All Of Star Trek Vs All Of Star Wars

Originally posted by Fishy
The time thing is very interesting and I haven't read all of it yet, but its right now stating things about time zones on Coruscant sounds smart sounds wise sounds nice... It only has one really big problem. Coruscant has mirrors around the planet servicing as suns (labyrinth of evil), meaning that if one of those went out then a large part of the planet could suddenly go into night. A small shuttle flying in front of it could ruin the sun time in the day. Basically making that entire argument false or at least in correct.

Look... I am not saying he is right or wrong but if what you say is true then why dont you post the question to him to see if that was ever considered... If you dont I will cause I sure as heck want to know.

These people put a lot of effort into their analysis... They seemed fair and balanced. They did the same calculations for both ST and SW so I dont see how they can be biased.

Originally posted by Fishy
I've read both now... Well the time thing is completely wrong and biased.. The other thing IMO just tries to sound smart, he also attacks somebody from the SW side that did the same and the people that calculated it already choice sides.

I can't really argue with the second one, because I have no real facts that play against it, except for a one thing. You never actually see the Star Destroyer get destroyed, and every small asteroid was blown away. The size he stated was therefor when you think about it far to small. For a ship that was 3 kilometers long a big asteroid would be needed to do mass amount of damage.

Sorry for the tripple post... had to be done.

I would like to know how the time - speed analysis is biased... If what you say about the mirrors is correct the I can see how it is wrong... but biased? He stated what the SW person had done wrong in his calculations... it was not an attack... just a correction of the others mistakes.

As far as the second one goes, he states where the SD destruction comes from... He also says that it is not shown. and SD are not 3 kilometers long... He stated everything as scientific as possible with as little speculation as possible... I dont understand how you can argue against him. Again, I am not saying he is right or wrong... but this stuff is pretty well supported.

Because in all three they choose the ST side or the equal side... The last one you posted for instance is nothing more but guess work, even I can do that... Not all that hard, Dispit can come up with something a lot better in minutes... Its just guess work. Unlike SW where we actually see those things get blown away easily.

And they obviously didn't consider the sun thing on Coruscant because they never once said anything about it in their post, nor did they do anything with it. They just assumed there was only one thing that could light the planet. Which is obviously bullshit.

Originally posted by TRSundown
Sorry for the tripple post... had to be done.

I would like to know how the time - speed analysis is biased... If what you say about the mirrors is correct the I can see how it is wrong... but biased? He stated what the SW person had done wrong in his calculations... it was not an attack... just a correction of the others mistakes.

As far as the second one goes, he states where the SD destruction comes from... He also says that it is not shown. and SD are not 3 kilometers long... He stated everything as scientific as possible with as little speculation as possible... I dont understand how you can argue against him. Again, I am not saying he is right or wrong... but this stuff is pretty well supported.

The time thing wasn't biased... The thing is however that he is speculating and clearly in favour of ST because he tries to bring up ST to SW in things where SW has an advantage.. Nice thing to do, but not a fair unbiased judgement of the matter. Not strange consider the fact he has a personal involvement in the matter.

And becuase of this is subjective he can hardly claim somebody else is wrong for using his own calculations instead of his.

Also one other thing about the entire time thing, we have no idea how the times are on other planets so he has no idea how long it took them to travel to where ever they went.

Yoda arrived only minutes after the rest of the Jedi did and he made a huge de tour, and according to StarWars.com you can reach a virtual unlimited speed with hyperdrive.

Originally posted by Fishy
Because in all three they choose the ST side or the equal side... The last one you posted for instance is nothing more but guess work, even I can do that... Not all that hard, Dispit can come up with something a lot better in minutes... Its just guess work. Unlike SW where we actually see those things get blown away easily.

And they obviously didn't consider the sun thing on Coruscant because they never once said anything about it in their post, nor did they do anything with it. They just assumed there was only one thing that could light the planet. Which is obviously bullshit.

I dont agree with you at all... but thats okay. Thats why this is a debate.

Just because the results favored the ST side does not mean they are biased... I would like to see the calculations and logic used to form your own assesment of my third post. We are talking advanced physics here... not something I could do... They are taking known measurments and using those to calculate size, speed, and distance and using those to calculate everything else... They have even stated that things could be different but based on their analysis that is what they come up with. They use the scientific method the entire time... These are all THEORY... nothing can be proved for sure. But that is how the scientific method works...

