity Well generators)


    I also found the republics ability to come up with technology to help the Yun Haarla campaign of Jaina's, a testament to the Star Wars technological ability. They were able to come up with some pretty advanced devices to fool Vong technology. (Granted if they just had deflector dishes they wouldn't need to have manufactured the seperate devices) but I saw it as a testament to the fact that even though in some ways they seem old and clunky, they actually can be fairly advanced if they want to be.

    Totally agree, thats kinda what I was getting at, though you did a lot better job at explaining the Q thing than what I was trying to. I was too busy trying to justify it at the same time.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2010
  13. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Why are we even arguing this? Its science fiction.
     
  14. Quantum_Dragon Registered Member

    Messages:
    33
    Alright Apacalypse, I am going to stop using colors at this point and snip some of my own originally post to prevent useless walls of text. I was going to use purple, lol, but I figured it might end up getting to crazy on the colors. If you feel I am taking anything out of context by snipping let me know.


    Doesn't it stand to reason that if q-guns have to follow the whole "Every action has an equal and opposite re-action." They fall under some form of technology? Maybe incomprehensible technology, but still technology. As we do see Q do things that are super powerful that don't seem affected by this rule. I know you can argue, "Just because we don't see it..." but then why even bother mentioning the fact that guns have super novas as side effects then? -Anyhow, I feel we are pretty much arguing semantics at this point as Saquists has more elegantly stated why Q shouldn't be included in the ST vs SW discussion.

    No. I didn't know the distinction you were trying to make in all honesty (Yes I am an ignorant fool on some things). I didn't fully understand there was a Scifi/fantasy and a "scifi/scifi". Also I do not believe you should be stating what I do and do not know, as you actually don't know what I do and do not know. Just like you did not know if I was or was not joking (I said I was, you came up with I wasnt). Or know the fact of whether or not production teams have made a mistake as you say they did in above posts. (Please don't take as attack, just if you don't know for 100%, then don't say you do or make assumptions.) Now if you do know for a fact that the production teams made a mistake, then by all means..tear me to pieces..lol. -Anyhow sorry, I just felt that needed to be addressed, back to topic...


    Thank you for the elaboration, I think I understand it better. But just to clarify, would Babylon 5 (I know its not part of this discussion) then fall under the same science fiction as Star Trek? They have some good scientific explanations for things.


    So if I said "I was dating all three" it would be fantasy then right? (or delusions..lol) Any how your right, it doesn't have much to do with your explanation with the way I phrased that, I should have just kept it simple and said "unreal is unreal"


    Using that same logic, since Roddenbery died in 1991, doesn't that mean that everything after TNG is not canon, since his approval can't be on the product cause hes dead? If thats true, that kinda sucks...

    Also, I thought that George Lucas himself took part in the creation of a canon database where he pretty much stated that things from EU can be listed as canon, and they are listed by canonocity (if thats even a word) where if there is contradictions, that with the higher canon ratings is the true canon.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2010
  15. Quantum_Dragon Registered Member

    Messages:
    33
    Ok question

    Thinking about the shields for my Big Ol Wall of Text, I got to thinking...

    Don't shields in their own way, violate the law of "Conservation of Energy?" Unless my whole percieved notion of shields is wrong:

    Shields take a large amount of energy, such us always hearing about diverting energy to shields from life support, weapons, what have you. From what I understand, shields "absorb" energy...so were expelling lots of energy..to absorb energy. Where is that energy going? :shrug:

    Does anyone have an answer for this?

    UPDATE
    Is it possible this could be a law thats not "Complete"? As we see a lot of Newtonian physics challenged by Quantum physics...
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2010
  16. Quantum_Dragon Registered Member

    Messages:
    33
    How dare you question our arguing! BWAARGH! LOL

    I don't know, I find it nice to excersize my mind a little bit with discussion on something not part of the daily grind.
     
  17. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    Yeah I had a similar reaction too. But I have to say that once the Imperials, the Hapes and Corran Horn got invovled....(particularly the author the writes the Horn books) The tempo picked up, the suspense deepened and the stories made more sense.
    Where are you so far?

    Exactly. It just took way to long. I was kinda irritated that this New Republic was turning out just like the final stages of the last republic.

    Yes....I laughed pretty hard on that spot. It felt real for once that the characters ...especially had recognized the absurdity of those super weapons. I remember Leia was trying to be so diplomatic with the imperials.

    I didn't like Anakin dying....
    He was the one character that I liked aside from the standard star wars characters...but...what a way to go. What he did was find a whole new level. It was litterally like "Force Unleashed."...I want to go back and read that.


    AND when they figured out "stutter fire" from the lasers confused the Dovin Basils and overloaded them. I don't remember if they ever figured a way how to stop the grutchin though.
     
  18. Apocalypse2001 System Lord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    693
    AAAAAAAAAAAAND here you go again. by contradicting youself, very blatently IN THE SAME POST AGAIN

    Wow i think it's record for ricerony to have have contradicted himself so many times. AND IN ONE POST! lol
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2010
  19. Apocalypse2001 System Lord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    693
    His statements were pretty clear. I'm too lazy, at the moment, to write them down....AGAIN.
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2010
  20. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    I think, in all honesty, that Ricrery should be shipped off to Boot Camp... that ought to instill some discipline and basic courtesy into him...
     
  21. ricrery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,616
    Oh, and what source says that? It's an obvious fact (not an opinion at all) that a persistent explosion is the side effect of an atmosphere (clearly Saquist thinks that the Tsar Bomb detonating in space would match its visual appearance when it detonated on Earth

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ). Here's even a link for you.

    http://www.wwheaton.com/waw/mad/mad12.html

    You see that? The explosion would be very brief, not persistent like Saquist seems so inclined to believe.

    Oh, but did you forget the difference between the shockwave and the explosion?
     
  22. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,478
    it would help if you don't highlight his whole post in red..just the contradictions..
     
  23. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256

    Strawman Fallacy

    My argument is that the realistic effects are irrelevant to on screen special effects that were not designed to depict reality.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page