Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Please compose all posts in Emacs.

Moderators: phlip, Moderators General, Prelates

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Xbehave » Tue Apr 15, 2008 1:26 am UTC

It mearly servers to prove that the building can be built, it was never meant to server as a home for people.

regarding teleporter wars, the problem is that star wars ships could annihilate star trek ships before they got close enough to beam them apart. To get around that you need to use Tech Of The week, which means star wars fans can simply counter with jedi of the week.
GENERATION 20: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
Xbehave
 
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:45 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby EvanED » Tue Apr 15, 2008 1:44 am UTC

BlackSails wrote:(Also an example of incredibly poor physics. The size and power of the engine has no bearing on maximum speed)

Air resistance increases rapidly with speed; there are non-trivial coefficients that are cubic I think. Obviously this doesn't matter anywhere close to as much in space, but there is enough interstellar matter that at warp speeds I could see drag starting to factor in.

It may be bad physics, but I don't think it's as obviously bad as you portray.
EvanED
 
Posts: 3766
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:28 am UTC
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby JamesObscura » Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:01 am UTC

Anyone have any in depth knowledge of other trek series? The warfans are using different eras so why cant we? I'm sure theres a quasi-god somewhere in one of them...

Its honestly not a fair match its like jigglypuff vs Gannondorf. Star trek is not a war oriented universe. Star WARS is.

Edit:

The Crystalline entity. The Paxan. Darmok entity.(there isnt much known about that one though...), The enterprise entity, Even NG has its godlike entitys...
Contraceptives?

I recommend an inverse tachyon beam.
JamesObscura
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:58 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby noneedtonullify » Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm UTC

JamesObscura wrote:Anyone have any in depth knowledge of other trek series? The warfans are using different eras so why cant we? I'm sure theres a quasi-god somewhere in one of them...


I am a Wars fan, but I'm also a Trek fan. In fact, DS9 is, simply put, one of the best television series to ever be made. Regardless of which i fancy more (which differs depending on how I feel on any given day), Star Wars is just more of an epic, overpowered and grand-scale universe, and would then naturally have more powerful superweapons (and normal weapons) in it.
Its not an argument of which show is better, or which I personally prefer... just which universe, when concieved, was inherently designed to include more violence, war, and action, and which was designed to have more realism, close encounters, and exploration. Star Trek isn't meant to be violent, or involve huge battles in which the entire galaxy hinges in the balance (even in DS9, the Dominion wouldn't have taken the whole alpha quadrant, which is only a quarter of the universe, through the victory of a single battle).

Why don't we just all settle on the fact that either the Enterprise or Home One could tool the Galactica, and everyone can be happy? Heh.

Note: Battlestar Galactica is also one of the greatest shows on television.
noneedtonullify
 
Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 1:54 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Berengal » Tue Apr 15, 2008 3:41 pm UTC

noneedtonullify wrote:Why don't we just all settle on the fact that either the Enterprise or Home One could tool the Galactica, and everyone can be happy? Heh.

Note: Battlestar Galactica is also one of the greatest shows on television.

Nah. Both would be utterly confused when introduced to newtonian physics, giving the battlestar crew the advantage. ;)
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 Shakleton » Tue Apr 15, 2008 5:14 pm UTC

Here we are, all the ships of STAR WARS and STAR TREK are now brought into position and are gonna fight to death within a few minutes now. I wonder who will win this epic battle for their very lives. Oh, what is that?

It's the Ravenger! It's Darth Nihilus!

*HUNGER*

Oh, all Star-Trek Characters just died. I'm sorry. Star Wars wins1


No, I really think Star Wars would win. (Q left aside of course!) They have much more of the omigod-new-bling-bling-freaking-huge-superweapons that could blow up an entire fleet before even recognizing.
mikekearn wrote:You even have an appropriate shirt. Excellent.
User avatar
Shakleton
 
Posts: 493
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:31 pm UTC
Location: Bielefeld, Germany

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby quintopia » Tue Apr 15, 2008 7:13 pm UTC

BlackSails wrote:(Also an example of incredibly poor physics. The size and power of the engine has no bearing on maximum speed)


I wasn't quoting, I was paraphrasing, thinking of the "speed of the engine," but considering that impulse drives don't really have much in the way of moving parts (valves maybe?), I should have said "maximum power." Either way, what I meant was "the condition that causes maximum acceleration." The futuristic equivalent of "high RPM."

