Second Galactic Empire Vs Star Trek

[Luke SW]

Professor Gideon Seyetik reignites a dead star (Epsilon 119) you stupid fuck (DS9: "Second Sight").

Earlier attempts by the enterprose to revive a dying sun resuted in a supernova (TNG: Half a Life).

So no i pulled nothing out of my ass i pulled it from DIRECT AND INDISPUTABLE verbal and visual evidence from the fucking series you prick, unlike your bullshit it is NOT speculation or based on a childrens book written by a fanboi liar.

Yes, you did, you sniveling moron. You are engaging in a leap in logic. The ability to "revive a dying star" has fuck all to do with your claim that blowing up planets or suns in Star Trek is easy or basic. In both of the circumstances you cite there is absolutely no reason for anyone to believe that their half-assed accidents are actually repeatable, let alone a viable military tactic against any and all stars - let alone planets.

So let me understand this you are saying that you think that a civilisation that can reignite dead stars with a torpedo would have a problem popping a planet with one?.

Did you watch generations?, 2 stars fired at 2 stars dead....

Now i know you are either biased, clueless or fucking both.

[Ryan Thunder]

First, we don't know how expensive these devices are. Second, this notion of yours that you can "reignite" a star by merely dumping staggering amounts of energy into it is hilariously wrong.

Stars that have gone dead have gone dead because gravity couldn't crush the core together tightly enough to force nuclear fusion. So you'd have to transmute or replace the core material, or add new material. Which pretty much means that this is some kind of transporter or replicator or something else similarly useless in a war scenario.

[Vympel]

So let me understand this you are saying that you think that a civilisation that can reignite dead stars with a torpedo would have a problem popping a planet with one?

What the fuck has reigniting a dead star got to do with "popping a planet", you idiot?

Did you watch generations?, 2 stars fired at 2 stars dead....

Doctor Soran had fuck all to do with the Federation, his missiles were experimental and the technology was known only to himself. You'd think him trying to bribe the Duras sisters with this technology and the clearly telegraphed fact that the Federation, Klingons and Romulans didn't have the capability would've clued you in to how completely full of shit you are, but unfortunately not.

[Edi]

EDIT:

Several bullshit posts from BLACKSUN2000, one from Dr. Strangelove and some miscellaneous ones sent to the Bottom of the Barrel thread.

If you intend to engage a troll, then you are required to construct good posts with arguments that refute his bullshit instead of going hurf-hurf. Luke SW is a worthless troll, but that is still no excuse for the rest of you who are not to take it easy.

If you can't be bothered to construct good replies, just shut the fuck up.

[Luke SW]

What the fuck has reigniting a dead star got to do with "popping a planet", you idiot?

Its about tech level, a society that can easily reignite a dead star woulf find popping a planet easy...how hard is that to comprehend you retard?.

Look at it as a culture like our own.

During WW2 we had big ships that fired huge turrets at each other in broadsides and could level buildings or even large areas over time, the SW galaxy tech is of simular design and although they use lasers instead of shells ect the simularities are very clear.

Today we have missiles that can carry a varitey of warheads for a variety of things, some are nukes that can level a entire city, a task that the WW2 ships could have eventually over a long time achieved, but not in a single blast, this is the place where star trek is and the simularities are also clear.

Its a simple matter of low tech vs higher tech, as things advance we are able to do the same tasks but with much smaller high tech weapons much faster.

[Vympel]

Its about tech level, a society that can easily reignite a dead star woulf find popping a planet easy...how hard is that to comprehend you retard?

Repeating your idiotic assumptions as fact is not an argument. There is no necessary connection between reigniting a dead star with technobabble torpedoes and scattering a planet's mass across the fucking solar system. They're two completely different things. One is a function of sheer energy input, the other is not.

And you're welcome to point out where in the Trek canon - ever - anyone ever asserted that the Federation, the Klingons, or the Romulans had the capability to just blow up planets, Death Star style.

Only a fucking moron could come to this conclusion after watching Star Trek 2 & 3 (you know, where the Klingons were cumming in their pants about the Genesis Device, which ain't jack shit compared to the Death Star, and which is now lost technology) or the Dominion War. If any Trek ships had that sort of firepower the sheer risk and constant danger of complete planetary annihilation on a trans-quadrant scale would be constantly mooted. It never is. The Enterprise-D needs all its torpedoes to destroy a tiny little asteroid, and you sit here and think they could explode a planet?

Look at it as a culture like our own.

During WW2 we had big ships that fired huge turrets at each other in broadsides and could level buildings or even large areas over time, the SW galaxy tech is of simular design and although they use lasers instead of shells ect the simularities are very clear.

Today we have missiles that can carry a varity of warheads for a variety of things, some are nukes that can level a entire city, a task that the WW2 ships could have eventually done but not in a single blast.