Originally posted by Fishy
The time thing wasn't biased... The thing is however that he is speculating and clearly in favour of ST because he tries to bring up ST to SW in things where SW has an advantage.. Nice thing to do, but not a fair unbiased judgement of the matter. Not strange consider the fact he has a personal involvement in the matter.

And becuase of this is subjective he can hardly claim somebody else is wrong for using his own calculations instead of his.

Its not that the guys calculations were wrong... they were right for the data used... but its how he calculated the sizes, speeds, and masses of the objects in question. Calculating speed once you have the time and distance is not hard but the SW guys calculations were way off.

And he is bringing ST into the analysis because its SW vs ST... so he is just showing how the two compair.

Dang... yet another tripple post... Sorry guys... But this is worthy of a read...

http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWintro.html

This really helps you understand where the guys is coming from and what he is attempting to do...

Originally posted by TRSundown
I dont agree with you at all... but thats okay. Thats why this is a debate.

Just because the results favored the ST side does not mean they are biased... I would like to see the calculations and logic used to form your own assesment of my third post. We are talking advanced physics here... not something I could do... They are taking known measurments and using those to calculate size, speed, and distance and using those to calculate everything else... They have even stated that things could be different but based on their analysis that is what they come up with. They use the scientific method the entire time... These are all THEORY... nothing can be proved for sure. But that is how the scientific method works...

Yes but they claim other sides are wrong because they choose wrong measurements for things... They say a lot of things, but are any of them true.

The sun thing for instance, has been completely disprove with one of my posts, and still the relevance of many things they posted had nothing to do with star travel, maybe they just had a traffic jam... I agree it sounds smart and all but if I can prove a theory wrong so easily I wonder about the rest.

The asteroid thing is looked at completely from one side as well, they don't even look at the SW side just say the thing is the size of Voyager so it has to be stronger and powerful... Well lets look at an example from one of their other posts

The asteroid that hit the Star Destroyer

A star destroyer is 1.6 kilometers long I have no idea about the width, but in airplanes its about the same size as the plane. Seeing as this is in a galaxy far far away I will just assume its about 1.4 kilometers long. The bridge alone is about the same size as the width of the thing, meaning about 1.2 100 meters smaller on both sides.

The Asteroid that hit it was about the same size maybe a little smaller lets be generous and say its about 800 meters. The Enterprise was an excelsior class ship right? Thats about 195 meters in width... Meaning the Asteroid even when being generous with the size was bigger then the entire Star Trek ship.

Asteroids like that were being blown away by SW lasers constantly. The star destroyer when hit was not destroyed by it, at least not from what we saw. Super star destroyers blew things like that away.

Meaning that the asteroid that was so hard for Star Trek to destroy was smaller then the one that hit the Star Destroyer (If their estimation of the size is correct that is) and couldn't be destroyed easily.

In conclusion

ST asteroid was smaller then the SW asteroid
Dozens of the SW size asteroids were being blown away in seconds by normal lasers
ST had a hard time destroying a smaller asteroid

SW fire power is apparently greater.

I basically did the same thing they did, only without saying all kinds of complicated mathematical things that have no real importance for this.

Originally posted by Fishy
Yes but they claim other sides are wrong because they choose wrong measurements for things... They say a lot of things, but are any of them true.

The sun thing for instance, has been completely disprove with one of my posts, and still the relevance of many things they posted had nothing to do with star travel, maybe they just had a traffic jam... I agree it sounds smart and all but if I can prove a theory wrong so easily I wonder about the rest.

The asteroid thing is looked at completely from one side as well, they don't even look at the SW side just say the thing is the size of Voyager so it has to be stronger and powerful... Well lets look at an example from one of their other posts

The asteroid that hit the Star Destroyer

A star destroyer is 1.6 kilometers long I have no idea about the width, but in airplanes its about the same size as the plane. Seeing as this is in a galaxy far far away I will just assume its about 1.4 kilometers long. The bridge alone is about the same size as the width of the thing, meaning about 1.2 100 meters smaller on both sides.