Xbehave wrote:regarding teleporter wars, the problem is that star wars ships could annihilate star trek ships before they got close enough to beam them apart.


They don't have to be that close. In the first season of the original series:

Star Trek: Mark Two wrote:In "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" (STTOS1), the sergeant is beamed down while the Enterprise is five minutes past Earth and receding at warp eight.


Since later they talk about "being in transporter range" a lot, I would assume that the range is simply a matter of power. Bigger reactor = greater range.


Lastly, let us not forget that most Star Trek protags are scientists at heart, even if they follow military protocol. Once introduced into the Star Wars universe, their very intelligence would allow them to steal and put to better use any technology extant in the Star Wars universe. They could send out a sneaky shuttlecraft, beam Odo onto a star destroyer, and he'd have transmitted images of all major systems without them ever realizing that's not dirty mop water in that bucket in the broom closet. A few minutes later, the scientists would have reverse-engineered and replicated into existence all major SW technology. At this point, their superior intelligence would quickly result in the crushing defeat of all things Empire. Of course, the Rebel Jedi would still kick their asses.
User avatar
quintopia
 
Posts: 2790
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:53 am UTC
Location: atlanta, ga

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby You, sir, name? » Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:22 pm UTC

noneedtonullify wrote:Star wars would undeniably win. Even if Q was present, he/they wouldn't bother joining in... they'd get bored too quickly (not too mention that, as said below, they're forbidden from interfering).


But this is a war where alliances/dispositions are ignored. Where Jedi and Sith are fighting side by side. Obviously, nothing of this would ever happen because they are in two entirely different universes. So, not only would Q fight the Star Wars universe -- the entire Q continuum would.
Blag.
Ternary computer emulator. Latest version is 0.5 [Nov 29 2008].

Good morning, that's a nice tnetennba.
User avatar
You, sir, name?
 
Posts: 6128
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:07 am UTC
Location: Chako Paul City

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Bakemaster » Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:23 pm UTC

If it's Federation vs. Empire, then Star Wars wins easily. If it's the entire universes fighting, then I would go with Star Trek because I believe it had a more open-ended view of the potential amount of power a group could obtain. Star Wars focused on certain groups much more tightly, even in the extended universe, whereas the episodic nature of the Star Trek TV show made sure that highly advanced, enormously powerful entities showed up here and there from episode to episode. Forget the Q Continuum, they're only the most visible tip of the iceberg because Q showed up so many times. Consider The Traveler, the energy being from The Child, the Crystalline Entity, the unknown antagonists of The Royale...

Heck, one Star Trek character selectively killed an entire species of 50 million beings, spread across an unspecified number of galaxies, with a single thought in a momentary fit of rage. Nothing in the Star Wars universe can even come close to that kind of power.

BlackSails wrote:
quintopia wrote:Why? It was an alpha model. It never made it to beta for political reasons.

Its like building a building thats the tallest building in the world, but it cant support people on any floor above 10.

No it's not. Trucks generally have enough horsepower to accelerate their wheels and axles at a much greater rate than that at which the tires lose traction, but all that horsepower still comes in handy when you're pulling a boat. If we both build vehicles with the structural integrity to withstand a certain speed, but you put in an engine with that exact top speed and I put in an engine twice as powerful, my vehicle will run at top speed in some less-than-ideal conditions where your vehicle runs significantly slower.
Image
c0 = 2.13085531 × 1014 smoots per fortnight
"Apparently you can't summon an alternate timeline clone of your inner demon, guys! Remember that." —Noc
User avatar
Bakemaster
pretty nice future dick
 
Posts: 8532
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:33 pm UTC
Location: tinyurl.com/dybqlp

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby CorranH » Wed Apr 16, 2008 12:02 am UTC

Image
It's a muon, you cunt - Robin Williams
User avatar
CorranH
A-dork-able
 
Posts: 1514
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 12:43 am UTC
Location: Stockton, CA

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby quintopia » Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:47 am UTC

love that pic. heck, i'll be having sex while i debate too.

