Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Please compose all posts in Emacs.

Moderators: phlip, Prelates, Moderators General

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby sikyon » Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:16 pm UTC

philsov wrote:
sikyon wrote:Why? The Borg.


One jedi > all the borg from Voyager.

Poor borg. Now easier to kill than klingons.


How can you say that? Seven was worth a main character jedi! anyhow...

Borg would adapt to lightsaber :D

Or just blow up the enemy ship, more than likely.
sikyon
 
Posts: 346
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 5:45 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby You, sir, name? » Thu Apr 02, 2009 9:10 pm UTC

philsov wrote:
sikyon wrote:Why? The Borg.


One jedi > all the borg from Voyager.

Poor borg. Now easier to kill than klingons.


I doubt it. Sure, the Jedi would kill a few of them, maybe even a lot of them. But how long does it take for a collective consciousness with billions of members to figure out a way to shield against a lightsaber? With every drone that is killed, they get more data. And when they eventually do assimilate a Jedi, they will know everything they know -- all drones would. Secrets, base layouts, weapon designs, and how to wield the force. How long would it take the Borg to artificially imbue their nanoprobes with midichlorians after having assimilated a Jedi or a Sith?

That prospect is where the Star Wars universe really finds itself in deep guano. Picture millions of Borg drones, wielding the force in perfect unison.
I now occasionally update my rarely-updated blog.

I edit my posts a lot and sometimes the words wrong order words appear in sentences get messed up.
User avatar
You, sir, name?
 
Posts: 6617
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:07 am UTC
Location: Chako Paul City

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby GoC » Fri Apr 03, 2009 12:12 pm UTC

philsov: The borg where massively nerfed and stupidified in Voyager.
More Star Trek writer stupidity. :roll:
Belial wrote:I'm just being a dick. It happens.
GoC
 
Posts: 336
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 10:35 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Berengal » Fri Apr 03, 2009 1:14 pm UTC

You, sir, name? wrote:midichlorians

Voyager.
It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students who are motivated by money: As potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.
User avatar
Berengal
Superabacus Mystic of the First Rank
 
Posts: 2707
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 5:51 am UTC
Location: Bergen, Norway

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby philsov » Fri Apr 03, 2009 2:02 pm UTC

GoC wrote:philsov: The borg where massively nerfed and stupidified in Voyager.
More Star Trek writer stupidity. :roll:


Exactly. A lot of this thread is saying how the borg can decimate, but Voyager borg just blew ass. I mean, really...

"In the Voyager finale, "Endgame", a version of Janeway from a future alternate timeline travels back in time to aid in Voyager's return to the Alpha Quadrant through the use of a Borg transwarp hub, one of six such structures in the galaxy which allow Borg ships to traverse galactic distances in minutes. This Janeway allows herself to be assimilated, delivering a neurolytic pathogen that disrupts the Queen's link to the collective, killing her and destroying the Borg Unicomplex.Voyager uses the transwarp hub to travel back to the Alpha Quadrant, destroying it as they do."


One random redface tentacled jedi just effectively destroyed the borg. With the borg out of the picture I really don't see team trek winning.

Conversely, the clone army can either be some sharpshooting badasses (Ep II/III) or bumbling idiots (IV). Ep III clones v. Voyager borg is a lot different than Ep IV clones and enterprise borg O.o
The time and seasons go on, but all the rhymes and reasons are wrong
I know I'll discover after its all said and done I should've been a nun.
User avatar
philsov
Not a fan of Diane Kruger
 
Posts: 1350
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 7:58 pm UTC
Location: Texas

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby GoC » Fri Apr 03, 2009 5:45 pm UTC

"In the Voyager finale, "Endgame", a version of Janeway from a future alternate timeline travels back in time to aid in Voyager's return to the Alpha Quadrant through the use of a Borg transwarp hub, one of six such structures in the galaxy which allow Borg ships to traverse galactic distances in minutes. This Janeway allows herself to be assimilated, delivering a neurolytic pathogen that disrupts the Queen's link to the collective, killing her and destroying the Borg Unicomplex.Voyager uses the transwarp hub to travel back to the Alpha Quadrant, destroying it as they do."

