Reason with me on my questions and statements. Please.

[Zero_exe]

First: Thank you all for taking the time and reading this.

These are honest questions and statements. Please answer them, carefully reading my post. Ive sat and read through multiple websites and read ill cannon educated fans defend their favorite franchises. I Just want to reason on a few things I have read on multiple websites with you people, just to get an understanding of how Star Wars reasons on my questions. Please reply only with movie and TRUE cannon sources: Phantom menace, Attack of the Clones, Revenge of the sith, A new Hope, Empire strikes back, Return of the Jedi.
I will only list my references from T.V. Series and Movies, true cannon of star trek.

First thing that bothers me: Why do both fans attempt to bring 'Size' into the equation? Voyager is considerably smaller than a cube, yet destroyed it with a single Transphasic torpedo. Reference: End game. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFzufch254k (voyager destroys Cube with 1 torpedo @1:26) Unless a ship is too large for an effective radius of a weapon, then it will take more hits to destroy.
Do not forget, in star trek, it may seem that their torpedoes may not have a big impact. However, their torpedoes are being fired against ships with heavy armor from the future designed to counter the effectiveness of a torpedo
A Question: Are Star Destroyers defense systems more advanced than that of the Borg, whom of which have assimilated Thousands of alien species and applied their technology to the collective?
(On a side note::: Halo - Fall of reach, the flag ship of the U.N.S.C. At point of defending reach, was cut into half by a plasma beam, whilst being heavily armored by over 6 meters of hull armor. This ship is over 3 Kilometers in length, and was defeated in less than time than it took for it to enter the system. This reference demonstrates Size matter not, as this Massive Flag ship was easily cut into two by a Beam much, much much much much much much smaller than it)

Second: Lasers VS Phasers power. Whats with the "Gigawatts of power" comparison? Do You think 2GW of laser is superior to 1 GW of Phaser? I reckon the comparison of "Throw a ton of feathers at a person. Then throw half a ton of bricks. Whats does more damage". Star trek Cannon shows lasers to be an inferior technology. Reference: My next point below. link to youtube.

Third: Star Trek clearly states lasers wont penetrate the defector shields. Reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4JUxQe4P4g
This episode never stated the 'gigawatt' power strength this ship can dish out. It simply states lasers are not effective against the Enterprise. So, whether its 1GW or 56468465346541 GW's, Laser itself is possibly too old of a technology that the Enterprises shields could be adapted to that technology. Remember, shields deter energy in a different way than solid materials. A laser can be so powerful to pierce a planet, however against a SHIELD made to adapt other forms of technology, that's a much different story. So in short: Lasers according to Star Trek, are NOT EFFECTIVE AGAINST THE ENTERPRISE.
Any points to argue Turbo Laser GW strength, is useless. -This is a statement

Fourth: Ship Materials. Star Trek states the Enterprise bulk heads to be made of tritanium, 21.4 times HARDER than diamond. Reference: TOS: "Obsession". And ENT: "Dead Stop". http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Tritanium (Also reference "Pegasus" said to be plated with tritanium)
Unfortunately, no Star wars movie states that a Star Destroyers materials are made up of anything harder than Diamond. As well, no reference to any metals equivalent in harden factor relates to the pure strength of the Enterprises materials. So, logically, would the Star Destroyer be made up of current known metals? As well, Can LASERS penetrate a substance 21.4 times harder than Diamond?
My Questions here::
How do you plan on getting around alloys 21.4 times stronger and harder than Diamond using a Laser? 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. )

Fifth: Shield strength. This ones been debated on other sites, as the TNG series shows the Enterprise shields defeated Quote unquote "easily". However, Insurrection shows the newly, better armed Enterprise sustain fire from 2 sonar ships with photon torpedoes and advanced weapons, then sustain a subspace weapon, followed by a warp core explosion (anitmatter, which this massive explosion literally throws the enterprise upwards) and not once in this prolonged fight, did her shields get stated as dropped below 60%, even after taking hits from Ruafo's ship at the very end of the movie. This movie demonstrated the Enterprises shield strength incredibly well. Do not forget that the weapons this ship is hit by, are from (star wars point of view) the future, much more Advanced technologically than 'thousand of year ago, from the past' Lasers.

Sixth: Death Star Destroys planets. O.k. so here my questions about the this one. On other forums, some people state "on shot from the death star and boom there goes your federation ship".
The death star requires charge time. Secondly, Its turn rate is slow. How can it target fast, maneuverable ships using a beam weapon that fires straight? Examine @ 1:30 and up: the Defiants speed and maneuverability http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ehg_HnpB-kE

Seventh: Star fleet sensors. This ones a big problem for the star wars universe. The Enterprise for example, can use its sensors to determine if the enemy weapons or shields are capable of matching her. Once determined, the crew can then engage carefully (As done in many, many episodes across the series). At this point, she would detect the Death Stars shield generator is not within the fortress itself. A long range scan would determine the location of said generator, and can target this Generator unit from over 300,000 kms away from space. Once destroyed, the Death stars shields will fall, and her hull exposed. Refer to my previous point about Hull construction.
Can the Deaths stars Hull, sustain fire from weapons that can penetrate other ships hulls made of metals 21.4 times harder than diamond? That being said, wouldn't shooting the Death Stars Naked Hull be like shooting a Giant stick of butter, considering how advanced the enterprises Phasers and Quantums are? (REFER TO MY HALO REFERENCE, UNSC FLAG SHIP CUT IN HALF BY PLASMA BEAM WEAPON, WHILST BEING ARMORED BY 6 METERS OF ARMOR) If you can link me to a movie CANNON scene that states the Death stars hull is MORE than 21.4 times harder than diamond, that would be great. Thanks.

Eighth: Transporters. Yes it has been said that in star trek, transporters do not go through shields. HOWEVER this has been nullified several times as the Borg can do so freely. As well the Dominion demonstrate beaming through shields in Deep Space Nine using Invasive Transporters in several episodes.
Whether star fleet has this technology or not, is not stated. All thats known is Starfleet had captured a Jem Hadar fighter, and studied their technology. Non the Less, once able to use the transporters, one star ship can transport the entire crew from the Star Destroyer off, and into space. Derelict Hull remains.
How does Star Wars get around Transporters?