I'd like to address a previous point:
BlackSails wrote:To get around that you need to use Tech Of The week, which means star wars fans can simply counter with jedi of the week.


Anything that appeared in any Star Trek franchise episode or movie should be considered canon. Books are right out. Anything that appeared in any Star Wars movie is fair game as well. "Tech of the Week" is as fair game as is "Jedi of the Week" . . . although Star Trek is bound to win that battle, seeing as how they didn't exactly make a new Star Wars movie every week.
User avatar
quintopia
 
Posts: 2790
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:53 am UTC
Location: atlanta, ga

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Bakemaster » Wed Apr 16, 2008 4:16 pm UTC

For what it's worth, when I mentioned this thread to Sarah yesterday her immediate reaction was, "Star Trek!"
Image
c0 = 2.13085531 × 1014 smoots per fortnight
"Apparently you can't summon an alternate timeline clone of your inner demon, guys! Remember that." —Noc
User avatar
Bakemaster
pretty nice future dick
 
Posts: 8532
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:33 pm UTC
Location: tinyurl.com/dybqlp

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Xbehave » Wed Apr 16, 2008 8:47 pm UTC

quintopia wrote: They could send out a sneaky shuttlecraft, beam Odo onto a star destroyer, and he'd have transmitted images of all major systems without them ever realizing that's not dirty mop water in that bucket in the broom closet. A few minutes later, the scientists would have reverse-engineered and replicated into existence all major SW technology. At this point, their superior intelligence would quickly result in the crushing defeat of all things Empire.

Nah any force aware character would spot him, on the otherhand a force using character could get some dumb transporter guy to beam them up, then get some weak minded individual to transmit all the sheild frequencies for all ships.

Lastly, let us not forget that most Star Trek protags are scientists at heart, even if they follow military protocol. Once introduced into the Star Wars universe, their very intelligence would allow them to steal and put to better use any technology extant in the Star Wars universe.

But this is a war, so in a short war the more conventional team (empire) will crush everybody else, but in a long war the least conventional team will slowely defeat everybody else (rebels).
GENERATION 20: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
Xbehave
 
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:45 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Master Gunner » Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:33 pm UTC

I have to go with Star Trek, mainly because that's what I grew up on, and am very much biased towards it.

On a more detail-oriented note, anybody know how the Turbolasers in Star Wars work? If they work anything like regular lasers, they'd be pretty much useless against Star Trek ships, as it's been stated that regular lasers at least won't even penetrate the weak deflector shields that are always active.

If that is disregarded, and turbolasers are of equal effectiveness as lasers, I think it would come down to whoever's universe it took place in. If it took place in the Star Trek universe, force powers would be pretty much useless, or easily blocked somehow, and Star Trek would have a clear advantage. If it happened in the Star Wars universe, obviously the Star Wars ships would have the advantage, with massive force powers (which almost never seem to be used against ships in the movies, but I digress...). However, in, say the BSG universe, they'd be equally screwed and the Cylons would take them out.
User avatar
Master Gunner
 
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:40 am UTC
Location: Canada, eh?

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby quintopia » Wed Apr 16, 2008 11:20 pm UTC

Xbehave wrote:Nah any force aware character would spot him, on the otherhand a force using character could get some dumb transporter guy to beam them up, then get some weak minded individual to transmit all the sheild frequencies for all ships.


Only the rebels would think of a ploy like that, due to the automatic plot-induced stupidity of the Big Bads. Thus, my original contention that the Federation would whoop the Empire holds.
User avatar
quintopia
 
Posts: 2790
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:53 am UTC
Location: atlanta, ga

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Mushroomboy » Fri Apr 18, 2008 6:39 pm UTC

It's so obvious that Star Wars could win! Even if Star Trek has more overpowerd techs at the moment lets look at the cituation:
Star Wars = Long time ago ( This whold suggest that the technology of the Star Wars "Kollektive" whould be able to spank Star Trek when they meet in time.)
Star Trek = 2100 - 2500 ( At the time that the Star Wars "kollektive" reach the Star Trek kollektive Darth Vader whould mindcontrol every stonethrowing little Homosapiens Erectus.)

Time travel is out of the question!:D
User avatar
Mushroomboy
 
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 5:57 pm UTC
Location: Sweden ya0!