...
Ugh.
How...?
How would that even work?!
Belial wrote:I'm just being a dick. It happens.
GoC
 
Posts: 336
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 10:35 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby mastered » Fri May 08, 2009 10:57 pm UTC

Would Q necessarily be part of only the Star Trek universe? Admittedly, he's not canon in Star Wars, but in Star Trek there are parallel universes, and what kind of omnipotent being wouldn't be capable of going to them?
Things are only impossible until they aren't. - Cpt. Picard
Image
User avatar
mastered
 
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 12:19 am UTC
Location: Terra

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby bigglesworth » Fri May 08, 2009 11:03 pm UTC

You, sir, name? wrote:I doubt it. Sure, the Jedi would kill a few of them, maybe even a lot of them. But how long does it take for a collective consciousness with billions of members to figure out a way to shield against a lightsaber? With every drone that is killed, they get more data.


The Jedi are hardly melee warriors. While they can do that, they're clever enough to work out when a lightsabre doesn't work.

There's a reason the Jedi were made Generals of the clone armies.
Generation Y. I don't remember the First Gulf War, but do remember floppy disks.
User avatar
bigglesworth
I feel like Biggles should have a title
 
Posts: 7295
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC
Location: The British Empire

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby GoC » Sat May 09, 2009 1:29 am UTC

bigglesworth wrote:There's a reason the Jedi were made Generals of the clone armies.

Precog and force sensitivity?
Belial wrote:I'm just being a dick. It happens.
GoC
 
Posts: 336
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 10:35 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby BlackSails » Sat May 09, 2009 7:14 pm UTC

Along with battle meditation
User avatar
BlackSails
 
Posts: 5254
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Mother Superior » Thu May 14, 2009 11:01 pm UTC

Image
User avatar
Mother Superior
Better than tea
 
Posts: 2402
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:30 am UTC
Location: Sweden

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby peevo » Tue May 19, 2009 1:27 am UTC

Star Wars does have instantaneous teleportation. Aing-Tii"...the monks could instantaneously move an object—ranging in size from small objects to 300-meter-long ships—from one location to another... They were also able to teach this power to non-Force-sensitives." And they also do have limited time-travel, flow-walking allows a skilled user to alter the past, or future.
"Yeah I can break necks with my mind." Tristan, Yu-Gi-Oh: The Abridged Version, Episode 31.
peevo
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:11 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby SpazzyMcGee » Tue May 19, 2009 3:55 am UTC

peevo wrote:Star Wars does have instantaneous teleportation. Aing-Tii"...the monks could instantaneously move an object—ranging in size from small objects to 300-meter-long ships—from one location to another... They were also able to teach this power to non-Force-sensitives." And they also do have limited time-travel, flow-walking allows a skilled user to alter the past, or future.

And Navy Seals can do pretty much anything a human could possibly do, however the American military is not made entirely up of Navy Seals. In Star Trek every vessel has transporter technology while in Star Wars one group of people on a single planet can do comparative tricks.
User avatar
SpazzyMcGee
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 5:36 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Troy Martin » Tue May 26, 2009 3:58 am UTC

Trek wins. As soon as the SW ships enter the ST universe they violate the laws of physics and implode into nothingness.
Howdy.
User avatar
Troy Martin
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 4:08 am UTC
Location: Langley, BC, Canada

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Vieto » Tue May 26, 2009 5:09 pm UTC

Well, with the most recent ST movie, all the trekies would need is a small ship with red matter, and the Empire and all their planets wouldn't have a hope.
a.k.a. Cazador
User avatar
Vieto
 
Posts: 1558
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 10:44 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby BlackSails » Tue May 26, 2009 6:20 pm UTC

Vieto wrote:Well, with the most recent ST movie, all the trekies would need is a small ship with red matter, and the Empire and all their planets wouldn't have a hope.


The empire can still evaporate the ST ship with a single blast.


Troy Martin wrote:Trek wins. As soon as the SW ships enter the ST universe they violate the laws of physics and implode into nothingness.

Oh yeah, because Star Trek adheres so closely to the laws of physics.
User avatar
BlackSails
 
Posts: 5254
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Philwelch » Tue May 26, 2009 7:34 pm UTC

BlackSails wrote:
Vieto wrote:Well, with the most recent ST movie, all the trekies would need is a small ship with red matter, and the Empire and all their planets wouldn't have a hope.


The empire can still evaporate the ST ship with a single blast.