The Asteroid that hit it was about the same size maybe a little smaller lets be generous and say its about 800 meters. The Enterprise was an excelsior class ship right? Thats about 195 meters in width... Meaning the Asteroid even when being generous with the size was bigger then the entire Star Trek ship.

Asteroids like that were being blown away by SW lasers constantly. The star destroyer when hit was not destroyed by it, at least not from what we saw. Super star destroyers blew things like that away.

Meaning that the asteroid that was so hard for Star Trek to destroy was smaller then the one that hit the Star Destroyer (If their estimation of the size is correct that is) and couldn't be destroyed easily.

In conclusion

ST asteroid was smaller then the SW asteroid
Dozens of the SW size asteroids were being blown away in seconds by normal lasers
ST had a hard time destroying a smaller asteroid

SW fire power is apparently greater.

I basically did the same thing they did, only without saying all kinds of complicated mathematical things that have no real importance for this.

Well first of all the dimensions used for the post you just did are so far wrong that my 7 year old son said that could not be right... Just by a visual inspection it is easy to see that the width of a Star Destroyer is not the same as its length. Also, the bridge are is less than half the width of a Star Destroyer... So your example there is logically inaccurate...

I emailed the site that I have been referencing here about the mirrors and here was his response...

"Labyrinth" is not a valid resource. However, the mirrors also appear in the RoTS semi-EU movie novelization, and are mentioned in my RoTS tech review. Their effect on the hyperdrive page is yet to be determined.

Again... not that he is right or wrong but after reading his "Why" section of his website I have come to my own opinion that this is a pretty credible source of analitical comparisons between the two galaxies.

Originally posted by Fishy
A star destroyer is 1.6 kilometers long I have no idea about the width, but in airplanes its about the same size as the plane. Seeing as this is in a galaxy far far away I will just assume its about 1.4 kilometers long. The bridge alone is about the same size as the width of the thing, meaning about 1.2 100 meters smaller on both sides.

The Asteroid that hit it was about the same size maybe a little smaller lets be generous and say its about 800 meters. The Enterprise was an excelsior class ship right? Thats about 195 meters in width... Meaning the Asteroid even when being generous with the size was bigger then the entire Star Trek ship.

HAIL to the TUNA!... Stuff like that is more common sense than anything... unforutnately its not to common anymore...

HEY IF ANY OF YOU WANT TO HELP DEVELOP AN ACTUAL STORY "WHEN GALAXIES COLLIDE" HAVE A VISIT TO WWW.GODSANDWARRIORS.COM AND VISIT THE FORUMS THERE.

I created Gods and Warriors for myself and a friend of mine so we would have a place to develope storylines for several other projects we are working on. I created a section in the forums for independed storyline development. Check it out and PM me if you want to help.

After a while, I realized my estimate was close to the corrected version when he got the better specs on the globes. But I was too lazy to come back and say so until now.

And I'll check out your dealie.

Vader would force choke Picard while in battle looking oncreen

That what I said is wrong isn't really the point here is it. Its just a few assumptions nothing more based on absolutely nothing but a quick glance of the thing. And Labyrinth is a valid EU source.. I don't understand how he gets that its not. But still after looking up the sizes the bridge is about 300 meters in width. That means the asteroird was at least 200 meters thats half of the Enterprise. They blew things like that away with ease. They would still be able to easily destroy bigger asteroids even if it would take more then one laser hit, just fire a few of them at it and it would still be gone.

Enterprise actually had a hard time destroying it, instead of just blowing it away like dozens of others at the same time. Comparison although slightly faulty still stands. His hyperspace page is still up, even though its already been found to be wrong. Very wrong.. No comment on it or anything who knows what people have been able to prove wrong on the other subjects.

On another page he talks about how weak stormtrooper armor is, he fails to mention all those times it did work and also fails to take in acount that sometimes movies make mistakes. There is a frame where Vader his helmet is gone. Well part of it, surely he would not suggest that Vader could actually walk around without his body suit. Its still a movie mistakes are made, i'm sure that Star Trek would have the same thing.

He also seems to forget in other posts that they are dealing with Jedi. The force can cloud entire city's blow up stars it can surely make somebody fly better then other pilots because they already know whats going to happen.