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby quintopia » Fri Apr 18, 2008 7:41 pm UTC

Mushroomboy wrote:Time travel is out of the question!:D


Why? The Q can transport people in time without it being considered "interfering" for some reason.
User avatar
quintopia
 
Posts: 2790
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:53 am UTC
Location: atlanta, ga

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Bakemaster » Fri Apr 18, 2008 9:19 pm UTC

Mushroomboy wrote:Star Wars = Long time ago ( This whold suggest that the technology of the Star Wars "Kollektive" whould be able to spank Star Trek when they meet in time.)

That's a specious argument. We're talking about the universes as we know them, and you're extrapolating fiction from fiction. We can debate what time in the scheme of events already covered by each in their published media to use, I suppose (i.e. is this Kirk's Federation or Sisko's; the galactic empire with only Obi-Wan, Palpatine and Vader or the new republic with a shit-ton of jedi), but it's meaningless to try to match their respective chronologies to one timeline merely on the basis of a turn of phrase from the title scroll.
Image
c0 = 2.13085531 × 1014 smoots per fortnight
"Apparently you can't summon an alternate timeline clone of your inner demon, guys! Remember that." —Noc
User avatar
Bakemaster
pretty nice future dick
 
Posts: 8532
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:33 pm UTC
Location: tinyurl.com/dybqlp

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Antimatter Spork » Sat Apr 19, 2008 1:01 am UTC

Master Gunner wrote:On a more detail-oriented note, anybody know how the Turbolasers in Star Wars work? If they work anything like regular lasers, they'd be pretty much useless against Star Trek ships, as it's been stated that regular lasers at least won't even penetrate the weak deflector shields that are always active.

I strongly advise you to read the link I posted earlier in the thread. It's pretty obvious from observation that not only are "turbolasers" not any sort of laser (despite the name) but that the weaponry employed in Star Wars is orders of magnitude more powerful than the weapons and shields used in Star Trek (again, the link I posted earlier has some math to back all of this up). In addition, Star Wars civilizations have a much greater resource pool and manufacturing base, as well as more powerful weapons and shields and faster FTL transport. In terms of an actual war between the two universes, it wouldn't even be a real conflict.
Albert Schweitzer wrote:There are two means of refuge from the misery of life — music and cats.
User avatar
Antimatter Spork
 
Posts: 679
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:13 am UTC
Location: The third planet from the sun.

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Mushroomboy » Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:53 am UTC

Double answer, wohoo!

Quintopia : The threadmaker stated that Q was out of the question! And yes, the Borg are also able to timetravel.

Bakemaster : Well, i just thought that you had to take all the information in.. Hence nobody seemed to bring up that part. I did! And hello, im not the one stating a strange answer, it was the one who came up with the question who should be pointed at. Becouse, i just dit my part in answering it!

Im sorry yet again for my crappy spelling and grammar!
User avatar
Mushroomboy
 
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 5:57 pm UTC
Location: Sweden ya0!

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby quintopia » Sat Apr 19, 2008 3:40 am UTC

Mushroomboy wrote:Quintopia : The threadmaker stated that Q was out of the question!


I, like others in this thread, think this exclusion is a travesty, especially in the light of several more powerful entities than the Q in the star trek universe.
User avatar
quintopia
 
Posts: 2790
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:53 am UTC
Location: atlanta, ga

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Mushroomboy » Sat Apr 19, 2008 3:09 pm UTC

quintopia wrote:
Mushroomboy wrote:Quintopia : The threadmaker stated that Q was out of the question!


I, like others in this thread, think this exclusion is a travesty, especially in the light of several more powerful entities than the Q in the star trek universe.


Talking about power, have you read the Star Wars books or only seen the movies? Becouse the books are filled with overpowerd aliens! Long time since i read them though.. Hm..
Anyway, this discussion is worthless! It whould be cooler to see who whould win in a pit fight between George Lucas and Gene Roddenberry!
User avatar
Mushroomboy
 
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 5:57 pm UTC
Location: Sweden ya0!

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby quintopia » Sat Apr 19, 2008 9:57 pm UTC

quintopia wrote:Talking about power, have you read the Star Wars books or only seen the movies? Becouse the books are filled with overpowerd aliens!