Not if the ST ship uses the well-known slingshot method to travel back in time to before the Rakatan Empire. Even then, red matter is weak compared to Soran's trilithium torpedo from Generations.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.
Philwelch
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby hideki101 » Tue May 26, 2009 9:34 pm UTC

Philwelch wrote:
BlackSails wrote:
Vieto wrote:Well, with the most recent ST movie, all the trekies would need is a small ship with red matter, and the Empire and all their planets wouldn't have a hope.


The empire can still evaporate the ST ship with a single blast.


Not if the ST ship uses the well-known slingshot method to travel back in time to before the Rakatan Empire. Even then, red matter is weak compared to Soran's trilithium torpedo from Generations.

Time paradox there. That can't happen (not to mention that the slingshot effect does not work that way), because if the ship succeeded, and the SW galaxy never advanced past that point, then there would be no reason to go back in time in the first place. They may go to a future in which the SW universe doesn't exist, but that's a whole separate timeline; the SW universe will still exist in the original timeline.

Also, there were many interstellar empires pre and post Rakatan. The Rakatan empire was only the first galaxy wide empire.

Finally, all the weapons you mention seem to have the capability to destroy a star. Centerpoint Station has the capability, as an easily defensible structure (think repulsor blast that can shoot through Hyperspace) and the Sun Crusher can detonate a star through resonance torpedoes, and has the armor to be able to be within the green belt of the star that just went nova. It is also the size of a fighter.
Albert Einistein wrote:"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
User avatar
hideki101
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 5:50 pm UTC
Location: everywhere and nowhere

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby BlackSails » Tue May 26, 2009 10:37 pm UTC

Not to mention that red matter very demonstrably does not create a black hole, as evidenced by the fact that a ship traveling faster than light couldnt escape from outside of whatever the black-hole-looking-thing actually was.
User avatar
BlackSails
 
Posts: 5254
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Philwelch » Wed May 27, 2009 12:23 am UTC

hideki101 wrote:
Philwelch wrote:
BlackSails wrote:
Vieto wrote:Well, with the most recent ST movie, all the trekies would need is a small ship with red matter, and the Empire and all their planets wouldn't have a hope.


The empire can still evaporate the ST ship with a single blast.


Not if the ST ship uses the well-known slingshot method to travel back in time to before the Rakatan Empire. Even then, red matter is weak compared to Soran's trilithium torpedo from Generations.


Time paradox there. That can't happen (not to mention that the slingshot effect does not work that way), because if the ship succeeded, and the SW galaxy never advanced past that point, then there would be no reason to go back in time in the first place.


There is, in Star Trek, a similar but distinct slingshot effect that does cause time travel when used at high warp speed: see Star Trek IV and several TNG episodes.

There is no paradox, simply a counterintuition (for you, not for me). The ST canon firmly establishes in multiple places that successful time travel *can* in fact change a set of facts about a single invariant timeline with no paradox at all: perhaps first in "The City On The Edge Of Forever".

hideki101 wrote:Also, there were many interstellar empires pre and post Rakatan. The Rakatan empire was only the first galaxy wide empire.


Doesn't matter. Just go back further in time.

hideki101 wrote:Finally, all the weapons you mention seem to have the capability to destroy a star. Centerpoint Station has the capability, as an easily defensible structure (think repulsor blast that can shoot through Hyperspace) and the Sun Crusher can detonate a star through resonance torpedoes, and has the armor to be able to be within the green belt of the star that just went nova. It is also the size of a fighter.


That's nice. But it can't go back in time, or at least, no one who operates the Sun Crusher knows how. Any old Star Trek ship can go back in time (it was successfully done with a Klingon D-12 Bird of Prey).

Oh yeah, and the Sun Crusher has questionable canon status, since it comes from a book (a very crappy book, by the way) that openly contradicts the film canon (G-canon, I believe it's called) about the origins of the Death Star. The trilithium torpedoes in Star Trek come from a perfectly legitimate movie, and the various means of time travel, including the slingshot method, are documented even in the Roddenberry canon.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.
Philwelch
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby You, sir, name? » Thu May 28, 2009 5:02 pm UTC

BlackSails wrote:
Troy Martin wrote:Trek wins. As soon as the SW ships enter the ST universe they violate the laws of physics and implode into nothingness.

Oh yeah, because Star Trek adheres so closely to the laws of physics.


It does, in the sense that it sketches out laws of physics to adhere to. Star Wars on the other is about on the same level as Harry Potter when it comes to defining a framework of physics to justify what's going on.
I now occasionally update my rarely-updated blog.

