Star Wars vs Star Trek

Can anyone tell me the difference?
Bonuus points if there's an equation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

WRONG.

Visual Guides
Incredible Cross Sections
Many other sources.

All point to a non-laser damaging component for turbolasers.

Hell, how do you explain the clearly slower-than-light turbolaser bolts, highest canon evidence of the movie visuals? LASERS DO NOT MOVE SLOWER THAN LIGHT. Nor do they produce 'glow' in space, for lack of particles to deflect the photons. Are you that stupid? They couldn't possibly be lasers through clear, obvious film visual evidence, and this is explicitly supported by the other canon. Jeezus.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Really was your evidence written in invisible text?
Don't be pretentous.

Say...? what are we suppose to guess. Don't get tired on my account. Post that evidence that you don't have.
For God's sake post something...

I'm not saying you're wrong.
I'm saying your conclusions are non canon. You tell me up and down that the "lasers" in Star Wars do the "hokey pokey", the salsa, and the Texas Two Step.... Think for a moment. Obviously Lasers don't do the Hokey Pokey.

Unfortuantly for you George Lucas has chosen to call them...Lasers.

So is George Lucas wrong or right?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I just told you. I can't help if you're too dense to understand it.

They're called lasers. They aren't lasers. I don't see the problem, except that you're being an idiot who is falling back to attacking terminology because you're clearly beaten in the science and numbers. Blueprints aren't blue, because the machines that produced them were obsolete decades ago. laser rifles, blaster rifles, phaser rifles don't have a bit of rifling in their barrels. We park on driveways and drive on parkways. You're focusing on a meaningless name here, that at most, like phaser rifles, refers to some legacy of that type of weapon from long ago. Mortars (the shell launchers) are called that because they resemble the grinding tool. It's idiotic to assume they work the same way.

 

Neither.

He is just simple of nature.

He leaves such technical things up to others to explain, and so they have.

Anakin has a scar on his face in Ep.III. George put that in.
He does not know, nor care, how he got it, he left that up to others to explain (in one of the books that came out around the same time). He said when asked about it in an intervju, and I quote:
"I don't know how he got it, I leave that up to others to explain. If you ask me, he slipped in the bathroom and cut himself. But of course he's not gonna tell that to anyone, so ... *chuckels abit* ...."

A simple mans answer.
He don't care how it works, as long as it works.

 

And that's how that asshole ruined possibly the best franchise in the history of the universe.

 

i really and truely apologize but...

YOU GUYS ARE SUCH NERDS!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

GOODBYE

 

And it comes out that he was basically pulling it out of his ass as he goes along the whole time. Dammit!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Like Roddenberry wasn't?

 

Sorry, but your opinion is noncanon and flies in direst opposition to Paramount's (the copyright holder, creative rights holder, and producer) rulling therefore your entire idea of what may or may not be canon for Star Trek is irrelevant.

However Geaorge Lucas (the copyright holder, creator, creative rights holder, and producer) has stated clearly that all of the EU is canon as longe as it does not DIRECTLY dispute his movies.

Suck it up weasel boy

 

More calculations. These from st-vs-sw.net
I hate calcluations. We're going off a pixels here. I find it tenuous.
I actually think Anderson's figures are good. But do they fit the canon?

I'm not quite sure. On the one hand they do give the stats on the possilble sizes of the asteroids and I suppose this is as close to the truth as we're going to get.

It certainly throws the "TeraWatt" theory out the door.
It also let's me make another assumption...That these weapons we see all through the First Trillogy are anti-fighter turrets. It makes me wonder IF the Star Destroyer has big guns like what we saw in Phantom Menace and Revenge of the Sith.

It wouldn't make sense if they didn't. Unfortunauntly we never see them, so how can we judge them.

One things for sure these Fighters turrets are no match for the Enterprise past or present. This wouldn't make for a great story with firepower this low.



By Jan Gaarni

Ah but you must chose one.
You see TW Scott isn't as stupid as he appears. He didn't answer the question. He knows he threading that thin line of truth or lie again and doesn't want to be caught a fourth time.

But Scotty, dear, Scotty....It's okay

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. The answer is already apparent. You think George Lucas is wrong. (gasp) You believe in what is.......noncannon.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Concur. That's part of the problem.

 

well without that "asshole" their would be no starwars at all, so for that he is da'man

 

and by default...no Star Wars fans...now that's a good deal.

 

And when it doesnt work?

 

Well Do what TWScott doesn't want to admit to...Make it up and call the man wrong without saying it outloud....

 

What you mean "choose one"?!?
Choose which story is the right one? (bathroom accident or the one explained in the novel or wherever it ended up being explained)

Canon are movies, script, (movie) novels, radioplayes (for those that had them, 4, 5, and 6), and then everything else official, except those marked with the Infinites brand, and of course un-official material. This is the express policy of Lucas Licensing (or Lucasfilm Ltd. or whatever they call the department that decides what is canon and what is not ), and is not open for debate.

There are no choosing.


As for the guns on a star destroyer, the smaller ones are never really seen anywhere, though there are Design Drawings (theforce.net/swtc/Pix/books/taosw/isdguns.gif) of them for use in RotJ.

The heavier ones though are well documented, both size and placement.

On the ISD mkI (read mk1 or mark 1, same make seen in ANH) there are 2 heavy quad-laser (theforce.net/swtc/Pix/given/rb/sd1-gun1.gif) batteries, 1 on either side in the brim. These were removed on the mkII (the modell we see in use in ESB and RotJ).
There are also 3 triple-gun turrets lined up behind eachother right in front of the superstructure (the structure above the main hull and below the bridge section). These were also removed on the mkII. I don't know of any images of these online. I can provide them though.

The heaviest firepower on an ISD are the 4 batteries on either side of the superstructure, 8 batteries in total. These are 50 meter wide turrets, with 2 guns, each measuring atleast 3-4 meters in diameter (outside diameter, not borr mind you). The 3 foremost pairs are heavy Turbolaser guns, while the rearmost pair are heavy Ion Cannons. Total guns: 12 HTL's and 4 HIC's.

On the mkII these bulky turrets were replaced by smaller, but more numerous guns.
Location View (theforce.net/swtc/Pix/chron/isdguns1.gif)
Closer View (theforce.net/swtc/Pix/chron/isdguns2.gif)
Each pivot is about the same size (50m) as when the heavier, bulkier turrets where there, and each turret has 8 guns. The diameter of the guns are roughly 1 meter. Total guncount: 64 (32 on either side).

PS! To view the links, simple copy them and add the Wild Wild Web dot in front of it *mumbles* stupid forum rule ......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Had anything particular in mind?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I don't if this was mentioned or not but go to merzo.net and you can see ships sizes compared to others like ST,SW, Babylon 5 etc.

 

Thus if the if the creator says there lasers then Lasers they are.

Excellent I was wondering if there were anymore other than the obvious 4 on either side.

On the neutronium front I've just been alerted that in Star Wars neutronium was discovered on a moon in veins like ordinary iron or nickel ore. It seems clear that this is certainly not the stuff of nuetron stars.

I'am busted every time If I trust TWScott, huh? You weren't going to volenteer this information were ya? Yeah don't even bother!