The books don't count. They are unofficial.
User avatar
quintopia
 
Posts: 2790
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:53 am UTC
Location: atlanta, ga

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Mushroomboy » Sat Apr 19, 2008 10:54 pm UTC

quintopia wrote:
quintopia wrote:Talking about power, have you read the Star Wars books or only seen the movies? Becouse the books are filled with overpowerd aliens!


The books don't count. They are unofficial.


Then what should count on the Star Trek side? They have like a million people writing the episodes!
User avatar
Mushroomboy
 
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 5:57 pm UTC
Location: Sweden ya0!

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Master Gunner » Sat Apr 19, 2008 11:51 pm UTC

Antimatter Spork wrote:
Master Gunner wrote:On a more detail-oriented note, anybody know how the Turbolasers in Star Wars work? If they work anything like regular lasers, they'd be pretty much useless against Star Trek ships, as it's been stated that regular lasers at least won't even penetrate the weak deflector shields that are always active.

I strongly advise you to read the link I posted earlier in the thread. It's pretty obvious from observation that not only are "turbolasers" not any sort of laser (despite the name) but that the weaponry employed in Star Wars is orders of magnitude more powerful than the weapons and shields used in Star Trek (again, the link I posted earlier has some math to back all of this up). In addition, Star Wars civilizations have a much greater resource pool and manufacturing base, as well as more powerful weapons and shields and faster FTL transport. In terms of an actual war between the two universes, it wouldn't even be a real conflict.


Sorry I missed the link, it certainly puts things in perspective, but it also raises some questions. While by the looks of it the Acclamator troop transport certainly can output the same amount of power in one second as the Enterprise D can in 7 years at warp 6, let's put that in perspective. Going by E=mc2, outputting 2*1023 Joules of energy (the power output described above) would require reacting 1 112 650 kilograms of anti-matter with an equal amount of matter, in the case of the Acclamator, every second. According to wookieepedia the Acclamator is 752 meters long and 680 meters wide. Seeing as how that much space could not possibly store 2.2 million kilograms of fuel to use every second, and I can think of no more efficient fuel system than the complete conversion of matter into energy (outside of the force, obviously). I therefore submit that their respective power systems cannot be used for comparison as either a) while the units share names, they are actually different scales, or b) in whatever universe they meet, one power system will suddenly produce significantly less power, or the other produce significantly more.
User avatar
Master Gunner
 
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:40 am UTC
Location: Canada, eh?

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby niko7865 » Sun Apr 20, 2008 3:39 am UTC

Star Trek would kill everything from Star Wars during the 800 years it probably takes to build their overly massive ships.
Enterprise > Unfinished Star Destroyer
21/m/athletic/white&nerdy/washington/straight/???
Image
User avatar
niko7865
 
Posts: 536
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 11:47 am UTC
Location: All over washington state, USA

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby quintopia » Sun Apr 20, 2008 5:32 am UTC

Mushroomboy wrote:Then what should count on the Star Trek side? They have like a million people writing the episodes!


All movies and episodes count for Star Trek. You can't expect people to have read all the books unless they are complete fanboy wankers. Especially since they come out so frequently and prolifically. However, having seen all visual media productions is feasible, and, in the standard jargon for such things, those media are the only ones that count as "canon."
User avatar
quintopia
 
Posts: 2790
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:53 am UTC
Location: atlanta, ga

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby bridge » Sun Apr 20, 2008 2:39 pm UTC

niko7865 wrote:Star Trek would kill everything from Star Wars during the 800 years it probably takes to build their overly massive ships.
Enterprise > Unfinished Star Destroyer

What about phaser vs. light saber?
If the lightsabre can deflect/neutralize phasers and other federation weapons,
than a jedi could take over the entire enterprise crew while playing tetris with is left hand.
Then approach another federation ship, teleport there and so on...
Excuse my Super Mario accent
User avatar
bridge
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:24 pm UTC
Location: Zurich < x < Rome

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Master Gunner » Sun Apr 20, 2008 3:07 pm UTC

bridge wrote:than a jedi could take over the entire enterprise crew while playing tetris with is left hand.