I edit my posts a lot and sometimes the words wrong order words appear in sentences get messed up.
User avatar
You, sir, name?
 
Posts: 6617
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:07 am UTC
Location: Chako Paul City

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Philwelch » Sat May 30, 2009 12:10 am UTC

Star Trek's only advantage is that, at some point, they canonically made up various sets of vague, fictitious laws of physics to justify their shit. On the other hand, they did this sporadically, in multiple places, and probably ended up contradicting themselves at some point.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.
Philwelch
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby hideki101 » Sat May 30, 2009 3:29 am UTC

Philwelch wrote:Oh yeah, and the Sun Crusher has questionable canon status, since it comes from a book (a very crappy book, by the way) that openly contradicts the film canon (G-canon, I believe it's called) about the origins of the Death Star. The trilithium torpedoes in Star Trek come from a perfectly legitimate movie, and the various means of time travel, including the slingshot method, are documented even in the Roddenberry canon.

Coming from a book (even a "crappy" one) does not invalidate the fact that the Sun Crusher is Continuity canon. Nothing in the movies contradicts the existence of a Sun Crusher, and the Death Star's origins have not been contradicted. (While the Seperatists were building the station, the Maw Installation designed the superlaser)
Albert Einistein wrote:"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
User avatar
hideki101
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 5:50 pm UTC
Location: everywhere and nowhere

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Philwelch » Sat May 30, 2009 6:01 am UTC

hideki101 wrote:
Philwelch wrote:Oh yeah, and the Sun Crusher has questionable canon status, since it comes from a book (a very crappy book, by the way) that openly contradicts the film canon (G-canon, I believe it's called) about the origins of the Death Star. The trilithium torpedoes in Star Trek come from a perfectly legitimate movie, and the various means of time travel, including the slingshot method, are documented even in the Roddenberry canon.


Coming from a book (even a "crappy" one) does not invalidate the fact that the Sun Crusher is Continuity canon. Nothing in the movies contradicts the existence of a Sun Crusher, and the Death Star's origins have not been contradicted. (While the Seperatists were building the station, the Maw Installation designed the superlaser)


The book establishes that the Death Star was designed by the Empire. Episode II establishes that the Separatists designed the Death Star. I don't care how much sophistry you want to go through to make that contradiction go away, it's still there. And if the Death Star wasn't designed by the secret Empire superweapons design group, then the history of the secret Empire superweapons design group falls into question and there's no basis anymore for supposing that there was a Sun Crusher.

In any case, there are no Sun Crushers if you travel back in time to before the thing was invented, so it's a moot point.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.
Philwelch
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Crius » Mon Jun 01, 2009 5:44 pm UTC

The Sun Crusher is currently canon, so I don't think you can argue whether it exists.

Your time travel argument is based on the assumption that the battle is being waged in the SW universe, or some sort of merged universe (which gets even more confusing when you throw time travel into the mix). Also, to the best of my knowledge, time travel in ST is limited to relatively small jumps (a few hundred years or so) with individual ships. What you're proposing is a jump of thousands of years, and may require a fleet.

You'd need to gather the proper military intellegence to do what you're proposing as well. I'd assume that the ST universe will not know the history of the SW universe, and wouldn't know either the time period to jump to, nor which planet (out of billions) to attack.
User avatar
Crius
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:27 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby hideki101 » Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:48 pm UTC

Philwelch wrote:
There is, in Star Trek, a similar but distinct slingshot effect that does cause time travel when used at high warp speed: see Star Trek IV and several TNG episodes.

There is no paradox, simply a counterintuition (for you, not for me). The ST canon firmly establishes in multiple places that successful time travel *can* in fact change a set of facts about a single invariant timeline with no paradox at all: perhaps first in "The City On The Edge Of Forever".

Actually, it seems that Star Trek takes the "Many Worlds" timeline view of the universe. However, people who alter the timeline seem to be immune to it's effects. In that case, the Enterprise disappearing is a product of both an alternate timeline, and ontological inertia: the crew near the gate notice things going wrong in their point of view (which may be the result of sliding into an alternate universe where McCoy saved Edith) while also staying near the gate with the same memories of what happened (on another train of thought, if the Enterprise didn't exist, how did they get to the portal in the first place?) The fact that the cast of Star Trek (pretty much regardless of season) meet alternate universe versions of themselves seems to support the following of the Many Worlds interpretation. Therefore, even in the mechanics of Star Trek, using time travel to change the past will fail to stop the rise of the Star Wars universe in its original timeline. (the Star Wars universe seems to take a Copenhagen approach to time: Jacen sent a message to Leia in the future, locking down the fact that Leia had to be at that point in space at the time in the future he sent the message to. Luke is admittedly disturbed at that notion. (source: Dark Nest I: the Joiner King)
Albert Einistein wrote:"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
User avatar
hideki101
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 5:50 pm UTC
Location: everywhere and nowhere

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Philwelch » Tue Jun 02, 2009 1:13 am UTC

Crius wrote:The Sun Crusher is currently canon, so I don't think you can argue whether it exists.