I have seen all 6 Star Wars movies, SEVERAL times (Yes, ive watched phantom menace more than once, even tho its horrid).
I have seen ALL of Star Treks: TNG, Voyager, and Deep Space nine episodes. I have Seen ALL 10 PARAMOUNT Star Trek movies SEVERAL times (Yes, even the motion picture, worst movie ever =p)


I do have an Opinion of my own. And would Like to state it now:

Given that Star Wars is from thousands of years ago, and Star Trek is in the future, it is Logical to conclude Star Trek (And Starfleet) have considerably more advanced in Hull constructions, Shields, Armor, Weapons, Sensors, Medical, and many universal Engineering traits over that of Star Wars.
My Opinion, Is that of the ill effectiveness of weapons from Star wars timeline, against the futuristic defense capabilities of Terran humans in Star Trek.

Her advanced Sensors, Advanced Torpedoes, Advanced maneuverability, Advanced shields (that I think are Adapted to Lasers, Given Picards statement as reference "Lasers wont even penetrate our deflector shield), and Advanced Hull. The Excecutor (And Death Star) would Fall prey to the Enterprises long range weapons fire capabilities, And the Enterprise would have LITTLE effort in cutting the Executor in Half, much like in Halo: Fall of Reach, the UNSC Flag Ship cut into two by a plasma beam weapon.

I do not believe STAR WARS SHIELDS are prepared for the PHASER technology, and thus may not even have any deflection effect. It is very Quite possible the Enterprise Phasers would simply cut through the shields of Star Destroyers, since Phasers are unkown to the empire. Empires shields are designed to be effective against LASERS and that being said, I do think the Star Destroyers shields will NOT even flicker in attempt to stop the Phaser weapon.


My Conclusion::
I THINK, Not only can the Enterprise (E) sustain weapons fire from multiple Star Destroyers with EASE, however Her Hull plating is sufficient enough (without shields) to withstand weapons fire from SEVERAL Imperial SD ships, as they cannot emit a hot enough blast from the turbo laser to even melt the bare surface of the Enterprises Hull plating. (21.4 times harder than Diamond) A Star Destroyer shooting Lasers at the enterprise Hull, is Like shooting Cannon Balls made of BUTTER at a Wall made of Solid TITANIUM. Just cant penetrate that defense using BUTTER!!!

The ENTERPRISE E would make VERY SHORT WORK of the ENTIRE Imperial fleet. By Herself, she can eliminate the whole EMPIRE, Her Star Destroyers, the Executor, and Slow firing Space station - Death Star.

But that's my Logical Opinion. You may not like it. However, I would like to see a response from MOVIE CANNON to answer my questions and statements. This is a Discussion. Feel free to reply with Facts and Links, based on MOVIE Cannon and quotes or links to movies scenes. Thanks for taking the time and reading this.

[Spoonist]

Uhm I will not go into the the versus arguments but you know what kid, you don't get to declare what is cannon and what isn't.
Its a true scotsman fallacy to claim that you have your own list of what constitutes as cannon for the various franchises.
Instead it is up to the franchise holder(s) to declare what is and what is not cannon.

[NecronLord]

Uhm I will not go into the the versus arguments but you know what kid, you don't get to declare what is cannon and what isn't.
Its a true scotsman fallacy to claim that you have your own list of what constitutes as cannon for the various franchises.
Instead it is up to the franchise holder(s) to declare what is and what is not cannon.

Actually, he can. It's his thread, he can decide what's up for discussion. You can't change it mid debate, of course, but if you want to run a thread of "Genesis Wave Series Trekverse vs Star Wars" you certainly can despite that being non-canon by Paramount's policy, similarly you can just run a thread on "Star Wars 1977-movie only" if you want.

[Spoonist]

Uhm I will not go into the the versus arguments but you know what kid, you don't get to declare what is cannon and what isn't.
Its a true scotsman fallacy to claim that you have your own list of what constitutes as cannon for the various franchises.
Instead it is up to the franchise holder(s) to declare what is and what is not cannon.

Actually, he can. It's his thread, he can decide what's up for discussion. You can't change it mid debate, of course, but if you want to run a thread of "Genesis Wave Series Trekverse vs Star Wars" you certainly can despite that being non-canon by Paramount's policy, similarly you can just run a thread on "Star Wars 1977-movie only" if you want.

Agreed, but not if you claim it to be 'true' canon. Instead then one should rather give it a descriptive term like "on screen only canon" or somesuch.

Just like when jehova's rewrite the bible another time its their canon.

[NecronLord]

He's not actually wrong; the only "TRUE" Star Wars canon is the G-canon, everything else is secondary to that.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Given that Star Wars is from thousands of years ago, and Star Trek is in the future, it is Logical to conclude Star Trek (And Starfleet) have considerably more advanced in Hull constructions, Shields, Armor, Weapons, Sensors, Medical, and many universal Engineering traits over that of Star Wars.

Older and newer, relative to what? Their history is completely different, they take place in different galaxies, etc. By this logic, Wh40k pwns Star Trek simply due to being even further in the future. Or even better, the medieval kingdoms were more advanced than the Roman Empire because they came after it. This isn't either logical nor 'Logical'.

Do not forget, in star trek, it may seem that their torpedoes may not have a big impact. However, their torpedoes are being fired against ships with heavy armor from the future designed to counter the effectiveness of a torpedo

No doubt Star Trek ships are designed with torpedoes in mind, since torpedoes seem a weapon of choice there. But truly, without numbers, how can we know how powerful the torpedo is? Medieval armor was also made with swords, maces and arrows in mind. It could still be penetrated by those, though. It will also be penetrated by the mighty M1907 Springfield.

Do You think 2GW of laser is superior to 1 GW of Phaser? I reckon the comparison of "Throw a ton of feathers at a person. Then throw half a ton of bricks. Whats does more damage".

Do you even know why we use the Watt? As to your comparison, it is incomplete. First tie the feathers together into a compact mass, then throw them at a person.

Star Trek clearly states lasers wont penetrate the defector shields. Reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4JUxQe4P4g
This episode never stated the 'gigawatt' power strength this ship can dish out. It simply states lasers are not effective against the Enterprise. So, whether its 1GW or 56468465346541 GW's, Laser itself is possibly too old of a technology that the Enterprises shields could be adapted to that technology.

Lasers as made in Star Trek are ineffective against defractor shields, but why should the Enterprise crew even know about Star Wars lasers, much less take them into account, when discussing what is attacking them at the moment? As to 'old technology', you know what else is old? Momentum. A thrown rock won't kill you, but a bullet will. Yet they both operate along the same principles. The amount of force, though, is vastly different.

Star Trek states the Enterprise bulk heads to be made of tritanium, 21.4 times HARDER than diamond.

Wow, you finally used an actual number instead of sophistry.

