I an not a SW fan. I am not a Star Trek fan. I hate and love both for different reasons.
I think the EU is a sea of s*** with a few good gems.
I think TOS is only good as a comedy. VOY, DS9 and ENT suck. TNG is pretty much the only ST series that is OK.
I normally stay out of debates. But hell, I'm gonna break my own rule to share a fw observatiosn about such debates in general.
Internet versus debates are like train wrecks. Nothing (good or otherwise) never comes out of them except that they can be entertaining to watch. That said, when it comes to „who would win“ debates, there are multiple arguments that keep popping up, that frankly go on my nerves:
Derived numbers – or numbers someone calculated from a show sequence or an image – are useless. They really have little validity, as the basic assumptions they are based off are almost always false.
First, the idea that real physics can be applied to a work of fiction. In theory it should work – especially if the work claims or suggests that indeed it does follow some specific laws of physics. However, since most shows are terribly inconsistent and give conflicting info, the accuracy of any calculation is in question. Real world enforces physics constantly. In a fictional universe, each specific law has to be enforced by the creator/animator in every scene/panel. And it never is.
Second, the idea that in-universe established ideas can be used as a base to calculate something. Would again be useful if there was consistency. It's not uncommon for superheroes shows to specifically claim something, and then introduce a totally conflicting element. For example, a mutation-based hero defeats a bio-engineered vilan by using knowledge of how DNA/cells and human body work. Sounds good except if the same knowledge is applied to the hero in question, it makes his existence impossible.
Lastly, the idea that scenes/shots from a movie/comic are actually representative of the reality of the setting. After all, does anyone really believe that a director or whatever guy is in charge comes to the artist/animator and tells him „I want superman to fly in the next scene. Here's a book on physics, make sure he flies at *exactly* 5000kmh and pay attention at how his cape flatters and his descent angle“? Something like that practically *never* happens. The directive usually amounts to „make him fly fast“.
When asked at what speed a ship moves, one SF-author replied „at the speed of plot“. Many comic book authors made similar replies to questions on characters strength/speed and other attributes – as strong/fast as the current story requires.
If you tried to calc someones speed/strength, the power of a gun or some other attribute that way, using various scenes, you would be getting different values for each scene. Because there is no consistency, there is no grand plan or anyone who presides over it to make sure everything fits. It doesn't. Heck, a lot of time people writing scenes or those collectable encyclopedias (a lot of time hired help) have no concept of what they are writing. They write 20 Gigawatts because it sound impressive, without having an idea of how much that is.
In other words, if you are cherry-picking which laws of physics and what formulas to use on what screens, then you have no leg to stand on. And you my friend are doing just that. Because, as previously established, there is no true consistency nor an effort to enforce it.
Bottom point: I don't trust your numbers!
Armchair psysicists are not a reliable source, EVEN in the case where the initial variable are correct.
why? Let me quote something:
Among the ranks of Star Trek fandom, there seem to be a lot of people with little or no technical background, who think that they can take a "shortcut" to advanced scientific knowledge by skipping over the usual years of hard work in university, and simply reading some books on quantum mechanics. I've gotten dozens of E-mail messages such as the following:
"You shouldn't discount the opinions of people just because they have no background. I've done a lot of independent reading, including all of the Stephen Hawking books, the Feynman books, and many other books on advanced particle physics and quantum mechanics. I dare say I probably have better knowledge of these subjects than you do, so you should watch your mouth before you go putting down my knowledge."
This argument has four major weaknesses, as I see them:
1. Strawman attack: It's a strawman attack because I don't automatically ignore everything that comes from untrained people. If a layperson makes an argument which is not scientifically invalid, I'm perfectly willing to listen. But if a layperson makes claims about science which I know to be incorrect, I will tell him.
2. How hard did he really work? What sounds more difficult? Reading some science books in your spare time, or studying science or engineering for 5 days a week, every week, for years? What's more difficult? Reading a handful of books for personal enlightenment, or reading textbooks and papers because you have to take grueling three hour long exams and submit a series of fifty page laboratory reports? What's more difficult? Skipping over the boring parts and jumping right to conclusions or abstracts, or knowing that the boring parts are the parts on which you will be tested? I think it's rather arrogant of these people to believe that their intelligence is so immense that they can skim through a handful of books and instantly gain the equivalent of many years of education.