This is something I'm curious about. It's often brought up that jedi could do this easily to Federation crews. Tell me though, why do we never see them do it to Star Wars crews? To the best of my knowledge, we have never, ever, seen a jedi that could control such a large group of people for a prolonged period of time (I have no doubt that some, such has Exar Kun, and the guy that slammed a pair of stars together, could, but we've never seen them do it, and it seems to be something far beyond the skills of most jedi).

Also, what guarantee is there that lightsabers could block phaser attacks as easily as blasters? They operate on different principles, and are prolonged attacks. The only other prolonged energy attack on a lightsaber that I know of is force lightening, and we know that that isn't nearly as easy to deflect as blaster fire.
User avatar
Master Gunner
 
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:40 am UTC
Location: Canada, eh?

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby MoD » Sun Apr 20, 2008 5:10 pm UTC

Master Gunner wrote:Sorry I missed the link, it certainly puts things in perspective, but it also raises some questions. While by the looks of it the Acclamator troop transport certainly can output the same amount of power in one second as the Enterprise D can in 7 years at warp 6, let's put that in perspective. Going by E=mc2, outputting 2*1023 Joules of energy (the power output described above) would require reacting 1 112 650 kilograms of anti-matter with an equal amount of matter, in the case of the Acclamator, every second. According to wookieepedia the Acclamator is 752 meters long and 680 meters wide. Seeing as how that much space could not possibly store 2.2 million kilograms of fuel to use every second, and I can think of no more efficient fuel system than the complete conversion of matter into energy (outside of the force, obviously). I therefore submit that their respective power systems cannot be used for comparison as either a) while the units share names, they are actually different scales, or b) in whatever universe they meet, one power system will suddenly produce significantly less power, or the other produce significantly more.


I think hypermatter is how E=mc2 is circumvented as a restriction on power output based on fuel mass. I don't know where the exact numbers for hypermatter can be found, though.
Last edited by MoD on Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:55 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MoD
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 4:55 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Aramis » Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:51 pm UTC

If we're talking about which would win in a war, without Q, Star Wars. Because their technology is far more advanced than anything in the 23-24th Century Star Trek Universe.

If you want to discuss which is a better show, Star Trek is better at least a thousandfold for reasons which I will go into if anyone cares to hear my reasoning, but as it's off topic, I will digress for now.
User avatar
Aramis
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 8:58 am UTC
Location: Manchester, England

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Mushroomboy » Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:38 am UTC

quintopia wrote:
All movies and episodes count for Star Trek. You can't expect people to have read all the books unless they are complete fanboy wankers. Especially since they come out so frequently and prolifically. However, having seen all visual media productions is feasible, and, in the standard jargon for such things, those media are the only ones that count as "canon."


Hm, we're coming closer to a conclusion. If the Star Wars books are going to be considerd (spelling?) canon then i suggest that only the Star Trek series written by Gene Roddenberry is the real deal. The other episodes is just cannon.

Why you might ask: Becouse both the Star Wars books and the Star Trek episodes was published even though the material was'nt created by the original makers. KA'PLAH!!!
User avatar
Mushroomboy
 
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 5:57 pm UTC
Location: Sweden ya0!

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby EvanED » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:01 am UTC

quintopia wrote:You can't expect people to have read all the books unless they are complete fanboy wankers.

Careful there with the "wankers" bit.
EvanED
 
Posts: 3766
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:28 am UTC
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby quintopia » Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:56 pm UTC

Mushroomboy wrote:
quintopia wrote:
All movies and episodes count for Star Trek. You can't expect people to have read all the books unless they are complete fanboy wankers. Especially since they come out so frequently and prolifically. However, having seen all visual media productions is feasible, and, in the standard jargon for such things, those media are the only ones that count as "canon."


Hm, we're coming closer to a conclusion. If the Star Wars books are going to be considerd (spelling?) canon then i suggest that only the Star Trek series written by Gene Roddenberry is the real deal. The other episodes is just cannon.

Why you might ask: Becouse both the Star Wars books and the Star Trek episodes was published even though the material was'nt created by the original makers. KA'PLAH!!!


I said that the books about either series are not canon. By popular agreement, only film and TV media are canon. However, if you want to limit Star Trek argument to STTOS and the first couple of movies, that's fine, since Federation technology was 'weakened' in later versions of Star Trek, from what I can tell. But it's hard to tell since the series contradicted themselves so often.