Unfortunately, no Star wars movie states that a Star Destroyers materials are made up of anything harder than Diamond. As well, no reference to any metals equivalent in harden factor relates to the pure strength of the Enterprises materials. So, logically, would the Star Destroyer be made up of current known metals?

So we apparently don't know what a Star Destroyer is made of. Rolling with this, the proper course of action is to see what it can withstand. Sadly, I don't nearly know anything about Star Wars to comment any further.

Insurrection shows the newly, better armed Enterprise sustain fire from 2 sonar ships with photon torpedoes and advanced weapons, then sustain a subspace weapon, followed by a warp core explosion (anitmatter, which this massive explosion literally throws the enterprise upwards) and not once in this prolonged fight, did her shields get stated as dropped below 60%, even after taking hits from Ruafo's ship at the very end of the movie.

And here is where your veil of logic is ripped undone. An antimatter explosion is truly a fearsome thing, but all the rest aren't. What kind of 'advanced weapons'? Torpedoes of what yield? What the fuck is a subspace weapon and how does it work? Where was the warp core when it detonated (how far from the ship), and what quantities of antimatter are we talking about here? Don't expect, not even jokingly, that I will watch the movie myself to find out. You must provide the proof since you're making the claims.

The death star requires charge time. Secondly, Its turn rate is slow. How can it target fast, maneuverable ships using a beam weapon that fires straight?

Well, something designed to fuck up planets verily won't be used to target spacecraft, as they are too small. But even then, the people in Star Wars have the knowhow to transfer enough energy to destroy a planet. And no, the thing doesn't melt itself when it fires.

Star fleet sensors. This ones a big problem for the star wars universe. The Enterprise for example, can use its sensors to determine if the enemy weapons or shields are capable of matching her. Once determined, the crew can then engage carefully (As done in many, many episodes across the series). At this point, she would detect the Death Stars shield generator is not within the fortress itself. A long range scan would determine the location of said generator, and can target this Generator unit from over 300,000 kms away from space. Once destroyed, the Death stars shields will fall, and her hull exposed.

Is this me, or you just picked the one spot in six entire movies where it would be so easy to defeat the Empire?

Can the Deaths stars Hull, sustain fire from weapons that can penetrate other ships hulls made of metals 21.4 times harder than diamond? That being said, wouldn't shooting the Death Stars Naked Hull be like shooting a Giant stick of butter, considering how advanced the enterprises Phasers and Quantums are?

I don't really know. You'd have to provide some numbers so I know the exact yield of a torpedo, a phaser and a quantum, for a start. Just saying they are 'advanced' and 'from the future' doesn't cut it.

Transporters. Yes it has been said that in star trek, transporters do not go through shields. HOWEVER this has been nullified several times as the Borg can do so freely. As well the Dominion demonstrate beaming through shields in Deep Space Nine using Invasive Transporters in several episodes.

We again run into the different settings problem. What is an effective gimmick in Trek isn't necessarily an effective gimmick in Wars. It's at best an unknown. You don't really plan to say "when we don't know, we assume Trek is better", do you now?

Whether star fleet has this technology or not, is not stated. All thats known is Starfleet had captured a Jem Hadar fighter, and studied their technology. Non the Less, once able to use the transporters, one star ship can transport the entire crew from the Star Destroyer off, and into space. Derelict Hull remains.

So, its another unknown. But has the Starfleet ever used a transporter beam against shielded enemies? Also, what kind of technology was on this captured fighter? Is it logical to assume that this fighter is equipped with this super-transporter? You know, if someone captures my computer, I doubt they can study it and learn how to make nukes.

How does Star Wars get around Transporters?

At the very worst, once people start disappearing at random, someone will engage the hyperdrive and get the hell outta there. That is, assuming the Trek guys know who is who on a Star Destroyer and know who exactly to target.

The rest of what you say is, as they say, wanking.

I have seen all 6 Star Wars movies, SEVERAL times (Yes, ive watched phantom menace more than once, even tho its horrid).
I have seen ALL of Star Treks: TNG, Voyager, and Deep Space nine episodes. I have Seen ALL 10 PARAMOUNT Star Trek movies SEVERAL times (Yes, even the motion picture, worst movie ever

I don't know anything about Trek. All I know about Wars is from watching the Phantom Menace (I was ten years old when I first saw it, and quite liked it) and playing the shit out of KOTOR II. I also read various bits on the Internet, and some old vs threads here.

This following part is important: I am an uneducated peon in both settings, and yet you fail to convince me. I read your whole essay, and the only thing I have in my mind is questions, questions and more questions. You are full of rhetoric ploys and void of fact. In your place, I'd rather not visit SDnet again than have to read through the vicious rebuttals more knowledgable people will unleash at you.

Ahhh... anyway. Let's finally get on with that fanfic.

[Xexilf]

Fine, ill bite, and try. I am by no means the expert on this, but on a few point i can see your glaring errors right away.

1.About size. Size isnt everything, but it can matter, like you can naturally pack more armor on/around a bigger ship than a smaller one. Also the effectiveness of weapons that affect areas can vary depending on size and shape of the ship. But thats more of a sub-point to others than an argument in itself.

2. In theory correct, we dont necessaryly now the difference between technologies, so how efficient the input energy is used against different targets is up in the air. However... here we go.

3. There was some argument somewhere that tore this thing apart, but i dont have to find it, even if star trek is immune to lasers of potentially infinite power it would barely matter, for one simple reason. STAR WARS WEAPONS ARENT LASERS. They may be called turbolasers, or superlasers, but all we have to do is look at them. They shoot what looks like a bolt of light or energy or something glowing at decidedly slower than lightspeed. While some have claimed the glowing effect is just a tracer for in theory invisible lasers, the way they dodge these bolts and the TESB asteroid scene show that even if the bolt has an invisible part, it dosent move far ahead of the glow we see. Therefore, whatever exotic technology is used for weapons in the star-wars galaxy, its no laser, no matter what they named it. Therefore, laserimmunity does nothing.
For the turbolaser strength, you may look up calculations on both the death star superweapon and the asteroid-destroy scene in TESB, from these we can derive certain baselines about raw power empire weapons pack.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/tlc/Power/index.html
See for example here. Yes, further down other sources are cited, but the basic calculation about vaporising the asteroids relies only on the film. It shows the minimum amount of destructive powers a light turbolaser emplacement on a Stardestroyer holds, the visible mainguns should be orders of magnitude higher.