3. Trying to run before you learn to walk: Comprehension of advanced scientific concepts requires comprehension of the basics. People without a grasp of the basics (and no, high school does not give you a grasp of the basics) tend to misinterpret complex material. The result of this ignorance is that they can read "The Physics of Star Trek" and conclude that Treknology is realistic, or they can read "A Matter of Time" and conclude that conservation of energy has been rendered obsolete.
4. Proof: When someone gets a university degree, there is a public record to prove that he has done the work that he claims to have done. But what about our "independent study" oppponent? How do we know he's telling the truth about all of that hard work he claims to have done? How do we know his idea of "research" isn't just casual web-surfing and bookstore browsing? When someone gets a university degree, there is a public record to prove that not only did he do the work, but he was tested and found competent. But what about our "independent study" opponent? How do we know that he understood any of what he was reading? No one forced him to write reports, submit theses, perform experiments, or take exams, did they?
I'm not trying to claim that everything I say must be correct simply because I have a degree. However, I have studied certain subjects at length, in a university environment where my comprehension of the material was tested. Therefore, if I make a statement about scientific or engineering concepts which were covered in my education, it is made on the basis of the fact that I studied those subjects at length, in much greater detail than one who has merely read a handful of science books (especially when those books are the type that contain no equations).
For an example, we know that Superman gets his powers from the sun, right? That is a canonical fact. Therefore, Superman cannot have more power than the Sun can produce. And we know the suns output. And given the size of the sun and inverse square law, the power of the radiation falls off with distance. And only a tiny, tiny power of that radiation will at any point be hitting Superman, since it's spread in all directions. Compounded by the fact that superman absorbs it trough his skin, his surface area is truly miniscule. Combine all that together and Superman would barely get enough power to lift a car. Even if he were able to absorb all of the suns power, that still cannot compare even to the smallest supernova – and allegedly supes taken attacks as strong as 15. Hence we have physical formulas applied to known, long-estalished facts that give us invalid numbers.
Superheroes defy multiple physical laws every second. From closing black holes with just his strength or static electricity to punching reality - the most basic laws like thermodynamics or perservation of energy are constantly ignored and broken. So how then, does it make sense to use physical laws to calculate things? I doesn't. But people jump onto it when their caclulation bring up numbers that rainforces their already established beliefs.
Or lets' take on more examples:
Since ST seems to be a common enemy to SW, let's use it. The fabled power of turbolasers vs. phasers. I've seen those redicolous numbers based on the turbolaser blasting an asteroid.
At the same time, for all those terrajouls of power, the turbolasers seem to have a rather underwhelming effect on anything else - like other ships or bombing towns/planets. Let's not forget that the blasters rifles, when used in total combat, cause a small burn (Remember Han being shot?)
And then we have the Enterprise carving trough to the planets mantle with a phaser (and sitting in the suns corona) and hand-held phasers vaporizing man-sized targets. Doesn't seem so weak to me, now does it?
I recently read a oh-so-glorified fanfic of the Empire invading the alpha quadrant. I laughed.
Oh, don't get me wrong, the Federation stands no chance against the Empire by the sheer virtue of size difference. But that's not a fair match, now is it, pitting an entire galaxy against a dozen planets? Now, the ST vs. SW would be a far more fair.
And let's not forget using EU stuff (that adds stuff stolen/taken from other franchies, stuff that was never mentioned before), while using only limited ST stuff (why not use temporal shield, time-travel, phased torpedos, etc..?) Or making ST inept at the very thing they should excel in - research. That's all the federation does anyway, they got a science boner!
For all it's glory, SW is like 40K - no real progress. The Old Republic, the Empire, the New One - exactly the same stuff, different packaging! You moved on from the proto X-wing to the X-wing in several thousands years. Go you!
Have I commited Heresy here?
Oh well...heresy is fun.