Star Wars vs Star Trek

Ok, now that I've got the required posts to actually post urls... Back to the topic at hand!

Again, source? WHERE does that statement come from? "According to some sources" is not a verifiable, supportable statement. I can say "According to some sources, the sun is lime green and the ocean is made of cheese" and it would be no less of a bare assertion fallacy than your claim to the Star Wars galaxy size.

NASA says otherwise... http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/001205a.html

Ah... The ICS book. Curtis Saxton, one of the main authors, was a very active, pro-Wars member of the VS community before he wrote those books, and maintained affiliation with a rabidly and militantly pro-Wars VS community (stardestroyer.net) while he was authoring that work.

The AOTC:ICS book is an invalid source, because one of the main authors was biased. OF COURSE the ICS has such absurdly high numerical values, which have absolutely ZERO correlation with the actual films themselves in terms of observable effects, because one of the authors deliberately wrote them that high to give the pro-Wars VS community an advantage over Trek.

Even if the AOTC:ICS books WEREN'T deliberately written as such (and given the attitudes that can be found at SDN, the absurdly high figures in the AOTC:ICS, their lack of correlation with the movies, and Saxton's activities and affiliations in the VS debates prior to and while he was authoring the book, there is little reason to believe otherwise), they would be invalid as a source because of the potential for bias. From a scientific standpoint, the AOTC:ICS is invalid because of just the POTENTIAL for bias, let alone the blatant wankery of figures that make the intended bias rather clear.

And even if there was no potential for bias at all, if Saxton had not been involved in the VS debates and affiliated with pro-Wars VS communities, or somebody else had written the book instead, the fact that NONE of the figures the book presents, AT ALL, correlate to what we see done on-screen in the movies would invalidate them ANYWAY, because the movies themselves trump everything else, even if you fall in with the mistaken belief that the EU books are canon.

Do you mean weapons in the megaton range? Megaton-based would imply that the nature of the weapon is based on a megaton, or megatons, which is syntactically incorrect as a megaton is a unit of measure and not a physical element or property or method upon which something can be based.

/pointless nitpick } ; = 8 P

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nay, sir, I was spamming so that I could cite my source! A completely different matter, and a perfectly valid, scientific justification.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Okay, when you're finished with that, my Tombship will be destroying the ST galaxy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A couple other points on galaxy sizes...

The Triangulum Galaxy, the third-largest galaxy in our Local Group, is only ~50,000 lightyears in diameter. The vast, vast majority of galaxies in our local group are much smaller than that. We only call them 'dwarf' galaxies because they are so much smaller than our own. In reality, they are regular galaxies, and we reside in a super galaxy, one of two in our Local Group, and the more massive of the two (though the 'smaller' in volume and star count).

 

Good, now let's not ignore that one source is an outlier at best.

 

Eh? How is the Triangulum Galaxy an outlier? Well, aside from size, as it's still pretty big for a typical galaxy.

 

No, I was referring to the SW galaxy.

 

Ah, I see.

No, not an outlier, because there are no other valid sources that give the size of the Star Wars galaxy. The EU material is non-canon, and even if it were canon, the ICS books and related materials are biased, and the later EU books are also biased, both based on biased sources (ICS books), and through the influences of the pro-Wars community.


And even that aside, the size of the Republic and the Empire is strongly capped, both by comments in the ANH novelization, and most especially by the movies themselves. <20,000 worlds could not be said to be 'splitting the Republic in two' by any stretch of the word for a civilization that has more than a hundred thousand worlds. This hard canon fact firmly caps the size of the Republic at no more than 100,000 member worlds, and even that is at a stretch. Because the Empire is the Republic in mutated form, the size of the Empire is also firmly capped into that same general range, even allowing for the mutated form of the Republic to have expanded its borders and territorial control by huge margins. So whether the SW galaxy is big or not doesn't matter, the SW civilization only occupies a very small portion of it.

 

*chuckles* Frustrating, isn't he Ilithi...

 

You have lost all power to debate with me.

 

lol At this stage? Not really. An amusing distraction, for the most part. 'Mild practice' I guess you could say. He hasn't really said much at all, yet. Hopefully the vitriol stays bottled up. THAT gets annoying after a while...

 

Just like Mr. "31st century Feds beat Xeelee" man... or Kittamaru and Hellblade8.

 

Lost all power, or are you just refusing to accept concepts or ideas that challenge your preconceptions, or the foundations upon which you have based your cherished beliefs?

To be honest, I posit that I have not lost anything at all, the least of which is the ability to debate with anyone, even you.

See, I have not lost the ability to debate, I can still do that quite effectively, and properly (maintaining a relatively civil tone, providing evidence and sound logical support, observational data, etc. for my points, etc.).