4.Ship materials. Indeed, we have as far as im aware no exact statements on how powerfull Empire materials are exactly. However, again, things can be seen simply by looking at certain things. For example, the death star. For something that big to hold together and not simply collapse under its own weight or be torn apart by physics while moving, the material used has to be far stronger than any current day material. Same for the extremly high towers of coruscant. While i dont know if theres anything in the films disproving the use of Star-trek style structural integrity fields or similiar, we never se any indication of any being used, so unless you want to declare such speculation canon, there arent.
My answer to your question here: We plan to shoot it. Repetadly if necessary. Harder than diamond is in itself far from a precise statement, there are other factors such as heat resistance, energy dispersal, elasticity and shattering and probably others that govern effectiveness of armor today, nevermind against the different exotic technologies that fly around those two galaxies.

5.What you state here is essentially meaningless. I haven`t checked it out exactly, but if what you tell is correct, the shields held indeed up well against this kind of danger. However, i have yet to see anyone in a star wars movie attack with photon torpedos, sonar weapons or warpcores, so your own argument about different effectiveness of different things comes back to haunt you. Without hard numbers we can derive very little about how these shields would stand up to other attacks, which, in case you have forgotten, are not lasers.
Also, what does past and future have to do with it. For that matter, before it comes up again, what does halo have to do with anything? Just what relative time two entirely different galaxies are set in has nothing to do with how advanced their technologies are, if they are never in contact. Or do you expect a galaxy millions of lightyears away to somehow magically align its technological progress with a planet they dont even know about? And Halo... after you went trough so much trouble telling us what your opinion of canon is, why do you bring in "examples" from an entirely different franchise that is in no way canon to either of these? I might as well draw a picture on my desk of the enterprise exploding and try to use it as an argument.

6.Death Star.
This is more an argument referring to the simple raw power of the Death Star superweapon. Hitting the admittedly small and agile star trek ships with it would indeed be very difficult. Even the improved version two, using it against the rebel fleet was more a political stunt than necessarily a usefull tactic (not that it didn't work).

7. Sensors.
Star trek sensors have indeed at times done marvellous things. However, at others they have also been fooled or blocked by many different things. How they stand up against the Death Star shields and imperial jamming (we know that the empire (tries to) jam sensors from Landos line in ROTJ) is anyones guess, without secondary materials we simply dont know. Us not knowing dosent mean Star trek automatically wins as you seem to assume.
However, I think I need to clean up two of your misconceptions.
1. The generator is inside the shield it generates. They had to trick the imperials into lowering it to smuggle a sabotage team to the moon below. It cannot simply be blasted from space, unless you have the firepower to penetrate the shields anyway.
2. The second death star wasnt finished. Attacking something thats under construction wouldsnt necessarily mean that you can stand up to it once its finished. Upon completion, It would presumably have shield generators on board, like the first death star.
For your second point, see my notes regarding materials. Star trek ships, if you look at their architecture, have at best a few meters of armor, while the death star, a construction hundreds of kilometers in diameter, can mount much thicker plates.
So no, it might as well be like pointing a flashlight at a mountain, to copy your style of insubstantial, overdone metaphors.(AND REFER TO MY DRAWING OF THE ENTERPRISE EXPLODING ON MY DESK, THAT PROVES STAR TREK LOSES EVERYTHING FOREVER)(seriously, what has halo to do with anything?). And again, just because we dont know dosent mean its weak, in fact it has to be quite strong, see notes about physics.

8.Transporters have not only been stopped by shields, but by all manner of artifical and natural phenomena, from certain ores, to simple radiation. Star destroyer heavy armor and imperial jamming should render this difficult at the least. Also, just because they can get trough trek shields dosent mean they can get trough wars shields. You cannot simply assume that everytime something is not precisely known it will tip in treks favor.

For your.. erm... "logical" opinion, please explain, again, how the relative timesettings of two entirely unconnected universes say anything about the techlevels therein. Star wars is set in an entirely different galaxy, has no contact with any form of the milky way as we know it, and has history going back thousands of years of spacefaring civilization. Shouldnt that if anything conclude, following your...erm..."logic", that trek, that looks back on for the federation and earth less than fourhundred years of spacetravel, is far less advanced?

Also, please, learn the difference between the words canon and cannon. One refers to whats true for a story, the other is a weapon. Not trying to be a grammar nazi, my own spelling has trouble at times, but seeing it repeatedly messed up in caps lock no less becomes grating.

Also heres one point from me.

Hyperdrive. Can cross the galaxy in a matter of days, while Star treks most widespread drive type takes decades, reference every single voyager episode. Hows that for advanced? Yes, there are some transwarp technologies, and the borg have their little network, but these are few and far between, and fraught with problems (see, again, voyager and their repeated accidents with traswarp experimants).

[Luke Skywalker]

First thing that bothers me: Why do both fans attempt to bring 'Size' into the equation? Voyager is considerably smaller than a cube, yet destroyed it with a single Transphasic torpedo. Reference: End game. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFzufch254k (voyager destroys Cube with 1 torpedo @1:26)

I don't see where you're coming at here. An example of a small ship destroying a large ship with an experimental weapon does not imply that size is irrelevant. If I told you that the Yamato could easily crush a WW2 patrol boat, would you reply by citing David killing Goliath as proof that size is irrelevant?

A larger ship will have a larger reactor, more guns, a larger fighter complement and larger engines. Additionally, it is exponentially more difficult to build larger mobile starships, so that the Empire can casually construct metropolis-size warships is hardly something you can whimsically dismiss.

Unless a ship is too large for an effective radius of a weapon, then it will take more hits to destroy.

You're getting it wrong; the "effective radius of a weapon" varies according to the durability of the targeted ship's shields and armor, which define to what extent the weapon will be "effective".

Do not forget, in star trek, it may seem that their torpedoes may not have a big impact. However, their torpedoes are being fired against ships with heavy armor from the future designed to counter the effectiveness of a torpedo

"heavy armor from the future" is not a very quantitative term. Indeed, on a quick skim of your post, you don't seem very favorable to actually scientifically supporting your vague claims of "advanced" technology or "advanced" firepower.

A Question: Are Star Destroyers defense systems more advanced than that of the Borg, whom of which have assimilated Thousands of alien species and applied their technology to the collective?

Yes.

By your logic, a coalition of thousands of medieval kingdoms would crush the modern day United States, just 'cause they have more civilizations under their belt.

