Star Wars vs Star Trek

Eh, about 1/3rd of that looks to be blown away (maybe less as we can't see if the back half of that top third is gone as well) - we have anything of a known size we can compare that asteroid to?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

??? i can see three photos....are those ones that he says are missing??

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

what type of photo is it? (jpg,bmp etc)
(i did not see them either)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

yes,those are

 

JPG. yeah, the other site i put them on got them deleted...

 

oby-wan's Jedi fighter. i'll show you. it is 8 meters long and 3.92 meters width.
the asteroid,when compared, is about 5.88 meters long. about half of it is blown to bits.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

good enough for you?

 

Wow... I can't even tell that's a fighter there 0o' Good eyes

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

to me it looks like the 5.88 is closer than the 3.92..
shouldn't the 3.92 be a bigger number? otherwise it would look tiny compared to the 5.88 in the foreground..

 

i don't see what you mean. you can tell the two are relatively close if you watch the filming, when you will see that the asteroid gets an almost direct hit, and that oby-wan's fighter is taking a curve in order to avoid a collision, but what do you meant? by the angle of the picture, the two are in a very close position, but a few shots later oby-wan is closer.

 

how far apart are the two fragments?

i don't think they are side by side..

and i was commenting on the still, not the video footage..

 

why don't you measure yourself? you have the dimensions.

impossible to know accurately. but they are in the range two to five meters.

what the hell you mean?:bugeye:

 

A difference of a meter or two can make a large difference in the size of an object depending on the distance from the scene the camera is George... it's what makes this kind of thing so difficult.

 

it's basically very hard to do that. i don't see you helping. i did what i could to support what i what i said, pretty much debunking what was said earlier about the turbolaser being week. the distance to the camera? well, any idea how to measure it? no? anything? you guys even bother watching the actual scene? i did dozens of time, but i don't see any problem i already admitted: distance between the two, to the camera, the approximate size of the asteroid, which is a problem since no distance from the camera means no very solid reference point. but what do you want?

 

Is this the scene with Obi wan being chased by that bounty hunter with the elite weapons? His rate of fire like 2 or 3 times faster than anything else? Dude was just trying one weapon after another? Yeah, expect him to have some serious power if he wants it, but considering the info I read about charge rates and cool-down times, his weapons would likely be low-end on power which means pretty damn good to crack asteroids. Imagine if he slowed his firing rate, he could increase the power to do twice as much damage, right?

 

I LOVE that. I hate to say but that was apparent to me early on, because people aren't getting what sort of 'true' energy data there is in explosions. A good example is 'this weapon vap'd object X' when object X was a ship with its own weaponry and explosive potential, which means the weapon that triggers such an explosion should not get the power rating people suggest it should get. (It was actually a Trek-side argument that I didnt agree with.) Basically saying, if I fire a flare gun at a TNT storage facility, my flare gun does not get credit for the explosive results.

As for Holly's on-screen super-explosions in space... I sort of LMAO at people trying to gauge weapon potential from that but it seems to be the way things are done so I just remind people of what targets look like at speeds faster than our eyeballs can track: 1/10th of light speed as viewed at 60 frames per second amounts to like 310 miles per frame. I don't know about you but I can't see nearly 30, much less 300 miles, much less track the movement of something that fast.

Remember, Fleet deals mostly in real space FTL which means sensors still work, and they can track movements. They can sit outside of SW weapons range and figure out what to do next without any worry about being destroyed. And as we've seen, '1 hr' is all they need to technobabble a configuration for whatever they need to do. And it works because their techology is and has always been highly configurable.

Oh yeah, I read 'standard equipment rule' which makes about as much sense as saying Borg can't defeat a species because their 'standard' knowledge doesn't allow for them to adapt. Does this mean no transporter tricks like disengaging all the safety protocols and using manual targeting coordinates? lol

 

*shakes head*

George, I am helping - however, I don't have the skills to make such a determination/calculation, hence why I'm not even trying. I know enough via trigonometry and calculus to know that angles and distances between three objects leaves a lot to be determined - having only two known figures (the fighters actual size and the size it appears on screen) I know it's POSSIBLE to figure out how far away it is from the screen. From there we can make a reasonable estimate as to how far removed from the fighter the asteroid is, and give a range of reasonable calculations as to the size of the asteroid and, thus, the portion blown apart.

I, however, don't know off hand how to do that.

 

Oh, how I love the typical delusional Trekkie response. Let's blow some holes in your post.

While yes, detonating a vessel with a quasi-stable core, volatile fuel mixture and explosive warheads does not neeccesarily show the firepower of a weapon, vaporizing an inert target, say and asteroid composed of heavy nonradioactive metals, does. So while detonating the Death Star with a well placed Proton Torpedo placed in a nigh impossible to find let alone fire at weak point does not yield Proton Torpedo warhead strength, Vaporizing a 20 meter Asteroid so quickly and violently that it literally explodes does give us a extreme low end basis for Turbo lasers.