I'm arguing whether it's canon. By the rules of SW canon, there's good reason to suspect it may not be.

Crius wrote:Your time travel argument is based on the assumption that the battle is being waged in the SW universe, or some sort of merged universe (which gets even more confusing when you throw time travel into the mix). Also, to the best of my knowledge, time travel in ST is limited to relatively small jumps (a few hundred years or so) with individual ships. What you're proposing is a jump of thousands of years, and may require a fleet.


There are also rather obvious workarounds to these problems:

1. According to Star Wars, the films take place "a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away". Which implies that, while ST takes place in (essentially) our universe, SW also takes place in our universe, albeit in a setting rather distant from ours in both time and space.
2. If there is a merged universe, there will nonetheless be some way the ST forces can rig the system, so to speak, if they can go back in time and affect that region of space prior to the entry of the SW forces.
3. There's no fundamental reason why multiple ships cannot exploit the same method of time travel together: many of them (slingshot method, engine implosion) would have little effect if multiple ships did it all at the same time, while others (traveling through temporal anomalies as per "Yesterday's Enterprise", "Parallels", and "Star Trek: First Contact") have been done with multiple ships before.

Crius wrote:You'd need to gather the proper military intellegence to do what you're proposing as well. I'd assume that the ST universe will not know the history of the SW universe, and wouldn't know either the time period to jump to, nor which planet (out of billions) to attack.


That would only require capturing a single reasonably educated individual in the SW universe and imposing a mind meld, though I would argue this is unnecessary if you have a thorough enough plan of attack. (A Borg incursion, for instance, against a pre-hyperspace/pre-warp Star Wars universe would eventually, virally, enslave the whole universe from a single cube discovering a single inhabited planet, if done early enough.)

hideki101 wrote:Actually, it seems that Star Trek takes the "Many Worlds" timeline view of the universe.


With the exception of the latest movie, it really, really, really doesn't. There's always a moral imperative to saving the timeline.

The fact that the cast of Star Trek (pretty much regardless of season) meet alternate universe versions of themselves seems to support the following of the Many Worlds interpretation.


Let's enumerate these:

1. The Mirror Universe (of the bearded Spock) is never established to have been created by time travel, or indeed any single counterfactual.
2. The multiple universes in Parallels (including the Crazy Captain Riker's "The Borg Won" Universe) seems to be a version of a *quantum* many-worlds, or a David Lewis-style modal realism model. It is fully compatible with the idea that time travel merely changes the facts about a single timeline rather than forking timelines.
3. There is no indication that the alternate universe in "The Alternative Factor" (TOS) was created by time travel.

In episodes like "Yesterday's Enterprise", we see things like the Enterprise-D, her bridge and her crew suddenly change before our eyes as soon as some historical fact is changed, such as the escape of the Enterprise-C from the battle at Narendra III. This certainly implies a single-timeline interpretation, even if an "alternate" version of events is shown.

the Star Wars universe seems to take a Copenhagen approach to time: Jacen sent a message to Leia in the future, locking down the fact that Leia had to be at that point in space at the time in the future he sent the message to. Luke is admittedly disturbed at that notion.


So does Star Trek: Bashir is well aware of predestination paradoxes ("Trials and Tribble-ations" (DS9)) and Captain Picard creates one ("All Good Things" (TNG)) with tachyon pulses using the main deflector dish. So does Scotty, by giving an Earth scientist the formula for transparent aluminum.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.
Philwelch
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby hideki101 » Tue Jun 02, 2009 3:32 am UTC

Philwelch wrote:Let's enumerate these:

1. The Mirror Universe (of the bearded Spock) is never established to have been created by time travel, or indeed any single counterfactual.
2. The multiple universes in Parallels (including the Crazy Captain Riker's "The Borg Won" Universe) seems to be a version of a *quantum* many-worlds, or a David Lewis-style modal realism model. It is fully compatible with the idea that time travel merely changes the facts about a single timeline rather than forking timelines.
3. There is no indication that the alternate universe in "The Alternative Factor" (TOS) was created by time travel.