(On a side note::: Halo - Fall of reach, the flag ship of the U.N.S.C. At point of defending reach, was cut into half by a plasma beam, whilst being heavily armored by over 6 meters of hull armor. This ship is over 3 Kilometers in length, and was defeated in less than time than it took for it to enter the system. This reference demonstrates Size matter not, as this Massive Flag ship was easily cut into two by a Beam much, much much much much much much smaller than it)

Fallacious logic. If I beat up a man twice my size in a fistfight, would you conclude that size is irrelevant (which is precisely the point you're trying to make here), or that it was simply overcompensated for by other factors in my favor?

Second: Lasers VS Phasers power. Whats with the "Gigawatts of power" comparison? Do You think 2GW of laser is superior to 1 GW of Phaser? I reckon the comparison of "Throw a ton of feathers at a person. Then throw half a ton of bricks. Whats does more damage". Star trek Cannon shows lasers to be an inferior technology. Reference: My next point below. link to youtube.

Third: Star Trek clearly states lasers wont penetrate the defector shields. Reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4JUxQe4P4g
This episode never stated the 'gigawatt' power strength this ship can dish out. It simply states lasers are not effective against the Enterprise. So, whether its 1GW or 56468465346541 GW's, Laser itself is possibly too old of a technology that the Enterprises shields could be adapted to that technology. Remember, shields deter energy in a different way than solid materials. A laser can be so powerful to pierce a planet, however against a SHIELD made to adapt other forms of technology, that's a much different story. So in short: Lasers according to Star Trek, are NOT EFFECTIVE AGAINST THE ENTERPRISE.
Any points to argue Turbo Laser GW strength, is useless. -This is a statement

You should probably read the website. This is the oldest myth in the book. I'll just point out that the Enterprise has been fucked up by explicitly electromagnetic weaponry before, and that in order to dissipate a laser, the Enterprise's shields will have to do work, and the ability to do infinite work is impossible, nor can any defense system be 100% efficient. Oh, and the fact that turbolasers aren't lasers might be something you would want to research.

Fourth: Ship Materials. Star Trek states the Enterprise bulk heads to be made of tritanium, 21.4 times HARDER than diamond. Reference: TOS: "Obsession". And ENT: "Dead Stop". http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Tritanium (Also reference "Pegasus" said to be plated with tritanium)

Which means jack and shit against multi-teraton firepower.

Unfortunately, no Star wars movie states that a Star Destroyers materials are made up of anything harder than Diamond. As well, no reference to any metals equivalent in harden factor relates to the pure strength of the Enterprises materials. So, logically, would the Star Destroyer be made up of current known metals?

Star destroyers can survive thousands of G's of acceleration. The Death Star was within six diameters of Alderaan when the planet was dispersed at relativistic speeds, and emerged unharmed.

As well, Can LASERS penetrate a substance 21.4 times harder than Diamond?

You don't know what you're talking about, do you? Whether or not something can penetrate a ship's hull has nothing to do with whatever "technology type" it is. A laser pointer could not. A planet destroying laser could.

My Questions here::
How do you plan on getting around alloys 21.4 times stronger and harder than Diamond using a Laser? 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. )

Yes. In RotJ, a turbolaser vaporizes a 1.6 km long star destroyer in a single shot.

Fifth: Shield strength. This ones been debated on other sites, as the TNG series shows the Enterprise shields defeated Quote unquote "easily". However, Insurrection shows the newly, better armed Enterprise sustain fire from 2 sonar ships with photon torpedoes and advanced weapons, then sustain a subspace weapon, followed by a warp core explosion (anitmatter, which this massive explosion literally throws the enterprise upwards) and not once in this prolonged fight, did her shields get stated as dropped below 60%, even after taking hits from Ruafo's ship at the very end of the movie. This movie demonstrated the Enterprises shield strength incredibly well. Do not forget that the weapons this ship is hit by, are from (star wars point of view) the future, much more Advanced technologically than 'thousand of year ago, from the past' Lasers.

Quantify these photon torpedos. Quantify these "advanced weapons".

Sixth: Death Star Destroys planets. O.k. so here my questions about the this one. On other forums, some people state "on shot from the death star and boom there goes your federation ship".
The death star requires charge time.

Who cares? It only needs to fire once to destroy Earth, and decapitate the Federation.

Secondly, Its turn rate is slow.

Who cares? Planets have predictable orbits.

How can it target fast, maneuverable ships using a beam weapon that fires straight? Examine @ 1:30 and up: the Defiants speed and maneuverability http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ehg_HnpB-kE

The superlaser is not designed to target ships.

Seventh: Star fleet sensors. This ones a big problem for the star wars universe. The Enterprise for example, can use its sensors to determine if the enemy weapons or shields are capable of matching her. Once determined, the crew can then engage carefully (As done in many, many episodes across the series). At this point, she would detect the Death Stars shield generator is not within the fortress itself. A long range scan would determine the location of said generator, and can target this Generator unit from over 300,000 kms away from space. Once destroyed, the Death stars shields will fall, and her hull exposed. Refer to my previous point about Hull construction.

I'm not even going to bother refuting this. Star Wars weaponry and shielding are already orders of magnitude beyond their counterparts that advanced sensors will only tell the Federation when it is going to die.

X wings circumnavigate Yavin Prime in around 5 minutes to reach the Death Star. Conservatively, this indicates 300 G's of acceleration, and over 10^13 watts of power, coming from a one man starfighter. Given that a star destroyer masses over one million X wings, a very conservative lower limit for the engine power of a star destroyer alone would be 10^19 watts.

Can the Deaths stars Hull, sustain fire from weapons that can penetrate other ships hulls made of metals 21.4 times harder than diamond?

Yes.

That being said, wouldn't shooting the Death Stars Naked Hull be like shooting a Giant stick of butter, considering how advanced the enterprises Phasers and Quantums are? (REFER TO MY HALO REFERENCE, UNSC FLAG SHIP CUT IN HALF BY PLASMA BEAM WEAPON, WHILST BEING ARMORED BY 6 METERS OF ARMOR) If you can link me to a movie CANNON scene that states the Death stars hull is MORE than 21.4 times harder than diamond, that would be great. Thanks.

Do you actually have any quantification of "how advanced" these weapons are?

Eighth: Transporters. Yes it has been said that in star trek, transporters do not go through shields. HOWEVER this has been nullified several times as the Borg can do so freely. As well the Dominion demonstrate beaming through shields in Deep Space Nine using Invasive Transporters in several episodes.
Whether star fleet has this technology or not, is not stated. All thats known is Starfleet had captured a Jem Hadar fighter, and studied their technology. Non the Less, once able to use the transporters, one star ship can transport the entire crew from the Star Destroyer off, and into space. Derelict Hull remains.
How does Star Wars get around Transporters?