What you are claiming that I lost is not the ability or power to debate with you, but rather the ability to influence your unshakable beliefs and devout convictions upon the alter that is your vision of the Star Wars mythos. THAT is something that I never had. In fact, I posit that you have never entered into an honest debate over the course of this entire thread, because that would require that you enter the discussion with an open mind, and the ability and willingness to both accept and admit that you may be wrong, and to do so if and when that is proven.

No, sir, you have never entered into a debate here. You have been proselytizing, preaching upon the pulpit that is your unshakable and incontrovertible faith in your particular view of the Star Wars mythos, trying to win converts to your One True Way, your beliefs on the Star Wars mythos that have the sour notes of blind faith and religious beliefs.

I posit that your position is not grounded in science, logic, and rational analysis, sir, but rather it is the blind faith of a zealot, clutching tightly to your beliefs despite all contrary evidence, denying any possibility that you might be wrong.

Perhaps that is not so; after all, I may be wrong. However, I feel there is sufficient evidence in this thread, and indeed in your last post, to support my case. And there is only one way to prove me wrong, one sole experiment which we can perform to falsify my prediction.

And that, sir, is for you to engage in open, honest debate, first openly admitting that you might be wrong, and then accepting proof of your error, admitting the error, and then correcting your own theories if and when it arises through the processes of science and the methods of rationality.

But my prediction is that you can do no such thing, because to do that, you cannot reject and ignore the arguments of your opponents, sticking your fingers in your ears and crying "Nyah-Nyah! Can't hear you!" like a toddler, as you have just done with my argument that the EU materials are not canon. You must engage those arguments, accept their evidence, and then prove them wrong using countering evidence, if the available data fails to support the argument presented against you. And, most importantly, if the data supports the argument presented against you, you must accept it. Unless a better theory, that better fits the available data, can be found. That is how science works.

But, again, in simpler terms, I posit that you cannot function within a scientific framework, and that you can only operate within the unshakable convictions of religious zealotry.


Prove me wrong. I dare you.

 

Okay, Mr. George USED EU BASED NAMES AND EVENTS. Next! Anyway, in case you weren't too lazy to read my posts, I never stated I was a SW fan, but 99/100 people on this forum are Trekkers. To hell with Star Trek.

 

Well, there are two ways to look at this, SW galaxy is larger, equal to, or smaller than Milky Way. Statistics show that it is more likely to be smaller, if it wasn't for one factor. However, take in to account that fact that the SW Galaxy have a satellite galaxy, the Rishi Maze. Also quite a few of the 20,000 powerful, advanced, and influential worlds, also some organizations comprise of quite systems. There are quite a few powerful and influential organizations in the CIS, for example The Banking Clan, Trade Federation, Techno Union .etc. Some others might worth its value in resources and location. I also didn't know if they counted Hutt Space. keep in mind that there are non-Republic territory in the galaxy, for example the Chiss. Also, into two is usually assumed 1/2, but however if might be two pieces, but not of the same size. If it said half, or even two EQUAL, then it will be a different story, for example a piece of a pie is cut off and it is 1/4 the size of the pie, then there are two pieces, the 1/4 and the 3/4 pieces, but in no way are they equal. He said he would not allow the Republic yo split into two, he might be mentioning CIS can gain territory through their military might, economical strength and influence, territory that is friendly to the Republic, Palpatine didn't specify. There are other explanations, but those are just the some explanations for his statement.

P.S. Read Starship Troopers anyone? The book is awesome

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

To hell with that book! Mr. Gaunt killed the Arachnids with his pinky. Wait, not Arachnids, Mecharachnids!

 

EU and movies of Star Wars can be look at like Starship Troopers. There is the book ( which is awesome ), the T.V. show ( which I know nothing about ), and the movie. The movie ( the second movie sure is not ) is almost completely unrelated to Starship Troopers save for the names ( and they didn't even get that right! ), the terms ( some ), and the organizations ( M.I., Terran Federation and Rasczak's Roughnecks ). Which is correct? The book, movie or TV show? And are the movie and book in the same universe? Well.....there is only one way to argue against this ( which I would later disprove ).

They names and such are really bad coincidences and the movie took place BEFORE the book ( Marauder Project, making marauder power suits ).

There is a small problem, the war with the bugs in the book is the FIRST Interstellar War ( note the keyword ), so there couldn't have been a interstellar war before it, and the colony ( I forgot the name ) was destroyed in the book ( unless someone argues they HAPPENS to name a colony after the destroyed one ).

 

"Everlasting Glory to the Infantry!" - Lt. Juan Rico, commanding officer of Rico's Roughnecks aboard the Rodger Young.

 

Starship Troopers is a really great book and it is highly influential.

 

*Gaunt's Ghosts enemy leader*

*Sees Ghosts*

"Oh balls..."

If Gaunt and his Ghosts replaced the Federation, they could have destroyed the Arachnids.