In episodes like "Yesterday's Enterprise", we see things like the Enterprise-D, her bridge and her crew suddenly change before our eyes as soon as some historical fact is changed, such as the escape of the Enterprise-C from the battle at Narendra III. This certainly implies a single-timeline interpretation, even if an "alternate" version of events is shown.
The thing is, parallel universes(i? I don't really know the plural) don't need to stem from time travel. The Many Worlds idea works just as well in time travel as in quantum physics and decision making. Say you went back in time and tried to change the past. Every realized outcome of that decision will be realized; your choice affects which universe you will go into. These branches happen all the time, and don't need to incorporate time travel. Going back in time would have the same consequences as someone from that time period doing something, namely causing the universe to branch. It's not so much saving the timeline as optimizing your choice of timelines that you enter.

Philwelch wrote:
The Sun Crusher is currently canon, so I don't think you can argue whether it exists.
I'm arguing whether it's canon. By the rules of SW canon, there's good reason to suspect it may not be.
By the rules of Star Wars canon, it is canon, even if it requires a retcon. Hell, the building of the Death Star had an entire novel to retcon the events behind it's construction. Notably, both the Maw Installation and the Clone Wars were referenced in its construction and history.
Albert Einistein wrote:"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
User avatar
hideki101
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 5:50 pm UTC
Location: everywhere and nowhere

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Philwelch » Tue Jun 02, 2009 3:56 am UTC

hideki101 wrote:The thing is, parallel universes(i? I don't really know the plural) don't need to stem from time travel.


No, but the question is: will time travel create a parallel universe or will it simply alter the existing timeline? Star Trek answers that question conclusively.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.
Philwelch
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby GoC » Wed Jun 03, 2009 12:05 pm UTC

Philwelch wrote:
hideki101 wrote:The thing is, parallel universes(i? I don't really know the plural) don't need to stem from time travel.


No, but the question is: will time travel create a parallel universe or will it simply alter the existing timeline? Star Trek answers that question conclusively.

And in a contradictory manner. :P
Star Trek changes time travel model each episode.

Anyway, I thought we'd been over this? Plain old Federation vs. Galactic Empire results in a Galactic Empire win due to sheer mass and industry. But give the Fed the brains of a ten year old or better and they'll win easily with all their tech.
Belial wrote:I'm just being a dick. It happens.
GoC
 
Posts: 336
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 10:35 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby sonbot » Sun Jun 07, 2009 9:08 am UTC

Im deffinatly gonna go with Starwars on this one... even if you take into acount all the diffrent series of trek, Starwars has the force..
and even their honda civics have hyperdrive, not just the empire or the republic.
Plus, Borgs no match for death star, if they can blow up a planet they have my vote.
Unless your talking about ST 2009, with the red matter. Then i dont know, close call
sonbot
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 9:03 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby mr_pathetic » Mon Jun 08, 2009 3:48 pm UTC

I really enjoyed TNG, but Star Wars was the stuff that really captured my attention growing up... though extreme fans of either are equally creepy. :P
User avatar
mr_pathetic
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:43 pm UTC
Location: The South

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Shriike » Tue Jun 09, 2009 3:00 pm UTC

hideki101 wrote:
Philwelch wrote:
The Sun Crusher is currently canon, so I don't think you can argue whether it exists.
I'm arguing whether it's canon. By the rules of SW canon, there's good reason to suspect it may not be.
By the rules of Star Wars canon, it is canon, even if it requires a retcon. Hell, the building of the Death Star had an entire novel to retcon the events behind it's construction. Notably, both the Maw Installation and the Clone Wars were referenced in its construction and history.

Look you can't argue that the Sun Crusher (from a canon book) is not canon, just because that book conflicts with something in the prequel trilogy (which shouldn't be canon). In my opinion, if there's ever a conflict between original trilogy or book and new trilogy, original trilogy or book wins.