Who cares? The four orders of magnitude in disparity (at the very least) in firepower, numbers and logistical capabilities make transporters utterly inconsequential.

Given that Star Wars is from thousands of years ago, and Star Trek is in the future, it is Logical to conclude Star Trek (And Starfleet) have considerably more advanced in Hull constructions, Shields, Armor, Weapons, Sensors, Medical, and many universal Engineering traits over that of Star Wars.

BY THAT SAME LOGIC, IT IS LOGICAL TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ROMAN EMPIRE IS MORE ADVANCED THAN STAR WARS BECAUSE STAR WARS TAKE PLACE IN THE PAST, YOU STUPID FUCKING MORON.

[Ted C]

First: Thank you all for taking the time and reading this.

If only you were offering anything we hadn't all heard before.

Please reply only with movie and TRUE cannon sources: Phantom menace, Attack of the Clones, Revenge of the sith, A new Hope, Empire strikes back, Return of the Jedi.
I will only list my references from T.V. Series and Movies, true cannon of star trek.

You don't get to decide what is "true cannon" for either series, but I can stick to the films easily enough.

First thing that bothers me: Why do both fans attempt to bring 'Size' into the equation?

Because size is relevant. If you double a thing's mass, you double the energy required to change its velocity by any given amount. You double the force needed to accelerate it. You quadruple the surface area that needs to be shielded. Size is relevant in many ways.

Voyager is considerably smaller than a cube, yet destroyed it with a single Transphasic torpedo. Reference: End game. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFzufch254k (voyager destroys Cube with 1 torpedo @1:26) Unless a ship is too large for an effective radius of a weapon, then it will take more hits to destroy.

So what? All that indicates is that a transphasic torpedo defeats the frequency-based shielding of a Borg cube. If you set off multi-kiloton or multi-megaton anti-matter bomb in a ship that has internal stores of antimatter for fuel, you will probably get a huge kaboom.

Do not forget, in star trek, it may seem that their torpedoes may not have a big impact. However, their torpedoes are being fired against ships with heavy armor from the future designed to counter the effectiveness of a torpedo

And Star Wars hulls are designed to withstand the impact of turbolasers. You not making any useful statements.

A Question: Are Star Destroyers defense systems more advanced than that of the Borg, whom of which have assimilated Thousands of alien species and applied their technology to the collective?

That's entirely possible, since the Star Wars civilization has been space-faring for tens of thousands of years, longer than even the Borg.

(On a side note::: Halo - Fall of reach, the flag ship of the U.N.S.C. At point of defending reach, was cut into half by a plasma beam, whilst being heavily armored by over 6 meters of hull armor. This ship is over 3 Kilometers in length, and was defeated in less than time than it took for it to enter the system. This reference demonstrates Size matter not, as this Massive Flag ship was easily cut into two by a Beam much, much much much much much much smaller than it)

I thought you were only going to use the Star Trek series and movies for your claims.

Second: Lasers VS Phasers power. Whats with the "Gigawatts of power" comparison? Do You think 2GW of laser is superior to 1 GW of Phaser? I reckon the comparison of "Throw a ton of feathers at a person. Then throw half a ton of bricks. Whats does more damage". Star trek Cannon shows lasers to be an inferior technology. Reference: My next point below. link to youtube.

It's entirely possible that a 2 GW laser IS superior to a 1 GW phaser. The phaser would have to be more than twice as efficient as the laser for it to be superior. It could be, but it isn't necessarily.

Third: Star Trek clearly states lasers wont penetrate the defector shields. Reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4JUxQe4P4g

And yet the Borg used a "laser" to cut through the hull of the Enterprise in "Q Who".

This episode never stated the 'gigawatt' power strength this ship can dish out.

Yet that ship was clearly far smaller, far less powerful, and far less advanced than the Enterprise. What you are demonstrating is what we like to call the "no limits" mentality: the notion that any random statement from the show can be extrapolated to infinity.

It simply states lasers are not effective against the Enterprise. So, whether its 1GW or 56468465346541 GW's, Laser itself is possibly too old of a technology that the Enterprises shields could be adapted to that technology.

See? No limits mentality.

Remember, shields deter energy in a different way than solid materials. A laser can be so powerful to pierce a planet, however against a SHIELD made to adapt other forms of technology, that's a much different story. So in short: Lasers according to Star Trek, are NOT EFFECTIVE AGAINST THE ENTERPRISE.

Then why was Picard concerned about other laser-armed adversaries in other episodes, like "Suddenly Human"?

Any points to argue Turbo Laser GW strength, is useless. -This is a statement

It's a useless statement, since Star Wars turbolasers don't even behave like conventional lasers in the first place.

Fourth: Ship Materials. Star Trek states the Enterprise bulk heads to be made of tritanium, 21.4 times HARDER than diamond. Reference: TOS: "Obsession". And ENT: "Dead Stop". http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Tritanium (Also reference "Pegasus" said to be plated with tritanium)
Unfortunately, no Star wars movie states that a Star Destroyers materials are made up of anything harder than Diamond. As well, no reference to any metals equivalent in harden factor relates to the pure strength of the Enterprises materials. So, logically, would the Star Destroyer be made up of current known metals? As well, Can LASERS penetrate a substance 21.4 times harder than Diamond?

That's entirely possible. You can destroy a diamond with heat. Heck, you can shatter a diamond with a hammer. Really, hardness isn't always a good thing; sometimes flexibility is preferable. You've described a ship made of a material so rigid that the hull will shatter if it flexes AT ALL.

And, just a reminder, the Borg cut through this hull material with... A LASER.

My Questions here::
How do you plan on getting around alloys 21.4 times stronger and harder than Diamond using a Laser? 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. )

Pretty easily. A hull that rigid will shatter with ridiculous ease. "Strength" is not synonymous with "hardness".

Fifth: Shield strength. This ones been debated on other sites, as the TNG series shows the Enterprise shields defeated Quote unquote "easily". However, Insurrection shows the newly, better armed Enterprise sustain fire from 2 sonar ships with photon torpedoes and advanced weapons, then sustain a subspace weapon, followed by a warp core explosion (anitmatter, which this massive explosion literally throws the enterprise upwards) and not once in this prolonged fight, did her shields get stated as dropped below 60%, even after taking hits from Ruafo's ship at the very end of the movie. This movie demonstrated the Enterprises shield strength incredibly well. Do not forget that the weapons this ship is hit by, are from (star wars point of view) the future, much more Advanced technologically than 'thousand of year ago, from the past' Lasers.