Second in warfare your enemy is going to use ever advantage they can. Star Wars as VASTLY superior FTL. Star Trek has no idea how to detect it let alone block it. SW Fleets will seemingly appear out of nowhere blast unprepared facilities and take sparsely (by SW standards) defended planets. It means nothing if the Star Trek side ca canonically study and understand a weapon system in One hour of continous study when the Death Star can appear and five second later leave after just destroying a planet.


Finaloly as explained by internal scenes of Borg vessels while the Borg Queen was conversion with 7 of 9, Borg vessels are heavily shielded. They use this shielding in inventive ways to minimize the damage form weapons. However we all know your shields are not going to work if you cannot pour in enough power. If Twelve vessels who average 12 billion gigawatts each can nearly cripple a Cube, how are the Borg going to handle a ship that has sixty weapons that are capable of 61,320,000,000,000,000,000,000 watts or 61.32 Trillion gigawats?


It's a complete mismatch. Star Trek has the slicker look but Star Wars has power.


Now the real story is what happenes with the two start merging tech.

 

what?

well you are NOT helping! if you can do what you said, which you said you can't, then do it or leave it. i plead my case: the turbolaser is way stronger that what was said by some desperate trekkies trying to make an advantage for trek. the asteroids are either blown in half, either completely pulverized into incandescent ruble, not by a turbolaser, but by two small laser canons (not actually lasers). you trekkies ready to admit defeat? if not, prepare for a big, big massacre.

 

See, this is where you go from being "hopeful" to "delusional" - I explained to you WHY the data you are basing your claims on isn't supporting your claim, and also explained WHY I am unable to personally do the necessary calculations... yet you insist that the data backs your claim despite being unable to prove it...

You can massacre yourself all you want, but until you provide some actual evidence (and saying oh, look, it blew off part of an asteroid of unknown composition and unknown size) you aren't convincing me of anything.

And here's why:

In Star Trek: Enterprise, the NX-01, with a baseline test on it's phase canon, ACCIDENTALLY pulverized a mountain the size of Mt. McKinley... with one shot... and then some.

As per the episode:

Now, Mt. McKinley is 6,194 meters above sea-level at it's summit... and per the episode, they left a CRATER where the mountain they were shooting at once was. Now, McKinley itself has a maximum peak of 5,500 meters, so we'll use that as our calculation to be fair - let us use this picture to assume a base length:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It is obviously MUCH longer than it is tall, and longer than it is wide... so for simplicities sake lets assume a "base" radius of 5,500 meters.

That gives us the following equation to determine volume:
V = 1/3 π r2 h
where
r = radius of cone base (m)
h = height of cone (m)

Doing the math, you get a volume of 174,227,492,580 m3

So, in one shot the Enterprise, an ANCIENT ship using a weapon that, by TNG standards, is massively outdated and woefully underpowered, vaporized almost 175 BILLION cubic meters of mountain, by accident. Now, yes, the shot was 10x what it was supposed to be because of tampering by an alien device, so scaling it down 10x, you STILL get 1.75 BILLION cubic meters of material.

Now, if we estimate things the United States Department of Energy way, and assume 2700 kilograms per cubic meter, we can extrapolate the mass removed. Let's assume only 2500 kg/m3 for the simple fact that it isn't a huge planet like Earth and thus may be made of less dense materials.

174,227,492,580 m3 x 2,500 = 435,568,731,450,000 or 435.5 TRILLION Kilograms of material.

Now, I say unto you - do you think Slave 1 has a chance of matching such a feat?

 

the only problem here is you trekkies ignoring data just so you can feel good about it. fuck of. the proof is there, you just can't see it.

and almost blow up the warp core. ACCIDENTALLY means nothing, if they did it by ACCIDENT. CAN THEY DO IT WITH INTENTION, NOT RISKING TO BLOW UP THE CORE?????

good data and all, but they did it by accident, not by intention. the stuff you provided is nice, but it only appears in ENT, and again by accident. do you understand the concept? could they replicate it? i didn't saw anything like that in TNG. show me they could!!!

of a mountain of an unknown composition, in ENT that is.

interestingly enough, they don't use that all mighty firepower of they'll is other life or death situation...they did it by ACCIDENT. nothing more. they expected to blow up the top of the mountain, which requires much less energy than blowing up the entire mountain. i'm gonna act just like you, and request more proof that they could do it. didn't you'll last comment on my page was

well there are only numbers and an accident. how stronger are weapons from TNG and the others compared to ENT??? two,three, four times?

no,cuz is WAY smaller than the Enterprise. why do you compare a 225 meters long ship to a 21.5 meters long transport??????
oh, yeah, IT'S THE ONLY WAY YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO MAKE ST SHIPS LOOK STARONGER!!!!!!!!!!!!!
get out dude, this is just a week trekkie attempt, like all others.