EvanED wrote:Careful there with the "wankers" bit.


I like to use strong language every now and then. Notice that it only applies to those who have read EVERY book, and I don't consider it a flame since I don't think it applies to anyone here.
User avatar
quintopia
 
Posts: 2790
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:53 am UTC
Location: atlanta, ga

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Endless Mike » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:10 pm UTC

The Star Wars books are generally considered canon by the producers of Star Wars unless they're contradicted by something that's more canon (like a movie), whereas the Star Trek books are considered completely not canon by the producers of Star Trek. I'll take their words over that of people on the blagoblag. Keep in mind that Gene Roddenberry even considered some parts of TOS NOT canon.
User avatar
Endless Mike
 
Posts: 3203
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:04 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Master Gunner » Mon Apr 21, 2008 10:56 pm UTC

MoD wrote:I think hypermatter is how E=mc2 is circumvented as a restriction on power output based on fuel mass. I don't know where the exact numbers for hypermatter can be found, though.


In which case within a few hours, the Borg will have adapted to all Star Wars weaponry, have assimilated enough ships and individuals to backwards-engineer hypermatter technology, have it reproduced in all of their ships, and proceed to kick the ass of everyone present.
User avatar
Master Gunner
 
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:40 am UTC
Location: Canada, eh?

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby quintopia » Tue Apr 22, 2008 12:02 am UTC

Endless Mike wrote:I'll take their words over that of people on the blagoblag.


Not me.

But I guess it's easier to accept outside works as canon in a fantasy universe than a sci-fi one. And as much as STTOS breaks "Star Trek physics," I could even accept that parts of it should not be canon.

Let's limit Star Trek then to only that which appeared in the STTOS series that Roddenberry considers canon, and Star Wars only to the movies (for expediency because there being soooo many and most people haven't read them). What does that leave us with?
User avatar
quintopia
 
Posts: 2790
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:53 am UTC
Location: atlanta, ga

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Endless Mike » Tue Apr 22, 2008 2:48 pm UTC

Roddenberry never specified specifically WHAT he didn't like, just that there were certain things in TOS that he didn't like.

I think the biggest difference between Trek and Wars is that the entirety of undeniable Wars canon (that is, the movies) encompasses all of 18 hours (using a quick assumption of 3 hours per movie, which I know is probably higher than the actual average), whereas Trek canon has hundreds of hours of official continuity. The Trek books generally (or always, I've never read one, just saw them on shelves at the store) use the main cast of the shows/movies during times concurrent to the shows/movies, whereas the Wars books more often than not either use minor characters concurrent to the movies, or fill in gaps of time between, before, and after the movies (there's something like 40 years unaccounted for between Episodes 3 and 4). It's a lot easier to accept that as canon than to assume that the Enterprise D crew is off having even more amazing adventures than just the ones shown on TV.
User avatar
Endless Mike
 
Posts: 3203
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:04 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Antimatter Spork » Tue Apr 22, 2008 9:10 pm UTC

Master Gunner wrote:
MoD wrote:I think hypermatter is how E=mc2 is circumvented as a restriction on power output based on fuel mass. I don't know where the exact numbers for hypermatter can be found, though.


In which case within a few hours, the Borg will have adapted to all Star Wars weaponry, have assimilated enough ships and individuals to backwards-engineer hypermatter technology, have it reproduced in all of their ships, and proceed to kick the ass of everyone present.

Well, this has been discussed here and here, so I won't bother with a whole bunch of sciency stuff right now, but basically the argument boils down to "no, Star Wars weapons don't rely on frequency and thus can't be stopped by the Borg's particular method of adapting to enemy phaser fire, likewise they will have no need to "remodulate" or whatever, since there's no frequency to begin with".
Albert Schweitzer wrote:There are two means of refuge from the misery of life — music and cats.
User avatar
Antimatter Spork
 
Posts: 679
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:13 am UTC
Location: The third planet from the sun.

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby AlphaSquirrel » Wed Apr 23, 2008 7:28 am UTC

Star Wars.
Image
User avatar
AlphaSquirrel
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 12:48 am UTC
Location: Commerce, Tx

PreviousNext

Return to Religious Wars

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: shealtket and 0 guests