The only weapons on the So'na ships that were more "advanced" than the Enterprise's own weapons were the subspace weapons, and the Enterprise was NEVER HIT BY ONE. Geordi dumped the warp core specifically to keep from being hit by a subspace weapon, and they'd moved well away from the core by the time the subspace weapon detonated it. You're argument for this incident demonstrating Star Trek shield strength is deeply flawed.

Sixth: Death Star Destroys planets. O.k. so here my questions about the this one. On other forums, some people state "on shot from the death star and boom there goes your federation ship".
The death star requires charge time. Secondly, Its turn rate is slow. How can it target fast, maneuverable ships using a beam weapon that fires straight? Examine @ 1:30 and up: the Defiants speed and maneuverability http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ehg_HnpB-kE

The Death Star superlaser is obviously not designed to be used against starships. What of it?

Seventh: Star fleet sensors. This ones a big problem for the star wars universe. The Enterprise for example, can use its sensors to determine if the enemy weapons or shields are capable of matching her. Once determined, the crew can then engage carefully (As done in many, many episodes across the series). At this point, she would detect the Death Stars shield generator is not within the fortress itself. A long range scan would determine the location of said generator, and can target this Generator unit from over 300,000 kms away from space. Once destroyed, the Death stars shields will fall, and her hull exposed. Refer to my previous point about Hull construction.

Did you miss the part about the Endor shield generator ALSO being protected by the shield? That shield encompassed all of Endor, as it had to be lowered to allow a shuttle to land.

Can the Deaths stars Hull, sustain fire from weapons that can penetrate other ships hulls made of metals 21.4 times harder than diamond?

Probably, since "21.4 times harder than diamond" is a really bad design specification for a hull material.

That being said, wouldn't shooting the Death Stars Naked Hull be like shooting a Giant stick of butter, considering how advanced the enterprises Phasers and Quantums are?

No

(REFER TO MY HALO REFERENCE, UNSC FLAG SHIP CUT IN HALF BY PLASMA BEAM WEAPON, WHILST BEING ARMORED BY 6 METERS OF ARMOR)

What happened to sticking with Star Trek canon sources?

If you can link me to a movie CANNON scene that states the Death stars hull is MORE than 21.4 times harder than diamond, that would be great. Thanks.

No. Nor should it.

Eighth: Transporters. Yes it has been said that in star trek, transporters do not go through shields.

Repeatedly. Frequently.

HOWEVER this has been nullified several times as the Borg can do so freely.

To my knowledge, the Borg did so ONCE, in "Q Who". In every other incident, they have defeated the target's shields before transporting aboard.

As well the Dominion demonstrate beaming through shields in Deep Space Nine using Invasive Transporters in several episodes.

And that was eventually overcome, as well.

Whether star fleet has this technology or not, is not stated. All thats known is Starfleet had captured a Jem Hadar fighter, and studied their technology. Non the Less, once able to use the transporters, one star ship can transport the entire crew from the Star Destroyer off, and into space. Derelict Hull remains.
How does Star Wars get around Transporters?

Shields and electronic countermeasures. Shall we list the many things that interfere with transporter function. Electromagnetic interference is on the list, and Star Wars jammers throw out a LOT of it.

Given that Star Wars is from thousands of years ago, and Star Trek is in the future, it is Logical to conclude Star Trek (And Starfleet) have considerably more advanced in Hull constructions, Shields, Armor, Weapons, Sensors, Medical, and many universal Engineering traits over that of Star Wars.
My Opinion, Is that of the ill effectiveness of weapons from Star wars timeline, against the futuristic defense capabilities of Terran humans in Star Trek.

The Star Wars Republic and Empire have been space-faring civilizations for far longer than the Star Trek Federation, so your point is utterly irrelevant.

Her advanced Sensors, Advanced Torpedoes, Advanced maneuverability, Advanced shields (that I think are Adapted to Lasers, Given Picards statement as reference "Lasers wont even penetrate our deflector shield), and Advanced Hull. The Excecutor (And Death Star) would Fall prey to the Enterprises long range weapons fire capabilities, And the Enterprise would have LITTLE effort in cutting the Executor in Half, much like in Halo: Fall of Reach, the UNSC Flag Ship cut into two by a plasma beam weapon.

Arbitrary claims that don't hold up to scrutiny.

I do not believe STAR WARS SHIELDS are prepared for the PHASER technology, and thus may not even have any deflection effect. It is very Quite possible the Enterprise Phasers would simply cut through the shields of Star Destroyers, since Phasers are unkown to the empire. Empires shields are designed to be effective against LASERS and that being said, I do think the Star Destroyers shields will NOT even flicker in attempt to stop the Phaser weapon.

Ah, yes. The old "any unknown always goes in Star Trek's favor" routine. It's utter crap.

My Conclusion::
I THINK, Not only can the Enterprise (E) sustain weapons fire from multiple Star Destroyers with EASE, however Her Hull plating is sufficient enough (without shields) to withstand weapons fire from SEVERAL Imperial SD ships, as they cannot emit a hot enough blast from the turbo laser to even melt the bare surface of the Enterprises Hull plating. (21.4 times harder than Diamond) A Star Destroyer shooting Lasers at the enterprise Hull, is Like shooting Cannon Balls made of BUTTER at a Wall made of Solid TITANIUM. Just cant penetrate that defense using BUTTER!!!

The ENTERPRISE E would make VERY SHORT WORK of the ENTIRE Imperial fleet. By Herself, she can eliminate the whole EMPIRE, Her Star Destroyers, the Executor, and Slow firing Space station - Death Star.

But that's my Logical Opinion. You may not like it. However, I would like to see a response from MOVIE CANNON to answer my questions and statements. This is a Discussion. Feel free to reply with Facts and Links, based on MOVIE Cannon and quotes or links to movies scenes. Thanks for taking the time and reading this.

There was no logic used in reaching your opinion. It's bunk.

[Luke Skywalker]

Zero:

In AotC, Dooku's sailboat far passes Geonosis's rings in the time it takes Yoda to pick up his cane and Padme to rush in to check on her literally disarmed boyfriend and friend.

If the distance from ground level to the rings is about 5000 kilometers, and Dooku passes the rings in 20 seconds (I really can't see how the 20 second guess is anything but ridiculously generous, unless if you think Yoda have a fetus for staring down at his cane while his comrades lie helplessly on the ground), then the ornamental sailboat has demonstrated 2500 Gs just using its repulsorlifts, and 10^14 watts. So a star destroyer's engines should be able to output at least 10^20 watts, ignoring my extremely generous concessions.