In another post he describes how far they can hit, its actually already established that the trade federation wanted to knock the droids away. Hitting an object no bigger then a meter from 60 kilometers away with huge cannons is actually quite amazing. Then he fails to mention the range of the Death Star, the range of Ion Cannons.

I'm sorry dude, but that guy looks at it entirely to much from one side, maybe he doesn't want to but he does. That site is null and void as far as I am concerned.

Edit: this seems like a rant... Sorry aboot that, but the thing is that page is wrong on so many things.

The point of the asteroid was the hull strength, not the laser strength.

And what asteroid is Enterprise having trouble with on that page?

The first example was Voyager firing at an asteroid they thought would be destroyed but ended up being made of stronger materials. The second shows Enterprise annihilating an asteroid. Same torpedoes though I believe.

Not really the point now is it. The fact is there was still some time dedicated to that asteroid, they couldn't fly into a field full of those things because it would be their dead. The Super Star Destroyers do it without any trouble at all. They fly into a field with those asteroids and bigger one's, blow them all up without problems. Well some mild communication problems because the asteroids block transmissions but thats about it.

It still brings me to the conclusion that the fire power of Star Wars is greater then that in ST.

Originally posted by Fishy
Not really the point now is it. The fact is there was still some time dedicated to that asteroid

The Super Star Destroyers do it without any trouble at all. They fly into a field with those asteroids and bigger one's, blow them all up without problems. Well some mild communication problems because the asteroids block transmissions but thats about it.

It still brings me to the conclusion that the fire power of Star Wars is greater then that in ST.

I also think that there is another point being missed... No one here has said that the SW weapons are inferior to ST... thats not what I am trying to argue and I think the point that the sw-vs-st.com site is trying to make is that per the scale of the ships, the weapon strength is about equal...

The Star Destroyers are larger, therfore their power output is going to be greater as well... bigger engines produce more power... dont need to be a genious to figure that out... Now if the Federation built a ship using ST technology on the scale of a Star Destroyer would the Federation ship still be outclassed?

I have never once said that Enterprise-E vs Star Destroyer would be an equal match. All the examples that I have given here were just to show that ST thechnology is more powerfull than the SW people give them credit for.

The example of the asteroid hitting the Star Destroyer and the Jem'Hadar ship raming a Galaxy Class Federation Star Ship gives pretty scientifly and mathmatically sound evidence that the construction/sturdiness of the two different ships is pretty equal.

Fishy, I think you have missed the point of the sw-vs-st.com site... This guys is not out to destroy SW. He is not out to make ST superior. All of his examples show that the ST galaxy is per scale equal to that of the SW galaxy... And I think he does a good job of supporting his argument... So far I think he is the only one that has done a good, logical support for the argument. Its us that are bantering on with speculation... at least this guy adds the scientific process into it.

That ST-vs-SW site is the biggest crap I've ever seen. Sorry to say that but at least the guy who did it had actually NO idea about the SW universe. He does a lot of math there, analysing screens and so on but he just has no idea about the SW universe and its technology because he just looks on the movies and leaves everything from the EU section out.

For example: weapon range of the starships...
Conclusion taken from the site is that SW weapons aren't good for more than 100 kilometres. And that is what I would call "bad research".

In the "Black fleet trilogy" you have the Qella Vagabound shooting a target with the size of a helmet from a distance of 8,000+ kilometres.
The Twin Laser cannons of an A-Wing fighter have a maximum range of 9,600 kilometres. You can argue that the turbolaser batteries of capital ships would have greater range.
For real long range combat there are rockets that could be launched from starships with a range of 6,437,376 kilometres flying at their target with 10 % of light speed.
And finaly the Death Stars "superlaser" (according to the Technical Journal of the Imperial Forces) has an effective range of 47,060,000 kilometres (more than 150 lightseconds)

Do you realy want to try some space battle here with thousands of capital ships and millions of star fighters ?
Not that weapon power would even count here because one of sides has force users that could throw planets around, destroy entire fleets with their force powers (force storm), cause stars to go supernova, control black holes, gravity, drain the life from an entire planet within seconds and so on...no technology is able to counter that.