So does ST not have hyperdrives? They kinda suck then, SW FTW.
Image
Shriike
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:27 am UTC
Location: Ohio

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Philwelch » Wed Jun 10, 2009 12:29 am UTC

Shriike wrote:Look you can't argue that the Sun Crusher (from a canon book) is not canon, just because that book conflicts with something in the prequel trilogy (which shouldn't be canon). In my opinion, if there's ever a conflict between original trilogy or book and new trilogy, original trilogy or book wins.


Have you *read* these stinking books? The prequels may be crap, but any Star Wars book authored by Kevin J. Anderson makes Episode I look fantastic.

Shriike wrote:So does ST not have hyperdrives?


No, and neither will SW after ST goes back in time and sterilizes the SW galaxy.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.
Philwelch
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby hideki101 » Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:04 am UTC

Philwelch wrote:
Shriike wrote:Look you can't argue that the Sun Crusher (from a canon book) is not canon, just because that book conflicts with something in the prequel trilogy (which shouldn't be canon). In my opinion, if there's ever a conflict between original trilogy or book and new trilogy, original trilogy or book wins.


Have you *read* these stinking books? The prequels may be crap, but any Star Wars book authored by Kevin J. Anderson makes Episode I look fantastic.

Do you know how little I care? The quality of the writing STILL has NOTHING to do whether or not it's canon or not. I could write nothing more than a glorified fanfic, but if LucasArts accepts it as continuity, IT. IS. CANON. Regardless of whether or not you think it's good or not. (By the way, the Jedi Academy series is not the worst series confirmed as canon. As far as I can tell, the Jedi Prince series is.)

Philwelch wrote:
Shriike wrote:So does ST not have hyperdrives?

No, and neither will SW after ST goes back in time and sterilizes the SW galaxy.

...
hideki101 wrote:The thing is, parallel universes(i? I don't really know the plural) don't need to stem from time travel. The Many Worlds idea works just as well in time travel as in quantum physics and decision making. Say you went back in time and tried to change the past. Every realized outcome of that decision will be realized; your choice affects which universe you will go into. These branches happen all the time, and don't need to incorporate time travel. Going back in time would have the same consequences as someone from that time period doing something, namely causing the universe to branch. It's not so much saving the timeline as optimizing your choice of timelines that you enter.

GoC wrote:
Philwelch wrote:No, but the question is: will time travel create a parallel universe or will it simply alter the existing timeline? Star Trek answers that question conclusively.

And in a contradictory manner. :P
Star Trek changes time travel model each episode.

You're not listening are you?
Philwelch wrote:
me wrote:the Star Wars universe seems to take a Copenhagen approach to time: Jacen sent a message to Leia in the future, locking down the fact that Leia had to be at that point in space at the time in the future he sent the message to. Luke is admittedly disturbed at that notion.

So does Star Trek: Bashir is well aware of predestination paradoxes ("Trials and Tribble-ations" (DS9)) and Captain Picard creates one ("All Good Things" (TNG)) with tachyon pulses using the main deflector dish. So does Scotty, by giving an Earth scientist the formula for transparent aluminum.

Recognizing the fact that there may be a paradox in no way proves the fact that a predestination paradox will happen. The whole idea of the paradox is that it can't happen within a logical frame. If someone says, "this action I will do will create a paradox if a certain theory is true." and they do it, then that means that their theory has been proven experimentally wrong, which means in this case, a single timeline is impossible. Now, the existence of other universes suggest that there are branching timelines, and thus Many Worlds. What my quote was trying to sow is that if there is a fixed observed point in the future, then the event must happen. This suggests a Copenhagen universe. The physics differences in this case are irreconcilable, so

1) they must be in different universes to start with, and
2) time travel will not affect any one timeline, rather it will affect another, alternate timeline starting from the point where the time machine went into the past.
Albert Einistein wrote:"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
User avatar
hideki101
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 5:50 pm UTC
Location: everywhere and nowhere

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Philwelch » Wed Jun 10, 2009 4:09 am UTC

hideki101 wrote:
Philwelch wrote:
Shriike wrote:Look you can't argue that the Sun Crusher (from a canon book) is not canon, just because that book conflicts with something in the prequel trilogy (which shouldn't be canon). In my opinion, if there's ever a conflict between original trilogy or book and new trilogy, original trilogy or book wins.


Have you *read* these stinking books? The prequels may be crap, but any Star Wars book authored by Kevin J. Anderson makes Episode I look fantastic.

Do you know how little I care?


Is your name Shriike? No? Then I wasn't responding to you. Shut up about it and stop butting into my side comments to someone other than you, you egomaniacal narcissist.

