Star Wars vs Star Trek

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.

i wish you a bad dream.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

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:

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)

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...

 

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

by your standard.

THAT WHAT YOU DID.

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

which is why you can't even do that.

and like they can't get one.

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.

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

do you see how stupid things get when you talk?

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?

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

 

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:

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

quoting Wikipedia

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.:bawl:

 

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...

 

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

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.

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 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!"

 

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.

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...

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

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

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.

 

again ignorance doesn't hurts.

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

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.

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!

 

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.

 

Right...

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

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.

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.

 

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...

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.

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.

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 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.

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 Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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

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...

 

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?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

).

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

 

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

Que? Did you read what I posted? :bugeye:

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.