Its a simple matter of low tech vs higher tech, as things advance we are able to do the same tasks but with much smaller high tech weapons much faster.

Nowhere in this rambling load of nonsense do you come anywhere close to anything resembling a rational thought. "Technology level" is a contrivance thought up by dumbshit fanboys like yourself, who are too stupid and/or lazy to actually analyze and compare technology with reference to demonstrated effects and want to go with their gut feeling impression of what the technology "seems" like as opposed to what it actually signifies.

[Edi]

Superficial similarities do not an argument make.

You are ignoring demonstrated levels of firepower and focus instead on cosmetic differences in order to construct a false analogy. The division to tech levels is also arbitrary and conceptually stupid, because more complex technology is not necessarily superior in and of itself. Technological superiority is task-based, meaning that the tool that gets the job done best is the correct one for the task and for some tasks, a "lower tech level" tool could easily be far better than a "higher level" one.

EDIT: Looks like Vympel managed to get a reply that addresses everything in before I did...

[Luke SW]

Repeating your idiotic assumptions as fact is not an argument.

There are several direct quotes and also visual evidence that trek can pop planets as well as stars, try as you may to dismiss them the fact is that is is the pureset for of canon as it is in the series AND the movies.

Superficial similarities do not an argument make.

Nor does speculation on a single 80's special effect, but your entire argument is based on it.

Technological superiority is task-based, meaning that the tool that gets the job done best is the correct one for the task and for some tasks, a "lower tech level" tool could easily be far better than a "higher level" one..

It is not just task based it is also Efficiency based.

I want to pop a planet.

Option 1, Build a huge moon sized battle station taking (months if not years to construct).

Option 2, Refit a photon torpedo with a 54 isoton gravametric charge (taking just a few minutes) that can be fired from a runabout.

[Vympel]

There are several direct quotes and also visual evidence that trek can pop planets as well as stars

There are absolutely none that any of the Alpha Quadrant powers can, and very good reasons why they can't - reasons which I outlined - and which you failed to address.

You're welcome to prove me wrong by posting actual evidence in the from of the episode name and an exact quote from the episode.

But we both know you're full of shit, don't we?

I want to pop a planet.

Option 1, Build a huge moon sized battle station taking (months if not years to construct).

Option 2, Refit a photon torpedo with a 54 isoton gravametric charge (taking just a few minutes) that can be fired from a runabout.

:rolleyes: Prove your claim that your made-up technobabble can blow up a planet, idiot.

[Serafina]

Yeah, you would actually be right IF THEY HAD SUCH A TORPEDOE.

You complain that the firepower-estaminate is derived from a single special effect (which it is not) - HOW is deriving completely unseen planet-destroying torpedoes from a SINGLE SENTENCE any better?
Damn, every ID-IOT could see that it was cleary not meant as a statement of fact and a mere hyperbole.

Look, kid (no offence to actual pre-teens) - witness accounts are the lowest form of evidence. Not only because not every word is meant to be taken literary, but also because people tend to be just plain WRONG.
Hard evidence is worth much, much more.
So show me a videoclip of Trek blowing up a planet by any means. Whoops, can't do that?
Then give me someone describing that they actually did it, at least? Whoops, can't do that either?
Then you are FULL OF SHIT.

Imagine the following situation in 1916:
-General, the germans are capable of blowing up a whole city with a single bomb!
-God damn it! How is that possible?
-We do not know sir - all we have is a single line that one of our spies overheard in one of their bomb factories.
-Give me a bloody report then.
-Yes sir! Our spy overhead the following "now they are working on a bomb twice as large? What do they want to do, blow up Paris?"
-Seargant! Arrest this man for incompetence.

That's EXACTLY what you are doing. You can't show me bomb-trials, you can't give me blueprints, you can't give a desription of what the bomb actually does, you can't show me a destroy planet - you can't show me anything at all, except a single line that is clearly hyperbole.

[Vympel]

So show me a videoclip of Trek blowing up a planet by any means. Whoops, can't do that?

Well there's those aliens in Enterprise, and Species 8472, but they're hardly the Federation.

[Luke SW]

You complain that the firepower-estaminate is derived from a single special effect (which it is not) - HOW is deriving completely unseen planet-destroying torpedoes from a SINGLE SENTENCE any better?

If solo had said the same think to luke while constructing the torpedo you would be howling about it and it would be used to define everything you ever fucking post...dare deny other wise.

And im not even doing that, i have shown several differant techs in ST that achieve the same results or greater as they destroy entire suns.

witness accounts are the lowest form of evidence.

I guess il go with video evidence then:

1. Watch the series DS9, Voyager, TOS as they all contain examples.

2. Watch generations, and WOK.

The tech and its abilities are described and in many cases used.

[Serafina]

If solo had said the same think to luke while constructing the torpedo you would be howling about it and it would be used to define everything you ever fucking post...dare deny other wise.

Yeah, i wouldn't believe that either until i SAW the effects of the torpedoe - otherwise, what would the Death Star be for and why would they have so many big ships - if such a thing existed as regular technology in Sw, which is not the case.
We have suncrusher-torpedoes but they are lost-tech and somewhat limited and galaxy-guns projectiles but NO single-ship-planet busters.
If you want that, you have to go into other sci-fi universes - say, the Culture where a single ship can easily do that, even non-military ones.

I guess il go with video evidence then:

1. Watch the series DS9, Voyager, TOS as they all contain examples.

2. Watch generations, and WOK.

The tech and its abilities are described and in many cases used.

Yeah, right, i am going to watch hundreds of hours of Trek because you are to dumb and lazy to provide and actual evidence of your own.
Oh, and i am NOT going to watch Voyager - if i want to see utter crap, i can just look at your posts or FSTDT.

[Luke SW]

Yeah, i wouldn't believe that either until i SAW the effects of the torpedoe - otherwise, what would the Death Star be for and why would they have so many big ships - if such a thing existed as regular technology in Sw, which is not the case..

Pointless?,...pointless is a deah star on a galaxy where YOU claim a simple troop transport can lay down 2.4 million megatonnes of fire power........with what a 1-3 sec rof?....

The tzar bomba popped for 50 megatonnes........not you tell me why i would need a deathstar when a mere troop transport can aparantly blast the surface of a planet with the same fire power of 48,000 tzar bombas per second or two?.

The figures you use are retarded, those using them needed to add serveral orders of magnitude onto virtually every ststem in the SW galaxy as well as pull planetary shields out of their ass and invent a totally new form of fucking power generation that contradicted the original ANH purest cannon.

Give it a rest ffs.

[Serafina]

Yeah, i wouldn't believe that either until i SAW the effects of the torpedoe - otherwise, what would the Death Star be for and why would they have so many big ships - if such a thing existed as regular technology in Sw, which is not the case..

Pointless?,...pointless is a deah star on a galaxy where YOU claim a simple troop transport can lay down 2.4 million megatonnes of fire power........with what a 1-3 sec rof?....

The tzar bomba popped for 50 megatonnes........not you tell me why i would need a deathstar when a mere troop transport can aparantly blast the surface of a planet with the same fire power of 48,000 tzar bombas per second or two?.

The figures you use are retarded, those using them needed to add serveral orders of magnitude onto virtually every ststem in the SW galaxy as well as pull planetary shields out of their ass and invent a totally new form of fucking power generation that contradicted the original ANH purest cannon.

Give it a rest ffs.

Two words:
Planetary shields.

A SW-planetary shield is strong enough to hold off whole fleets. That's why the Death Star has such excessive firepower - to punch trought planetary shields.
And YES, we SEE a plantetary shield in ANH.

[Ryan Thunder]

Turbolasers are not nuclear bombs, either, and thus they have different terminal behaviour. So no, not really.

[Luke SW]

Two words:
Planetary shields..

Two words:
BULL SHIT.

And YES, we SEE a plantetary shield in ANH..

NO we do not, it is a total fanboi fabrication.

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



.

[Serafina]

To quote from your "source":

As you can see, the superlaser struck the planet, produced a bright flash, and then the planet started to go.

The "bright flash" IS the shield.
Note that the flash appears BEFORE ANY effects are visible on the surface. Therefore, it could NOT have affected the atmosphere. Therefore, something ABOVE the atmosphere must have blocked it.
Also, notice that the feint glow travels AROUND the planet - and THEN the planet explodes. This clearly indicated that whatever is blocking the superlaser surrounds the whole planet.

Now, what known phenomenon can surround something and block incoming energy?
Correct, the answer is SHIELDS. Therefore, the planet is shielded, making it a planetary shield.

If the laser had struck CLOUDS as your site claimed - well, do you have any idea why the energy decied to take a nap and wait another couple of seconds to blow up the planet? Energy doesn't do that, you know?
Oh, wait, you propably don't - well, anyway, clouds are only a couple of kilomteres high, while this effect cleary is FAR ABOVE the planet. And clouds are not anywhere close to that.

Oh, and planetary shields are cleary supported by canon - after all, the EU IS CANON.

[Luke SW]

To quote from your "source":

As you can see, the superlaser struck the planet, produced a bright flash, and then the planet started to go.

The "bright flash" IS the shield.
Note that the flash appears BEFORE ANY effects are visible on the surface.

Are you retarded?.

The quote you posted READ IT AGAIN WITHOUT BLINKERED BIAS.......IL HELP.....here you go..

As you can see, the superlaser struck the planet, produced a bright flash, and then the planet started to go.

How can the BRIGHT flash be a shield if the laser had already struck the planet.....

THERE ARE NO PLANETARY SHIELDS IN SW.

[Serafina]

Yeah, except that i only quoted the relevant part and that it clearly did not struck the planetary surface - since there were NO EFFECTS on the planet.
Do you have any idea what would happen when such amounts of energy strike an atmosphere?
Go look at this and you can cleary see a giant fireball (conveniently arbitraily pixelated).
Do we see that the moment the laser "strikes the planet"? No? Then it did NOT STRIKE THE PLANET.

[Luke SW]

Go look at this and you can cleary see a giant fireball (conveniently arbitraily pixelated).

So fucking what, the laser has reached the surface and a fireball is forming, the ground is also being super heated so its gonna get bright....plus the ground ECT would start getting hot before the beam actually touched it.

Do we see that the moment the laser "strikes the planet"?

No because the as soon as it got even close to the surface the fireball would start froming due to the heat, not only that but the beam was travelling at close to c so the time from the outer atmosphere to the ground would be too small to be bothered with measuring.

There are NO SHIELDS mentioned in ANH movie or book so using bullshit to try and make it look like their was one is pitiful.

[Serafina]

So fucking what, the laser has reached the surface and a fireball is forming.

Gee, that's the point - THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS when a planet-crushing amount of energy strikes an atmosphere.

Oh, wait - you were too stupid to realize that fireballs form mostly due to HOT AIR, not due to ground impacts.
But oh well, that's propably because you do not want to assosciate the content of your heads with explosions.

No because the as soon as it got even close to the surface the fireball would start froming due to the heat, noy only that but the beam was travelling at close to c so the time from the outer atmosphere to the ground would be too small to be bothered with measuring.

Yes. Yes it would.
So, tell me: Why do we see no fireball here:

If it strikes the planet, we should see one? Why not?

The ONLY explanation is that the beam has NOT yet reached the surface. From the amount of time alone he takes to do so we can figure out that there must be SOMETHING stopping him. Because, you know, energy beams don't stop without any reason - unlike your mind, which apparently did.
Anyway, a shield is the most likely explanation - in fact, it is the only explanation unil you find another one for the stopping of the beam.

[Luke SW]

Gee, that's the point - THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS when a planet-crushing amount of energy strikes an atmosphere..

I suppose it depends how it strikes it and how fast.

A relativly narrow beam traveling at close to c would touch the outer atmosphere and hit the ground in so short a space of time im doubting anybody could actually tell when each was actually fucking hit.

Oh, wait - you were too stupid to realize that fireballs form mostly due to HOT AIR, not due to ground impacts.
..

Do you actually belive a narrow beam traveling at close to c would heat the air to any extent to make a shite of a visual effect that could be recorded before hitting the fucking ground?, are you mad or just retarded?.

Anyway, a shield is the most likely explanation - in fact, it is the only explanation unil you find another one for the stopping of the beam..

The beam was not stopped ffs, look at the planet exploding...now does it explode from the side that the laser hit or does it go boom in all directions at once like its core decided to go nova.....a fact that also supports my idea fyi.

[Serafina]

I suppose it depends how it strikes it and how fast.

A relativly narrow beam traveling at close to c would touch the outer atmosphere and hit the ground in so short a space of time im doubting anybody could actually tell when each was actually fucking hit.

Yeah, yeah, sure - BUT THEN WHY DOES IT STOP?

Seriously - my whole point is that the beam stops for a very short amount of time. This has to be explained somehow. Shields are the most likely explanation. Visual edivence supports this. Therefore, shields.

The bam was not stopped ffs, look at the planet exploding...now does it explode from the side that the laser hit or does it go boom in all directions at once like its core decided to go nova.....a fact that also supports my idea fyi.

"Nova"? God, you have no idea what a nova actually is, do you?

Anyway, let's do this the "explain stuff to a kindergarten child" - oh, wait, that's actually easier in my experience.


Here, we see the first effect on the planet - but such a faint glow is clearly NOT the result of the beam entering the atmosphere.

The glow spreads - why would it do that? The beam should burrow INTO the planet, since the atmosphere is not that conductive, as you too pointed out.

NOW we see the planet exploding. But wait - it DOES only explode on one side, at least for now. This continues in the next picture.

And in the next one this goes on, since we see that debris spills from one side while the other just starts to glow red.


So yes, we CAN observe what happens.

But oh well, that's propably because you do not want to assosciate the content of your heads with explosions.

Why? That would be awesome! If brains were explosives, we could use yours as a makeshift bomb, putting it to at least some use. But then again, yours is propably so innate and underdeveloped that it won't be usefull even as a firecracker.

[DrStrangelove]

He still hasn't come up with a coherent response as to why the Dominion wasn't flying around blowing up everyone in the alpha quadrant's stars and planet, even though its "easy" for ST to do. Not that I actually expect such a response