[Xexilf]

Did you miss the part about the Endor shield generator ALSO being protected by the shield? That shield encompassed all of Endor, as it had to be lowered to allow a shuttle to land.

Are we sure of that? To me the diagram/hologram shown during the rebel planning scene seems to indicate more of a circle of ground a few (hundred?) kilometers around the shield generator being protected, not the whole moon. Not that that makes much difference to the argument, unless someone throws planetbusters around.

[StarSword]

^Even ignoring the novelization, Han had to ask for the shield to be lowered so their shuttle could pass. I doubt they would've bothered if there wasn't a shield preventing them from landing.

[Xexilf]

^Even ignoring the novelization, Han had to ask for the shield to be lowered so their shuttle could pass. I doubt they would've bothered if there wasn't a shield preventing them from landing.

Yes, i thought the shield protects like, a few hundred miles of ground around the generator, with everything we see on endor taking place within that circle, so they would still have to lower the shield to let them in.
As in, assuming no imperial interference, they could land on endor, but it would have to be far away from the generator, and then they would be outside the shield, that is then in their way, if they try to make for the generator on foot.

So the novelization definitely states that all of endor is covered? That is good to know. Although, for this thread, its apparently only what can explicitly be seen on screen, and there we see, in the planning scene, some sort of energy "baloon" poking out of the endor surface and surronding the DSII. It dosent come from a point however, but from a, assuming DSII at 900km diameter, circle of maybe 200 km diameter (thats from memory so unlikely to be exact).

Of course, picking that scene apart pixel for pixel probably leads to a bunch of other possible interpretations.

[Ted C]

Did you miss the part about the Endor shield generator ALSO being protected by the shield? That shield encompassed all of Endor, as it had to be lowered to allow a shuttle to land.

Are we sure of that? To me the diagram/hologram shown during the rebel planning scene seems to indicate more of a circle of ground a few (hundred?) kilometers around the shield generator being protected, not the whole moon. Not that that makes much difference to the argument, unless someone throws planetbusters around.

If it didn't they could just land supply ships outside the shield and truck materials under it, much as AT-ATs walked under the shield in TESB. Also, heavy turbolasers could be fired around the perimeter of the shield, and the collateral damage going under it would destroy that shield projector dish. The shield really does need to protect the whole moon to be effective.

[Stark]

Did he really take time out to cut and paste stuff like this on christmas eve? Most heartless troll ever.

Then again, arguing with anything other than his core point (which is obviously stupid) makes anyone else look pretty bad.

[Zero_exe]

Uhm I will not go into the the versus arguments but you know what kid, you don't get to declare what is cannon and what isn't.
Its a true scotsman fallacy to claim that you have your own list of what constitutes as cannon for the various franchises.
Instead it is up to the franchise holder(s) to declare what is and what is not cannon.

And I quote "When it comes to absolute canon, the real story of Star Wars, you must turn to the films themselves—and only the films"
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_canon

This is the franchise holder declaring what Absolute Canon is. I do not care what third rate books, or anything off screen says. Simply put, If i were in the position of, and granted license from paramount, could wright a tech book describing a new federation class with a Turbo Phaser, capable of blowing up planets in 1 shot. However, the Logical Star Trek Fans would never look at this as True Cannon - Zero.

[Havok]

He's not actually wrong; the only "TRUE" Star Wars canon is the G-canon, everything else is secondary to that.

Incorrect. Star Wars canon is all inclusive. It has different tiers, but they are all canon unless one of the higher tiered sources contradicts one of the lowered tier sources, thus making the lower tiered source invalid.

[Havok]

Just a couple points even though nothing said is going to convince this guy that the ENTERPRISE E IS NOT THE UBERSHIP...

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.

Clearly, 'lasers' in Star Wars, are not lasers in the traditional sense of the word as we use it on earth. See, ROTS, ANH.
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

[Stark]

Are you saying chronological order is not the end determinant of progress?

This is outrageous and I demand you provide eleven mathematical proofs of this statement!

[Captain Seafort]

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.

[Zero_exe]

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

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) 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. 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.'

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

A Simple matter of truth, is the Enterprise can sustain hits accordingly from ISD because they're weapon type is useless against federation shields. Further, a Phaser is not in Star Wars. The Enterprise would tear the Empire a new one when they're Shields show ineffective against Phaser technology. Further, 21.4 times the strength of Diamond, NO sci fi Laser can penetrate this. Sorry but its how it is. Shields, Hull, whatever. The Federations laughs off the Empires primitive weapons, and uses its Phasers to cut the ISD ships in Half. Much like was described in Halo: Fall of Reach.


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).

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.


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.

[Stark]

My only advice for you, sweetheart, is that your posts would be better if you signed your name after them.

- Zero

[Batman]

Has it ever been clearly established that Star Wars is in our past? It's 'a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away'...from the point of view of the guys who wrote the opening crawls. I don't think there's any in-universe information saying that yep, that's the modern day human perspective. For all I know those lines were written 15 million years from now.

[Stark]

Since it is wholly irrelevant what Earth calendar date the events of SW occur, who even cares?

Beyond, y'know, obvious trolls. BTW dude I resent being described as a 'Star Wars fan'.

-fgalkin

[Havok]

Oh man, just gonna ignore the MASSIVE point I made, using MOVIE CANON that Star Wars lasers ARE NOT the same as Star Trek lasers huh? I.e., when was the last time a "laser" ejected a cartridge? The use of the term 'laser' in Star Wars doesn't mean it is based on laser technology that you are familiar with here on Earth. You realize that that simple point INVALIDATES YOUR WHOLE LASER ARGUMENT... of course you don't.

Also, if I throw a 1lb rock at a tank, it is not going to hurt it in the slightest, however if I drop a 600 ton rock on a tank it will completely debilitate it, if not completely destroy it, which invalidates completely your "So, whether its 1GW or 56468465346541 GW's," false analogy.

I mean, do you realize how many times every argument you have made has been debunked on this site countless times? The reason no one is answering your questions to your satisfaction is because they have been answered hundreds of times over, and Star Trek comes out on the short end every time and quite honestly, people here are bored of people like you.

Why do you think Star Trek fans rail so hard over and try to restrict Star Wars canon? Because if they didn't, and you clearly realize this, Star Trek is obliterated in every single aspect in any kind of confrontation with even some of the weakest ships from the Star Wars universe in any confrontations.

Even just using MOVIE CANON, the visual evidence is so overwhelming it isn't even funny.