Reason with me on my questions and statements. Please.

[Batman]

Also the Borg used a cutting laser to cut through the Ent-D's hull, so obviously, lasers are effective against Star Trek ships. http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Cutting_beam

Bad example - the shields had already been disabled by that point. A better example would be when Picard stayed well away from a planet when there was heavy laser fire going on in Loud as a Whisper.

It DOES, however, remain completely valid WRT 'rar harder than diamond' hulls being cut by a laser. Effortlessly I might add.
Not than Wars TLs could possibly be lasers of course but I think this point has been made abundantly clear already.

Im disappointed.
However, you took the time in reading my post. For that I am grateful.

No, you just ignored the answers you didn't like. But feel free to remind me which of your sorry excuses for a point weren't addressed.

I now have a proper understanding how Star Wars fans answer questions complicated, yet descriptive as stated in Star Trek series. Star Wars fans turn to books, written after screen play, which over inflate numbers (such as turbo Lasers)

Proof. 200GT for the Accie MTLs is 5 orders of magnitude less than you'd get from simply downscaling from the DS1 superlaser. And you're not doing so hot on the math front yourself hotshot. I have yet to see a single firepower number posted by you.

and show no scientific backing on the power supply on which these weapons are powered, what type of power terminals are used, or not even something simple like the Hull construction itself.

Irrelevant. The firepower is seen therefore it's there, and thus is the required power generation. The how is irrelevant when we absolutely uncontroversibly see them do it. And what in Valen's name is a power terminal? And somebody who thinks 'more hardness=yay' (which is incidentally as far as I know never mentioned in any canon Trek source) has no business chiding us about not describing hull properties.

That being said, perhaps these discussions should be left up to imaginative mind of the viewers, and avoid technicalities as possible. 'What ever you like more, wins in your own heart. At the end of the Day, thats all that matters.'

Translation-Trek gets its ass handed to it so you decide to whine 'whatever, it's all fiction anyway.'

The worst I have seen, is this sites own comparison chart for ISD VS ENTERPRISE D.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Ess ... nutes.html
I went through that chart, ALL the number figures given for the ISD are not mentioned in the movies.

They are, however little you might like it, derived from them (which is clearly stated in the article if memory serves) and while we're at it the proper phrasing would have been 'none' of the numbers 'are'.

further, the chart so obviously fails to adapt star treks shield modulations

Which works against frequency shenanigans and nohing else from all available evidence,

and Canon for LASERS not effecting the Enterprise Navigational shields (Regardless how much power a Laser puts out).

No limits idiocy at its peak and ignores the fact that Wars turbolasers and lasers cannot possibly be reall lasers. Ignores that lasers absolutely do pose a threat to the E-D, as does completely unfocused solar radioation, which is...EM.

The typical response is 'Turbo laser shoots more power therefore is better'. That response in itself is primitive thinking. Neglecting Star Treks inferring to Lasers being inferior, But as well ignoring the possibility that 'weapon type' can have a detrimental effect VS weapon power - Something I feel star wars fans will never understand, given they use just Lasers

That would be a lot more convincing from somebody NOT too stupid to understand that Wars turbolasers/lasers can't be real lasers. And yes, more powerful does mean better. I don't care if your 155mm howitzer is more advanced than my catapult. If mine can lob a 500ton rock 50 kilometres, you still lose.

A Simple matter of truth, is the Enterprise can sustain hits accordingly from ISD because they're weapon type is useless against federation shields.

Blatant lie and irrelevant to boot as turbolasers cannot possibly be lasers. Also, Borg cutting laser and the E-D shaking from pathetically low yield laser hits.

Further, a Phaser is not in Star Wars.

Which is supposed to mean-what, exactly?

The Enterprise would tear the Empire a new one when they're Shields show ineffective against Phaser technology.

Which you know because of? Given that pretty much everything can resist phaser fire to a degree, and there's exactly no evidence for phasers to be shield-circumventing even in Trek, leave alone against the to Trek totally unknown Wars shields, you base this on?

Further, 21.4 times the strength of Diamond, NO sci fi Laser can penetrate this.

Chances are real world lasers can, and we happen to know for a fact Trek lasers can. Not that Wars weapons are lasers anyway.

Sorry but its how it is. Shields, Hull, whatever. The Federations laughs off the Empires primitive weapons,

For about a second before they're instakilled by LTLs.

and uses its Phasers to cut the ISD ships in Half. Much like was described in Halo: Fall of Reach.

Which has exactly no bearing on Federation tech.

And again, open your minds a little.

One of indeed needs to do that. It's nut us here at SDN though.

Armor made of known matter would be useless, against a phaser

As evidenced by-you saying so. Fucking packing crates provide sufficient protection from standard kill setting hand phasers. Are those made of unobtainium?

(or even a plasma cutting Beam from the Covenant in Halo). The phaser would go trough the armor and cut the ship into bits and pieces (Like a LIGHT SABER going through a door).

Which is what we always see happen in Trek. Oh wait. You're hallucinating. Also, Halo does not equal evidence of Trek capabilities.

I would suggest the Empire is more suited to fight the Covenant from Halo, however given the covenants massive power output of its plasma weapons, by your common 'Logic' of MORE power = Greater, the Covenant would make very Short work of Star Wars Imperial fleets with their powerful plasma weapons. Space or ground battles.

Um-No? Why don't you give me any actual firepower numbers for Halo, fuckface. Because from the ones I've seen from people who actually did run the numbers, Halo would get eaten.

Thank you for your replies and enlightening me on how typical star wars fans reply when questioned with ideas that are unfamiliar with their line of reasoning.

Your line of (for want of a better word) thought does not deserve to be called 'reasoning'.

[StarSword]

Star Wars is in OUR past, but it is clearly incredibly more advanced than Star Trek. See the Federation in control of only a quadrant of the galaxy, and control is a loose term, and the Republic/Empire in control of an entire galaxy, with the capability to traverse it in days.

My opinion is that Star Wars is in the past from the perspective of the narrator, but we've got no fucking clue when the narrator is from relative to us.

As for Zero_exe, hoo boy.

I have read all of your (current) 14 replies. So far, Zero attempts made to answer my questions using movie Canon. A marginal amount to attempt to be little me, others attempt to question my logic integrity, few decided to refer me to this sites usage of third rate 'canon' information, a few of you question my statements with your own opinion and Logic, and some even went to the extent to applying their own 'assumptions' to answer only a couple questions. None of you (Within 14 posts) have completed even 1 of what I have requested (yet often) to answer my questions with movie Canon (Absolute Canon). Im disappointed.

The thing you're not understanding is how the canon policies of ST and SW differ. In Star Trek, only the live-action TV series, movies, and TAS count (and the last one only recently). Star Wars canon is all-inclusive apart from video game mechanics. But if you want to stick to screen canon only for the sake of discussion, I'm fine with that, just so long as you follow the same rule. (In other words, lose the Halo stuff.)

The worst I have seen, is this sites own comparison chart for ISD VS ENTERPRISE D.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Ess ... nutes.html

I went through that chart, ALL the number figures given for the ISD are not mentioned in the movies. further, the chart so obviously fails to adapt star treks shield modulations and Canon for LASERS not effecting the Enterprise Navigational shields (Regardless how much power a Laser puts out). The typical response is 'Turbo laser shoots more power therefore is better'. That response in itself is primitive thinking. Neglecting Star Treks inferring to Lasers being inferior, But as well ignoring the possibility that 'weapon type' can have a detrimental effect VS weapon power - Something I feel star wars fans will never understand, given they use just Lasers

Firstly: the fact that other laser-armed civilizations worried Picard in other episodes would seem to indicate that he was talking about those particular lasers being peashooters. Secondly, Star Wars "lasers" do not behave like actual lasers: they are discrete, slower-than-light bolts that are visible without needing to reflect off anything (you ever used a laser pointer?). This is where we get the movie-level canon determination that they are plasma casters, not actual lasers. Thus, even if ST navigational shields were completely invulnerable to lasers (as previously explained, they aren't), said invulnerability would not mean jack squat against SW weapons.

Further, 21.4 times the strength of Diamond, NO sci fi Laser can penetrate this.

Based on what calculations?

Much like was described in Halo: Fall of Reach.

And here I thought you wanted to do ST/SW screen canon only. Follow your own rules, idiot. Not only is The Fall of Reach not screen canon, it's not even in the same universe. It being a really great piece of mil-SF (my personal opinion) where a Covie capital ship one-shotted a UNSC cruiser is not germane to the discussion.

And again, open your minds a little. Armor made of known matter would be useless, against a phaser (or even a plasma cutting Beam from the Covenant in Halo). The phaser would go trough the armor and cut the ship into bits and pieces (Like a LIGHT SABER going through a door).

On the contrary, phasers don't work that way. A great deal of thought has gone into the determination that they do not cause damage by thermal action, but by technobabble causing matter to go away. This NDF effect (that's the canon term) has a strong pattern of working less well on some materials than others. It tends to work really well against carbonaceous material like dirt and rock and flesh, not so well against metal, and doesn't do a damn thing against whatever they make packing crates out of.

Merry Christmas.

[Havok]

Man, this guy even has Batman calling him a 'fuckface'

I love you Batman.

[Batman]

Actually while everybody uses NDF for the 'make glow funnily and go away' effect of phasers, I don't think it's actually canon.

[StarSword]

If it isn't, my bad.

[Stark]

Man, this guy even has Batman calling him a 'fuckface'

I love you Batman.

Lasers can't penetrate diamond! This is totally the Xmas Eve 2012 best argument ever.

BTW I'm firing a laser through a diamond RIGHT NOW. I am, in short, SCIENCE FICTIONAL!

- Gunhead

[Batman]

Man, this guy even has Batman calling him a 'fuckface'
I love you Batman.

No you don't. But thanks for saying it.

And I wasn't aware that me using profanity was all that unusual.

[the atom]

Well this is something else. 'Lasers are lasers'? Check. 'Star Trek wins because it's more advanced'? Check. For a moment there I was about to spring from my keyboard to go warn the people about 9/11.

[Batman]

Sadly, it's not. It's 'been there, done that' for a lot of the board populace, and has been for some the board populace before this board ever existed.

[Stark]

His life would improve if he watched all that great scifi that isn't branded Star Trek or Star Wars. Imagine - enjoying something for reasons other than addiction and dependency! A whole world of imaginative and creative fiction!

- Zero_exe

[StarSword]

IIRC he's the second new poster I've seen since joining the board to make the no-lasers argument.

I miss Destructionator XIII. You could have an actual debate with him. (At least, you could before he went nuts if the quotes in a thread further down the forum are any indication. What'd the mods do, erase everything he ever posted?)

[Batman]

Don't be absurd. There is no TV/movie SciFi past Trek/Wars. Farscape, B5, Firefly and the first season of Andromeda and SeaQuest are only figments of your imagination.

[Stark]

Shit you got me. Loyalty to Star Wars above all! Praise the Shatner! There are no superior space battles in other TV shows! :V

- have a very nice day

[Batman]

Mind you, for SeaQuest and Andromeda the world would be a a better place if the rest of it[/i]were a figment of your imagination.

[Stark]

I just don't get it; people who get cross about this crap obviously care about splosions and the pew pews and the exciting adventures of spaceships that blow up other spaceships...

...except Star Trek has always had really shit combat (that there's like four decent battles in FORTY FUCKING YEARS is not a good sign) and even Andromeda made the battles more exciting and interesting. Star Wars isn't much better outside the Tartakovsky cartoon.

So why do people who like pew pews and explosions obsess over franchises that either have consistently bad battles or chop their battles up with constant wooden acting inserts? I want Zero_exe to explain this to me, because I could make him an educational youtube video if he's just never seen a thrilling space battle involving more than SET THE HARMONICA TO BLUEGRASS or PULL UP ALONGSIDE AND FIRE THE POPGUNS.

-the advice I've got for you, sweetheart

[Beernut]

Trying to make the Star Wars movies the only canon for your argument doesn’t really help you. The phrase “turbo laser” was only used in the OT in reference to the small point defense guns on the Death Star. “Turbo Laser” (or even the word laser for that matter) was never used to reference any weapons on Star Destroyers, rebel capital ships, fighter craft or the Millennium Falcon. I don’t think the phase “super laser” was used to reference the main gun on the Death Star either. The only other weapons that are named were hand held weapons, the guns on the snow speeders in ESB, and proton torpedoes. Hand held weapons and the snow speeder weapons were called blasters. This word doesn’t say anything about how they function or what they are capable of. That’s why you shouldn’t base an argument on a weapons name. You have to look at its observed capabilities. I don’t remember too much about whether weapons in the prequels were given names but it’s irrelevant anyway. The observed effects of the weapon trump the name of the weapon.

Basically you are violating your own rules of the debate by saying you want the movies to be the only canon but then giving names to weapons that are not used in the movies themselves.

[the atom]

Sadly, it's not. It's 'been there, done that' for a lot of the board populace, and has been for some the board populace before this board ever existed.

I meant 'something else' in the sense that his posts give you the sense that he's actually some kind of historical SW/ST re-enactor.

[Havok]

This guy's whole logic is "Star Wars doesn't spell it out, so it is inferior". Note how he asks for evidence he knows isn't there; "Please show the MOVIE ONLY evidence that says exactly how strong Stardestroyer metal is... I have watched the Star Wars movies multiple times."

It's just patently silly and outright dishonest and why the bi-monthly Star Trek fans that show up routinely get laughed off the board, but they leave thinking they have struck a blow for Trekkies everywhere.

[Simonoz]

Please reply only with movie and TRUE cannon sources

Do you suggest using movie CANNON that these turbo Lasers can Generate enough heat to destroy a DIAMOND (never mind something more than TWICE the strength of diamond)? If so, wouldn't they literally MELT the very weapon they are fired from???? Movie CANNON answer please. Thanks. )

As you wish.
Firstly, something harder than a diamond could still have a relatively low melting point, and Isn't the primary damage of lasers caused by heat? Therefore, the hardness of the armour is irrelevant. In the case of a torpedo or other kinetic weapon, then it is useful, but hardness has no effect on heat.
Secondly, Star Wars lasers are not conventional lasers. In the films, they can be seen going at sub light speed, and are visible to the human eye. Real lasers cannot be seen directly despite cartoons, and they would travel at the speed of light. Therefore, laser means a different thing in either galaxy.
Finally, if the lasers, as you say, would melt the weapon they were fired from, then explain, please, how in the movies, none of the turbolasers ever seem to melt down as they are fired.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Hopeless. The guy, for all intents and purposes, lacks even the most basic education. He just wants to think he's clever for making us rage; but no clever, let alone sane, person would even think of using the no numbers fallacy just to laugh at his opponent's irritation. 'The amount of force doesn't matter'? WTF? Why did I even make the rock/bullet comparison?

- Stark

[Luke Skywalker]

Zero:

Please feel free to rebute my calcs that establish lower limits for a star destroyer's power generation capabilities.

Also, please feel free to actually produce numbers of your own, rather than appealing to vague qualifiers of how advanced Treknology "looks" in compared to Star Wars'.

[khursed]

Simple logic says if you put enough energy into it, it will punch through.

Example, Abraham tank, M1A1, lets be fair, and then use a baseball, I am sure everyone would agree that no one can throw a baseball with enough force to destroy an Abraham tank, right?

But what if that baseball is in space, going 1/2 c, and hits your Abraham tank?

Guess what, your tank just got vaporized. Pure math, learn to love it.

Heck, 16th century weapons can kill people wearing 21st century armor if you aim at the right spot, you can use a common dagger and murder a guy wearing a bulletproof vest, simply because you can apply much more force on the tip of a dagger then a bullet does.

So, I think it's a joke to think your deflector shield are immune to laser's be they 1Gw or 1 trillion Gw.

You can take technology 50,000BC and kill a guy wearing 21st century armor, it's called a big stick, and you will pummel someone to death with it if you're persistent.

You can break all his bones and make a mess out of the guy.

I hate when people think old=useless.

[Zero_exe]

Also the Borg used a cutting laser to cut through the Ent-D's hull, so obviously, lasers are effective against Star Trek ships. http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Cutting_beam

Bad example - the shields had already been disabled by that point. A better example would be when Picard stayed well away from a planet when there was heavy laser fire going on in Loud as a Whisper.

O.K. So a Good point has been made. I will address it:

The Borg Laser Cutting beam, is known as a KINETIC weapon. Using WATER pressurized hard enough, we can cut through Hard metals, and Solid rocks. Of course, using Water you can cut trough Titanium as well, it would just have to be pressurized hard enough. Carrying water however on a ship, would be impractical as for weapon usage, therefore applying LASER as a KINETIC cutter, is well endowed to penetrate hard substances. HOWEVER Laser as seen in star wars, is used as ENERGY weapons.

Metaphor: Pour a bucket of water on a boulder, will it go through? Put same boulder under Niagara falls, will the increase amount of water used then penetrate it? NO.

In addition to this statement, PLASMA leaks have happened throughout the star trek series. Each time, Zero damage to the Enterprises Bulk heads have been done. Reason being, the heat is not sufficient to melt the TRITANIUM Bulk heads and therefore is not ship threatening. This point, was made to help you understand, LASER energy would HAVE to be HOT enough to melt the enterprises exterior plates, OR be used in a kinetic form with extreme pressure (such as the Borg cutting bream) in order to penetrate the enterprises outer Hull.

Simply stating the "Gigawattage" of the weapon, will not provide in any way, the impact or heat distribution of said TURBO LASER weapon.

[Zero_exe]

Simple logic says if you put enough energy into it, it will punch through.

Example, Abraham tank, M1A1, lets be fair, and then use a baseball, I am sure everyone would agree that no one can throw a baseball with enough force to destroy an Abraham tank, right?

But what if that baseball is in space, going 1/2 c, and hits your Abraham tank?

Guess what, your tank just got vaporized. Pure math, learn to love it.

Heck, 16th century weapons can kill people wearing 21st century armor if you aim at the right spot, you can use a common dagger and murder a guy wearing a bulletproof vest, simply because you can apply much more force on the tip of a dagger then a bullet does.

So, I think it's a joke to think your deflector shield are immune to laser's be they 1Gw or 1 trillion Gw.

You can take technology 50,000BC and kill a guy wearing 21st century armor, it's called a big stick, and you will pummel someone to death with it if you're persistent.

You can break all his bones and make a mess out of the guy.

I hate when people think old=useless.

Your point is Moot. Baseball = solid object + high velocity = KINTETIC energy damage. Same as Borg LASER cutting Beam.

Turbo Laser = Energy + higher volume = Still energy Damage. NON kinetic, thus VOID by enterprise Shields, as stated by Captain Jean Luc Picard.
Again, it would be nice if the Star Wars community can provide substance to their 'turbo Laser' Heat dispersion on impact. Simply saying 1216515324654156465563413 Volts or GIGAWATTS does NOT determine the amount of damage dealt to hardened object, specifically ones designed to dissipate said energy (such as HULL ARMOR)





For instance: If I make a weapon called Plutonium Energy Beam. And it upon firing, it Shoots 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 GigaWatts of power. That would be alot of energy. However, upon contact with a Metal surface, Sensors reveal it heated up the metal to only 120 degrees, that would be INSUFFICIENT to penetrate the Metal.

Increasing ENERGY will not forcibly punch through a surface. Kinetic Energy will (provided it heats the surface upon contact beyond surface melting tolerance), however Direct energy such as Laser or Plasma will not. Therefore, to 'punch through' with Laser or plasma, you would have to ensure the heat level is increased beyond the contacts surfaced melting point.

Hence my original question: These Turbo Lasers, can they MELT the surface of something 21.4 times harder than Diamond? If not, then it is NOT POSSIBLE for the Star Wars Turbo Laser to penetrate the Enterprises hull, and therefore the Enterprise can willingly fight with its shields OFF and still win the war.


Reference:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_d ... emperature

[Havok]

Also the Borg used a cutting laser to cut through the Ent-D's hull, so obviously, lasers are effective against Star Trek ships. http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Cutting_beam

Bad example - the shields had already been disabled by that point. A better example would be when Picard stayed well away from a planet when there was heavy laser fire going on in Loud as a Whisper.

O.K. So a Good point has been made. I will address it:

The Borg Laser Cutting beam, is known as a KINETIC weapon. Using WATER pressurized hard enough, we can cut through Hard metals, and Solid rocks. Of course, using Water you can cut trough Titanium as well, it would just have to be pressurized hard enough. Carrying water however on a ship, would be impractical as for weapon usage, therefore applying LASER as a KINETIC cutter, is well endowed to penetrate hard substances. HOWEVER Laser as seen in star wars, is used as ENERGY weapons.

Metaphor: Pour a bucket of water on a boulder, will it go through? Put same boulder under Niagara falls, will the increase amount of water used then penetrate it? NO.

In addition to this statement, PLASMA leaks have happened throughout the star trek series. Each time, Zero damage to the Enterprises Bulk heads have been done. Reason being, the heat is not sufficient to melt the TRITANIUM Bulk heads and therefore is not ship threatening. This point, was made to help you understand, LASER energy would HAVE to be HOT enough to melt the enterprises exterior plates, OR be used in a kinetic form with extreme pressure (such as the Borg cutting bream) in order to penetrate the enterprises outer Hull.

Simply stating the "Gigawattage" of the weapon, will not provide in any way, the impact or heat distribution of said TURBO LASER weapon.

Oh gawd, why am I doing this?

Please provide a canon source that the Borg cutting beam is NOT "laser energy" as Memory Alpha, the canon Star Trek wiki, says it is and that it is a "KINETIC cutter" as you say. Provide movie or TV canon sources ONLY.

Also Tritanium... uh, if the Federation didn't have the ability or technology to melt it as of 2364... how did they make bulkheads out of it for Enterprise in the 2140's? Does it form in Federation bulkhead shapes?