Philwelch wrote:
GoC wrote:Star Trek changes time travel model each episode.

You're not listening are you?


That argument has been answered.

Recognizing the fact that there may be a paradox in no way proves the fact that a predestination paradox will happen. The whole idea of the paradox is that it can't happen within a logical frame.


The predestination paradox is not a true paradox. "Paradox" is used for a lot of things that are merely counterintuitive, not paradoxical, such as the Monty Hall paradox, or the birthday paradox.

And yes, predestination "paradoxes", which are merely closed temporal loops, can happen in Star Trek. "All Good Things...", season 7, episode 75.

Oh, wait a minute? Didn't I say...

Philwelch wrote:Captain Picard creates one ("All Good Things" (TNG)) with tachyon pulses using the main deflector dish. So does Scotty, by giving an Earth scientist the formula for transparent aluminum.


Yes! Yes I did!

Now, since closed temporal loops can only happen when there's a single universe to time travel inside of, your argument is invalidated and you lose. QED.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.
Philwelch
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby hideki101 » Wed Jun 10, 2009 6:34 am UTC

Philwelch wrote:
hideki101 wrote:
Philwelch wrote:
Shriike wrote:Look you can't argue that the Sun Crusher (from a canon book) is not canon, just because that book conflicts with something in the prequel trilogy (which shouldn't be canon). In my opinion, if there's ever a conflict between original trilogy or book and new trilogy, original trilogy or book wins.


Have you *read* these stinking books? The prequels may be crap, but any Star Wars book authored by Kevin J. Anderson makes Episode I look fantastic.

Do you know how little I care?


Is your name Shriike? No? Then I wasn't responding to you. Shut up about it and stop butting into my side comments to someone other than you, you egomaniacal narcissist.

Oi, I started the whole canonical argument about the Sun Crusher, (actually you did, I just mentioned it and you started the debate on the canonical standpoint ( it's canon by the way)) so I think I get take part in that part of the discussion. I admit the "Do you know how little I care" was juvenile, and I apologize for it. I did it because you wouldn't stop mouthing off about Kevin J. Anderson. He may not be the best author in the Star Wars EU, (that role belongs to Timothy Zahn, Aaron Allston, and Michael A. Stackpole in my opinion) but he was one of the better ones. In the EU, the Jedi Academy trilogy is very well entrenched, with its characters and events in the books having repercussions that affect the EU novels being written today. Your argument on the other hand seemed to be "it's not canon because they were crappy books" and that frustrated me immensely.

However, this is a FORUM. The whole point of a forum is an open, public area to discuss issues with everyone attending. Everyone can respond to another person's discussion. There are no rules against replying to another discussion chain, even if you weren't originally in it.
Albert Einistein wrote:"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
User avatar
hideki101
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 5:50 pm UTC
Location: everywhere and nowhere

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Philwelch » Wed Jun 10, 2009 2:10 pm UTC

The canon status of the Sun Crusher doesn't matter one bit to my argument, and you know that.

Shriike implied that the prequels were so bad that he, personally, would take the EU books over them. I just wanted to remind him that some of the EU books were pretty wretched, too. A side comment, not anything you needed to get pissy about.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.
Philwelch
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby hideki101 » Wed Jun 10, 2009 11:57 pm UTC

Philwelch wrote:The canon status of the Sun Crusher doesn't matter one bit to my argument, and you know that.

Shriike implied that the prequels were so bad that he, personally, would take the EU books over them. I just wanted to remind him that some of the EU books were pretty wretched, too. A side comment, not anything you needed to get pissy about.

Okay, fine then, sorry. However, in the Star Wars Universe, the past is invariant: you can't change it, even with modes of time travel like flow-walking. This is completely incompatible with the Star Trek mode of time travel as you propose it, so this incompatibility has to be addressed before I accept the fact that time travel can change a single timeline.
Albert Einistein wrote:"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
User avatar
hideki101
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 5:50 pm UTC
Location: everywhere and nowhere

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Philwelch » Thu Jun 11, 2009 12:23 am UTC

The simplest, and therefore best (failing any contrary evidence) theory is simply that the Star Wars powers have not discovered any means of time travel, while the Star Trek powers have. This can be explained by the fact that the Star Wars powers pursued hyperdrive rather than warp drive, thus never discovering subspace or time warp.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.
Philwelch
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

PreviousNext

Return to Religious Wars

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests