Fundamental differences

[Stark]

Which would be great, if there weren't huge piles of evidence all in one direction from both sides. By declaring simulateously that we 'have to' assume they're kinda-sorta equal for there to be a discussion and then spinning a load of horseshit to support this, you're implicitly discarding all the other evidence, because we 'have to' for there to be a discussion so anything that makes one side massively outclass the other is ignored (ie the vast majority of data).

PROTIP - there doesn't have to be a discussion, and there isn't one, because it's finished. Logically we examine the evidence and draw conclusions from it, and not make up pipe dreams to support by ignoring everything else. The very fact that you're quibbling about strategically (and even tactically) irrelevant technologies shows how worthless the discussion is and why it's been dead for years.

Your hilarious misunderstanding of how gravity works, and thus the energy expended by hovering objects like docking platforms, is just icing on the cake of the make-it-up train. But you're the guy who claims SW doesn't use 'mass-energy conversions' when they have duplicators and power their high-end military hardware with hypermatter annihilation.

[The Spartan]

I'm not going to hit everything, because I just don't have the time but there are a couple of things that I just had to comment on.

I agree the Enterprise is no match at all for a Star Destroyer....because the ISD is larger, armored, and bristling with huge guns vs the relatively unarmed fragile politically correct exploration vehicles Starfleet calls warships...not because of lame assumptions the Enterprise tech is so much weaker it could fire forever and never penetrate the shields.

That's not an assumption dickhead, it's based upon a comparison of energy absorption vs energy output. The absorption ability of the ISD's shields is so high that, yes, the Enterprise could fire until it's reactor ran out of fuel and never penetrate.

I understand this perfectly. And It is completly non-applicable and irrelevant when talking about Sci-fi tech which specifically breaks laws and measurements of physics as we understand them. What you don't seem to understand is the 'rules' of good science fiction are that it must be internally consistent. It can break other rules, that is what makes it Science Fiction and not Science, proper! How do you think an ISD goes goes to hyperspace speed? It might be possible, using current real physics, to estimate the energy required to move a mass the size of an ISD halfway across the galaxy. It is completely wrong to assume the sci fi hyperdrive tech uses that same real figure of energy in order to accomplish it. The whole point of the tech is that it breaks those limitations

And it's not being analyzed on those limitations. That would only hinder us if we were trying to explain precisely how they accomplish these things. Determining the energy required to perform a particular task, like vaporizing an asteroid, does not require us to know how they generated the energy, but we can still arrive at a conclusion on the minimum energy needed.

I dont even understand your objection. It is stated hundreds of times the Warp core runs on Matter/antimatter reactions ie turning matter directly into energy. and the transporters and replicators work by converting matter into energy and vise versa. Phasers seem to work by converting matter into energy, and not by heat, vaporization or any type of explosion (which I actually see in evidence on the FAQs here on this site) . The laws of Conservation of Energy and Mass specifically can be circumnavigated in cases where you convert enery into mass or vise versa. That is controlled by E=mc^2, a real equation.

You are a goddamned idiot. E=mc^2 does not violate Conservation of Energy and Mass. For fuck's sake it is an integral part of it since that gives you the absolute upper limit of how much energy you can get out of any given mass!

That is a bunch of BS. Your idea imperial ships are near invulnerable is an assumption at the start of the conversation, not a logical conclusion based on evidence. My call is to discard those assumptions and actually analyze it. There are any number of examples of ISD's not being (even close to) invulnerable. At least one was destroyed by simple asteroids, remember that, or are we just using selective evidence that supports our preconcived opinion? If you believe it is invulnerable at the start of the conversation you can concoct any lame explanation to justify it later. Circular reasoning

Imperial ships invulnerability (which is not absolute, only compared to Trek-tech ships and no one here has said otherwise) is not a goddamned assumption. This argument has been going on a long goddamn time and the fact that a Wars ship would annihilate Trek fleets is based upon calculation after calculation that are themselves based upon observation after observation.

Oh, and just a tidbit, that asteroid struck a ship with no shields and did not destroy that ship. It only took the bridge (notice I didn't say bridge tower) out. Hell of a difference there. The force of impact actually destroyed the asteroid where as a similar sized asteroid wouldn't even know the Enterprise was there.

[NecronLord]

I understand this perfectly. And It is completly non-applicable and irrelevant when talking about Sci-fi tech which specifically breaks laws and measurements of physics as we understand them.

Are you suggesting that a meter is not the same in Star Trek as it is in reality? The work done by a force of one newton moving through a meter - a joule - is the same. The "measurements of physics as we understand them" still apply. Where some unknown hypertech breaks physical laws, we quantify it - a warp drive works on mechanisms far beyond us, but we can still work out how fast it goes when distances of a given number of light years are crossed in a given time.

What you don't seem to understand is the 'rules' of good science fiction are that it must be internally consistent. It can break other rules, that is what makes it Science Fiction and not Science, proper! How do you think an ISD goes goes to hyperspace speed?

It doesn't matter. Aside from 'it uses a lot of energy' no one tries to work out anything based on such intangibles. We just measure how fast it goes, for the most part.

It might be possible, using current real physics, to estimate the energy required to move a mass the size of an ISD halfway across the galaxy. It is completely wrong to assume the sci fi hyperdrive tech uses that same real figure of energy in order to accomplish it. The whole point of the tech is that it breaks those limitations

And when have you seen anyone trying to directly calculate how much energy is needed for a hyperdrive? We can get a lower limit, as it's supposedly the highest output function an ISD can perform, so it obviously uses as much power as the ISD can generate, but that's it.

Now on top of that we are comparing 2 different techs from 2 different sci fi stories and you want to try to use estimates of how much real energy it would take to accomplish it as the definitive comparision. nonsense. This reminds me of math students who can solve equations but have no idea how to put a word problem into the form of a valid equation. If you mess that part up all your math work is a waste of time.

Do you even understand what you're talking about, or are you desperately trying to flail about to try and get a point? I honestly want to know.

As I already said, if you assume any given technology example does NOT break real current physics then sure, you can measure it like that.

Yes, you can. As there's no evidence of such 'fundamental differences,' it is a fair bet that melting an iron ingot of a given size requires the same energy in Star Wars as it does in real life. Do you understand this?

In fact, I'm stopping with this, I'll try and get onto some of your other comments later if you reply, but first I want you to answer this.

Does it take the same amount of energy to melt a block of iron in equal size, in Star Trek and in reality? Yea or nay? If Geordi LaForge and John the blacksmith down the road both decide to melt pieces of iron of equal size, do those pieces of iron have the same latent heat of fusion?

[Darth Onasi]

That isnt arbitrary at all. The reason is the base tech is totally and obviously different. For example, energy expenditure for a Fed shuttle craft to hover a few meters in the air would seem considerable with its thrusters firing continually, following regular newtonian physics. A SW craft to do the same would seem to be near zero energy expenditure. Luke's piece of junk speeder and many other vechicles do it parked! It is a terrible assumption to say well that means SW craft have orders of magnitude more energy, and they can just afford to waste it for no reason. No, they clearly work very differently. This is totally ignored in all the analysis I see here, such as the attempts to quantify weapon and shield power.

So you decide to assume they're magically different techs working on different laws of physics.. because you say so?

I agree the Enterprise is no match at all for a Star Destroyer....because the ISD is larger, armored, and bristling with huge guns vs the relatively unarmed fragile politically correct exploration vehicles Starfleet calls warships...not because of lame assumptions the Enterprise tech is so much weaker it could fire forever and never penetrate the shields.

What Starfleet does or does not call it's ships is irrelevant. They're warships. They have to be. In case you haven't noticed, the Federation is surrounded by hostile, warlike empires. Do you think the Romulans make purposefully weak exploration ships?
The TNG era Galaxy class may have been mired by hideous design flaws and useless baggage (lolfamilies) but it was still a warship. It was sent to patrol war zones, perform peacekeeping and to project power.
To claim that Federation ships are purposefully less than they could be is ludicrous.

Now on top of that we are comparing 2 different techs from 2 different sci fi stories and you want to try to use estimates of how much real energy it would take to accomplish it as the definitive comparision. nonsense. This reminds me of math students who can solve equations but have no idea how to put a word problem into the form of a valid equation. If you mess that part up all your math work is a waste of time.

If you can't work out a common ground for both sides, what's the point of a debate?
I might as well claim that the Emperor will use the Force to turn the entire Federation into turnips, by your logic.

Was there some talk of a "govenor", I dont recall that?

It's mentioned in several source books, and many times in the EU.

Clearly the ISD's were chasing Leia's ship, just as they always (inneffetively) chased the Rebellion all over the galaxy.

Vader's ship was chasing Leia's. Then we see two others join the attack on the Falcon. Where did they come from then? They were clearly a local patrol.

The Hutts ruled it and there is no evidence that changed. Vader tells them to land and search for the driods, and it still certainly did not look like the empire controlled the planet or was garrisoned there. they were searching the streets with no evidence of any base to be seen. Also this had to be the first time Vader was back since Episode III or do you think he stopped by secretly to have tea and crumpets with his relatives whom he now fried there? His uncle hates Vader rember and agreed to hide Luke from him, he isnt living there if it was Imperial controlled and Vader paid visits, and neither would be Obi-wan. Plus note Han was surprised to see ISDs in the vacinity of Tattoine, they were worried about "Imperial entanglement" en route to the destination - Alderron - inside the Republic. It was Vader and the imperial arrival, following Leia who was looking for Obi wan, that triggered all the events in ep4. The idea the empire already controlled Tatoonie doesnt make any plot sense at all.

Your bullshit assumptions don't change canon. If the Stormtroopers had just landed there, how did they manage to tame and ride the local giant lizards so fast? That alone implies a continuous presence there.
Moreover, Obi-Wan isn't exactly shocked to see Imperial troops in Mos Eisley, and if Tatooine were off the Imperial chart entirely how do so many of the kids from there get to apply for the Imperial academy? (Wedge, Biggs, Luke wanted to).

You mean after they sent out thousands of probes and still had no idea where they were going until Vader seemingly used force premonition to determine were to go?

Outright lie, Piett points out Hoth before Vader decides to go there.
Moreover, deciding where to go isn't the same as knowing how to get there.

Obi Wan specifically complained about the seperatists ability to rebuild ships and armies despite thier battle losses. In other words, despite battle victory, the Republic's attacks were totally ineffective at ending the war because they lacked navigational and sensor ability to locate and destoy enemy bases and infastructure in unknown space. The same thing happened again with the Rebellion. I dont see what you think is different between the Republic/Empire in this respect.

Right and it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that the Seperatists have the majority of the galaxy's industrial giants on their side, that the Republic was in fact assaulting key Seperatist worlds and that both sides were led by men with a vested interest in not ending the war any time soon.

The empire fails so badly in this, they try to win through sheer terror - The Death Star - and note the admiral doesnt even want to send the Death Star to any remote planet. It is for intimidation and control of the core systems

You mean Tarkin? He didn't feel like destroying Dantooine because nobody would care. How the hell do you conclude from that that he couldn't? Even though it's implied he was going to destroy it anyway (he didn't as scouts reported it was abandoned)and even though he later takes the Death Star to the equally remote Yavin 4 to crush the Rebellion?

If your scenario is that a fleet of ISD appear in earth orbit, can Star fleet defeat them...well no they cant. A Dominion fleet appearing in earth orbit would have the same effect. So what? it is a dumb scenario which purposely bypasses whatever strengths, strategic advantages or frankly tricks the federation might have up its sleave.

What tricks, moron? The fact is, the Dominion can't show up at Earth's door with all their forces and expect to win, at least not without the wormhole.
The Empire can. They don't need wormholes once they're in the milky way, and their production capacity outstrips the Dominion wholesale.

Umm, The Dominion had a genetically enginereed soldier race with all kinds of goodies including personal cloaking devices, shield ignoring weapons and damping fields which rendered federation technology useless

The soldiers were morons and their toys easily overcome, this compares to the Empire how?

Edit: Also, the Dominion's genetic and cloning technology is so rubbish, they can't engineer loyalty into their own soldiers, and have to enforce it through religious fanatacism and drugs instead.
The latter in particular causing a whole mess of problems and creating an extra supply train that can be cut off by the enemy.

Conversely in Star Wars, loyalty and subliminal commands (e.g. order 66) can be directly implanted into clone soldiers.

[Peptuck]

To assume the weapons, shields, reactors and everything else of both sides are anything except derivatives of these 2 different base technologies, seems to be making it up at you go along.

Yes, because that's exactly how real technology works. After all, internal combustion, rocket engines, nuclear power plants are quite clearly derivatives of the water wheel.

Oh, wait.

It is a terrible assumption to say well that means SW craft have orders of magnitude more energy, and they can just afford to waste it for no reason. No, they clearly work very differently. This is totally ignored in all the analysis I see here, such as the attempts to quantify weapon and shield power.

You don't get it do you? The conclusions that SW vessels produce vastly more energy than their ST counterparts isn't a conclusion based on how well the fucking things float in the air, it is based on how well the fucking things blow shit up and how well they resist having their shit blown up in turn.

I agree the Enterprise is no match at all for a Star Destroyer....because the ISD is larger, armored, and bristling with huge guns vs the relatively unarmed fragile politically correct exploration vehicles Starfleet calls warships...not because of lame assumptions the Enterprise tech is so much weaker it could fire forever and never penetrate the shields.

Except observed effects of Federation weaponry and calculations regarding those weapons most definitively put its output vastly lower than what an ISD is capable of.

Thats fine. you people are clinging to your groupthink assumptions so strongly here that I challenge some of them and you assume I am saying something other then what I said: I agreed, the Federation is no match for the empire in an open military conflict.

The Federation then routes the Dominion from its section of the galaxy completely - BUT does not conquer the Dominion's home sector either. It is the same with one powerful menacing foe after the other, no reason the Empire would be different.

Protip: saying that the Federation would be able to fend off the Empire like it did the Dominion is saying that they can match the Empire.

Was there some talk of a "govenor", I dont recall that? Clearly the ISD's were chasing Leia's ship, just as they always (inneffetively) chased the Rebellion all over the galaxy. The Hutts ruled it and there is no evidence that changed. Vader tells them to land and search for the driods, and it still certainly did not look like the empire controlled the planet or was garrisoned there. they were searching the streets with no evidence of any base to be seen. Also this had to be the first time Vader was back since Episode III or do you think he stopped by secretly to have tea and crumpets with his relatives whom he now fried there? His uncle hates Vader rember and agreed to hide Luke from him, he isnt living there if it was Imperial controlled and Vader paid visits, and neither would be Obi-wan. Plus note Han was surprised to see ISDs in the vacinity of Tattoine, they were worried about "Imperial entanglement" en route to the destination - Alderron - inside the Republic. It was Vader and the imperial arrival, following Leia who was looking for Obi wan, that triggered all the events in ep4. The idea the empire already controlled Tatoonie doesnt make any plot sense at all.

Okay, let me repeat this for you.

The Stormtroopers had established checkpoints. They were conducting patrols. The Empire had a fleet of starships overhead. They had complete control over the planet at their whims.

Do you honestly think that just because there's no garrison that they are not in control, when they can casually swoop in and no one tries to stop them? Do you think that because Assfuck, Kansas doesn't have 24/7 martial law that it is not under the control of the United States?

If your scenario is that a fleet of ISD appear in earth orbit, can Star fleet defeat them...well no they cant. A Dominion fleet appearing in earth orbit would have the same effect. So what? it is a dumb scenario which purposely bypasses whatever strengths, strategic advantages or frankly tricks the federation might have up its sleave.

Except that this is entirely within the capability of the Empire. Once they have the location of Earth, they can casually bypass all of the Federations tricks and traps and defenses. This is like complaining that in a battle between ancient Rome and the modern United States that it is a dumb scenario that the Americans simply fly over the Legions.

I dont even understand your objection. It is stated hundreds of times the Warp core runs on Matter/antimatter reactions ie turning matter directly into energy. and the transporters and replicators work by converting matter into energy and vise versa. Phasers seem to work by converting matter into energy, and not by heat, vaporization or any type of explosion (which I actually see in evidence on the FAQs here on this site) . The laws of Conservation of Energy and Mass specifically can be circumnavigated in cases where you convert enery into mass or vise versa. That is controlled by E=mc^2, a real equation.

I was under the impression you were taling about SW tech, not Fed.

No it is the rebellion that claims to know where the imperial fleet is (incorrectly). The empire clearly had no idea where the rebel fleet was and so the Emperor specifically said he set a trap to get them to come to Endor.

What of the reports of the Rebel fleet massing at Sullust?

Wanna try that again?

The continued existence of ANY rebel fleet and bases by the time of the Return of the Jedi, let alone the fact that it was strong enough to DEFEAT the imperial fleet at Endor even with the Death Star blasting its ships....this all signifies the Imperial missions across the galaxy to explore, track down and wipe out the rebellion were utter and complete failures.

You, uh, don't get guerilla warfare, do you? The inability to track a small, decentrilized, mobile, well-hidden enemy does not translate into an inability to do recon work. If you disagree, I point you toward the single most efficient and powerful reconnasiance and intelligence network on the planet - the one possessed by the United States.

Especially considering there were at least two instances (Hoth and Derra IV) where the Empire did find the Rebels - and pasted them.

And again, not being able to find the Rebels' mobile fleet in a 400 billion-star galaxy does not translate well into being unable to assault a fixed government in a conventional war.

There is no evidence the empire (or republic) was ever good at recon, navigation, exploration or long distance projection of power.

The part where the mapped every single star in the entire galaxy says otherwise.

That is a bunch of BS. Your idea imperial ships are near invulnerable is an assumption at the start of the conversation, not a logical conclusion based on evidence.

Fromt he Five Minutes guide you so helpfully supplied in your first post:

Acclamator Troop Transport
Reactor power: 200 trillion GW max
Shield heat dissipation: 70 trillion GW peak

Enterprise-D - Reactor power: ~4 billion GW at max warp 9.6
Shield heat dissipation: 3311 GW peak (473 GW per generator x 7 generators)

You were saying, junior?

At least one was destroyed by simple asteroids, remember that, or are we just using selective evidence that supports our preconcived opinion?

An ISD that had been pounded by asteroids for days on end and had lowered its shields to communicate, yes.

[Darth Onasi]

At least one was destroyed by simple asteroids, remember that, or are we just using selective evidence that supports our preconcived opinion?

An ISD that had been pounded by asteroids for days on end and had lowered its shields to communicate, yes.

Which wasn't even destroyed, mind you. Only losing it's bridge in the direct hit.
Meanwhile the Enterprise-D was completely destroyed (in a reset button timeloop of course) after having it's warp nacelle grazed by a passing starship.

[NecronLord]

nuclear power plants are quite clearly derivatives of the water wheel.

Well, there does tend to be a water wheel in them somewhere.

Well, technically a turbine. But hey, it's deriving energy from H20 flowing through it...

[Ted C]

I'm surprised anyone would disagree the empire uses gravity based tech and the federation uses matter/antimatter and matter-energy conversion tech.

There's no argument over whether the Empire has the technology to control gravity, but that doesn't make it the "basis" of their technological system. There's also no question that the Federation has matter-antimatter reaction fuel systems, but that doesn't give them a "get out of Conservation of Energy free" card.

That is a pretty basic aspect of what is going on in both of these worlds that are integral to the way those societies function. For example starfleet ships and shuttles all seem to have thrusters which operate by regular physics but Star wars ships can float seemingly without energy expenditure or downward thrust (against gravity) of any kind.

Imperial ships use repulsorlift (anti-gravity) technology in planetary gravity wells, but they also use reaction drives out in space. The Federation has anti-gravity technology, but not of the same scale.

Yes starships have artificial gravity, but they are many times attributed to "magnetic" deck plating and no real evidence this is actually control over gravity like star wars.

It can't just be "magnetic" deck plates, because non-ferrous objects fall to the deck just like ferrous items. Further, people on the ship don't suffer any of the negative health effects of living in microgravity. Face it, artificial gravity on Federation starships is just what it says on the package.

Whats more the Trek gravity has to be actively powered (ie it is somehow simulated), the SW gravity seems virtually inherent, they have tech to manipulte how much gravity mass actually has - possibly permanently - something specifically stated to be impossible in Trek (on more then one occasion).

Yes, artificial gravity on Federation starships does seem to require a constant power supply. There's no indication that Imperial AG tech doesn't also require a constant power supply, so I don't see what point you're trying to make. The whole bit about the Empire permanently changing something's mass seems to have come from someone's nether regions.

On the other hand SW does not use replicator, transporter, or mass/energy conversions

The Empire apparently has technology similar to replicators, which the call duplicators. Whether it has the same capabilities is something of an open question. There's little evidence of transporter-like technology, but I don't see that it matters to the basic argument of which side would be victorious in an armed conflict. The Empire undoubtedly has some kind of technology for turning matter into energy, because feats like blowing planets into bits simply require far more energy than you could expect to obtain by any other means. If they're getting their energy from something else, their energy production capacity still far exceeds anything we've ever seen from the Federation.

To assume the weapons, shields, reactors and everything else of both sides are anything except derivatives of these 2 different base technologies, seems to be making it up at you go along.

No, to assume that every Federation technology must somehow be based on matter/anti-matter reactions or that every Imperial technology must somehow be based on gravity control is just absurd. That's like saying modern computer technology is based on internal combustion engine technology. Any large, advanced civilization will have made discoveries and developed technologies in many unrelated fields.

For example, energy expenditure for a Fed shuttle craft to hover a few meters in the air would seem considerable with its thrusters firing continually, following regular newtonian physics. A SW craft to do the same would seem to be near zero energy expenditure.[/quote]

You are making an unfounded assumption that the Imperial craft isn't expending energy.

Of course, it doesn't necessarily have to be; technically, a something isn't exchanging energy with the gravity well if it's neither rising nor falling, but the method used to support it may require energy. For instance, if a brick is sitting on top of a table, the table isn't using any energy to support the brick. On the other hand, if you're holding a brick in you hand, your arm is using energy to keep it up. One method is much more efficient than the other.

What you are suggesting is that Imperial anti-gravity technology is far more advanced than Federation anti-gravity technology. I don't think anyone here will disagree with that assertion.

Luke's piece of junk speeder and many other vechicles do it parked! It is a terrible assumption to say well that means SW craft have orders of magnitude more energy, and they can just afford to waste it for no reason. No, they clearly work very differently. This is totally ignored in all the analysis I see here, such as the attempts to quantify weapon and shield power.

The fact that Imperial technology is extremely energy-efficient in this one particular field does not discount the energy requirements of many other feats of Imperial technology.

I agree the Enterprise is no match at all for a Star Destroyer....because the ISD is larger, armored, and bristling with huge guns vs the relatively unarmed fragile politically correct exploration vehicles Starfleet calls warships...not because of lame assumptions the Enterprise tech is so much weaker it could fire forever and never penetrate the shields.

It's simply a matter of observation. Shattering an asteroid of a certain size and composition takes a certain amount of energy; end of story. Imperial ships can destroy asteroids far more easily than Federation ships, so it's clear that Imperial weapons are far more powerful than Federation weapons.

I understand this perfectly. And It is completly non-applicable and irrelevant when talking about Sci-fi tech which specifically breaks laws and measurements of physics as we understand them.

Conservation of Energy is one of the laws of physics that's pretty damned immutable. If you want to discount it, you need incontrovertible evidence that this law is being set aside in the sci-fi work in question. There is nothing in either Star Wars or Star Trek that requires CofE to be set aside; they just require the availability of large amounts of energy.

What you don't seem to understand is the 'rules' of good science fiction are that it must be internally consistent. It can break other rules, that is what makes it Science Fiction and not Science, proper! How do you think an ISD goes goes to hyperspace speed? It might be possible, using current real physics, to estimate the energy required to move a mass the size of an ISD halfway across the galaxy. It is completely wrong to assume the sci fi hyperdrive tech uses that same real figure of energy in order to accomplish it. The whole point of the tech is that it breaks those limitations

You seem to have entirely overlooked how people here go about energy calculations. We don't try to estimate energy requirements for unknowns like hyperspace travel or warp travel; we base them on events that we actually can quantify, like the vaporization of metals, the boosting of mass to orbit, and other events that can actually be calculated.

Now on top of that we are comparing 2 different techs from 2 different sci fi stories and you want to try to use estimates of how much real energy it would take to accomplish it as the definitive comparision. nonsense. This reminds me of math students who can solve equations but have no idea how to put a word problem into the form of a valid equation. If you mess that part up all your math work is a waste of time.

If we say it takes a certain amount of energy to lift a 10-ton mass from the Earth's surface to open space, it does not matter how we do it. We can use rockets, railguns, electromagnetic repulsion, anti-gravity technology, whatever... the amount of energy to get that mass from the ground to space still has to be expended. The energy expended might be much higher than absolutely necessary if the method used is inefficient, but the minimum amount of energy needed does not change. We absolutely can determine lower limits for the energy requirements of many feats seen in Star Wars and Star Trek, no matter what fictional technology is being used to accomplish them.

As I already said, if you assume any given technology example does NOT break real current physics then sure, you can measure it like that. The problem is it legitimate to argue about what does and what does not break those rules. At least some aspects of the tech of both SW and ST must and obviously does break these rules.

And we have every reason to assume that real current physics apply until we are forced to conclude otherwise. We are forced to conclude that lightspeed is not an insurmountable limit on speed. We are not forced to conclude that we should throw away thermodynamics.

I totally disagree. The reason it is not mentioned in Star Wars is because it is such a fundamentally integral part of thier society that characters always assume it is there and working, without questions about it, plot points about it, or any effort whatsoever to make it happen.

Basic artificial gravity on Federation starships is integral to their operation, too. People walk around those corridors assuming it is there and working in every single TV episode and movie.

The tech of Anti-gravity is the basis of large sections of society in star wars. We see it endlessly in everything from vehicles to ships even large scale structure construction. It appears that using, creating and neutralizing gravity is exactly the fundamental power in SW (besides the force).

Why? Why should we assume that this one well-developed technology is the only significant technology in the Empire?

There are only 3 real possibilities here for the empire:
1)manipulate gravity in a way that allows manipulation and movement of mass at near infinite efficiency, and then use conventional power sources like chemicals or nuclear
2)somehow use control of gravity as a way of actually generating power (this might be infinately renewable, but not infinately strong)
3)some other source of infinite energy is available so much so that the conventional laws such as gravity dont even present any significant power drain on this advanced tech

I don't see how any of these possibilities have any merit. The Empire has advanced, efficient technology for controlling gravity. So what? That does not mean it has to be the basis of their interstellar propulsion technology, their power technology, their computer technology, their weapon technology, or anything else.

The first two have limits, and yet could explain the Star Wars galaxy. The third is so fantasical and absurd, think about the side affects. Yet that is the one you guys embrace. The empire is near omnipotent with infinite energy. Silly

You appear to just be looking for excuses to cut the energy requirements of Star Wars technology, no matter how many laws of physics you have to throw by the wayside to do it. That's an attitude that's pretty typical of trekkies.

Was there some talk of a "govenor", I dont recall that? Clearly the ISD's were chasing Leia's ship, just as they always (inneffetively) chased the Rebellion all over the galaxy. The Hutts ruled it and there is no evidence that changed. Vader tells them to land and search for the driods, and it still certainly did not look like the empire controlled the planet or was garrisoned there. they were searching the streets with no evidence of any base to be seen.

And the fact that the Empire landed troops on Tatooine with impunity, established checkpoints in major cities, and generally did whatever the damned well pleased on the planet without a hint of complaint or resistance from the Hutts means nothing to you? Tatooine was a backwater planet with almost nothing of value, so the Empire may not have thought it worth putting a permanent base there, but it's clear from the events of A New Hope that they were absolutely in control of the planet.

Also this had to be the first time Vader was back since Episode III or do you think he stopped by secretly to have tea and crumpets with his relatives whom he now fried there? His uncle hates Vader rember and agreed to hide Luke from him, he isnt living there if it was Imperial controlled and Vader paid visits, and neither would be Obi-wan.

That didn't make a lick of sense. Vader didn't know he had a son until after the events of ANH, so he had no reason to go back to Tatooine (which would hold nothing but painful memories for him), and as the right-hand man of the Emperor, he undoubtedly had more important things to be doing, like hunting Jedi who had escaped the initial purge.

Obi Wan specifically complained about the seperatists ability to rebuild ships and armies despite thier battle losses. In other words, despite battle victory, the Republic's attacks were totally ineffective at ending the war because they lacked navigational and sensor ability to locate and destoy enemy bases and infastructure in unknown space.

Knowing where the planets are and knowing what's on them are two entirely different problems. We know where Iran is, but we're not sure where all of their uranium enrichment facilities are. In a galaxy with at least a million inhabited planets and a lot more planets that could be inhabited, it's not that hard to hide. It's not like the Federation would have been able to find the Hoth base any more easily than the Empire.

The same thing happened again with the Rebellion. I dont see what you think is different between the Republic/Empire in this respect. The empire fails so badly in this, they try to win through sheer terror - The Death Star - and note the admiral doesnt even want to send the Death Star to any remote planet. It is for intimidation and control of the core systems

Yes, yes... it's primarily a terror weapon designed to keep planets with significant industrial capacity from secretly aiding the Rebels.

However, can you seriously suggest that if the Death Star showed up in Earth orbit, the Federation wouldn't immediately surrender? The Empire doesn't need to be able to locate every Federation outpost to defeat the Federation; they only need to locate a few core worlds and threaten them with destruction or orbital bombardment.

I dont even understand your objection. It is stated hundreds of times the Warp core runs on Matter/antimatter reactions ie turning matter directly into energy.

But antimatter is not something found in nature; the Federation has to make it by using other power sources (solar power or fusion, most of the time), and inefficiencies in such processes mean that the amount of energy used to make a given amount of fuel is more than you will actually get back when you use that fuel. Merely possessing the technology to make antimatter and use it as fuel is not a "get out of Conservation of Energy free" card.

and the transporters and replicators work by converting matter into energy and vise versa.

Transporters and replicators appear to work by rearranging matter, not by converting it into energy and back. Everything we know about replicators indicates that they rearrange atoms stored on the ship into a desired pattern, not that they create objects from pure energy. Transporters, which use similar methods, appear to transfer all the characteristics of a set of particles at the start location to another set of particles at the destination -- effectively disintegrating the subject at the start point and building an exact duplicate at the destination. TNG "Second Chances" even reinforces this interpretation when the transporter system accidentally creates an extra copy of William Riker! If he was just moving from one place to another, a duplication wouldn't be possible. Since he's being reconstructed, it's possible for the disintegration at the start end to fail, while the duplication at the destination still succeeds. It's a bizarre occurrence, but it actually makes some sense because of what we know about transporters and the real physics of quantum entanglement.

Phasers seem to work by converting matter into energy, and not by heat, vaporization or any type of explosion (which I actually see in evidence on the FAQs here on this site) . The laws of Conservation of Energy and Mass specifically can be circumnavigated in cases where you convert enery into mass or vise versa. That is controlled by E=mc^2, a real equation.

Conservation of Mass/Energy is actually not circumnavigated. The exchange has to be balanced. If you create a certain amount of mass, you have to remove a corresponding amount of energy to do it, and vice versa. If a phaser were to actually convert a human body into energy, you would get an explosion comparable to over a thousand tons of TNT going off. We don't see such a blast, so we know a phaser doesn't convert a body into energy; it must convert a body into something else.

Really, it sounds like you're just trying to come up with a bunch of anti-scientific crap to make the contest sound more even.

[Darth Wong]

People who peddle this "they have superphysics so modern science doesn't count" stupidity don't understand that it only works if the two sets of physical rules are mutually exclusive. In other words, for their argument to hold water they must be able to access physical phenomena unavailable to us, but they must also be unable to access physical phenomena available to us.

Otherwise, it's trivial to show how they can produce infinite-energy devices, because they can use their superphysics to do work which is impossible according to our physics, and then use our physics to convert that work into other forms of energy.

Of course, it's completely absurd for them to be unable to use Newtonian physics; human beings could not possibly exist in such an environment.

[Ted C]

Conservation of Mass/Energy is actually not circumnavigated. The exchange has to be balanced. If you create a certain amount of mass, you have to remove a corresponding amount of energy to do it, and vice versa. If a phaser were to actually convert a human body into energy, you would get an explosion comparable to over a thousand tons of TNT going off. We don't see such a blast, so we know a phaser doesn't convert a body into energy; it must convert a body into something else.

Holy misplaced decimal points... it would be more like a 1700 Megaton blast.

[Stark]

People who peddle this "they have superphysics so modern science doesn't count" stupidity don't understand that it only works if the two sets of physical rules are mutually exclusive. In other words, for their argument to hold water they must be able to access physical phenomena unavailable to us, but they must also be unable to access physical phenomena available to us.

Otherwise, it's trivial to show how they can produce infinite-energy devices, because they can use their superphysics to do work which is impossible according to our physics, and then use our physics to convert that work into other forms of energy.

Of course, it's completely absurd for them to be unable to use Newtonian physics; human beings could not possibly exist in such an environment.

I actually just noticed the main thrust of his analysis while reading the responses of others. He's saying that the Empire has only xyz, and the Feds have only abc, and QED these single elements are the basis of their entire technology base, because they don't have the other thing. He's seriously saying SW techology is hinged on gravitics alone, using the evidence that THEY DON'T HAVE TRANSPORTERS FROM ST. I mean, bugger the rest of the SW techbase right? Each faction has unique technologies like in Starcraft! Thus, the Empire's 'gimmick' is gravitics and with tier 3 grav-turbolasers can defeat the Federation's tri-annihilation torpedos!

If this is really how he's thinking, by comparing factions across separate universes and then declaring that this defines them more than the content of their own techbases, that's a very special kind of crazy. I've never seen it before.

[Formless]

Its a new one, but doesn't it essentially boil down to a new variation on the Golden Mean fallacy?

[Stark]

It's the way he goes from comparing two universes and identifying a distinction (with technology in this case) and then works that backwards so that this difference is now fundamental to both sides from top to bottom, even though internally to each universe this 'distinction' is totally irrelevant. It's like he considers vs comparisons more 'true' than the actual evidence from within the universes concerned; after all, he openly says he thinks gravitics is the centre of Imperial tech, and not simply a branch of engineering where they are far in advance of the Federation (along with all the others).

[Formless]

Well, I mean that even if his analysis of the tech types wasn't shit, he is still assuming that different means equal. Even if turbolasers were in some way based off gravitics, or the engines of the empire were similarly reactionless gravity drives, that says nothing to the calculations that say that said turbolasers have more power than the Federations annihilation torpedoes, or the massive evidence that says that the Empire's ships are faster and more maneuverable then Federation ones. That explains the question of how the technology works, not what it is capable of.

To use your analogy with Star Craft, even though their technology is based on different principals, the Protoss should be able to slaughter the Terrans and Zerg with ease if the game were to be more realistic, for the simple reasons that they have the longevity and their technology has the power output* (they can slag planets and do so repeatedly in the events leading up to he game). The only reason that they don't is that it didn't make for very good gameplay or dramatic storytelling. Those conceits do not apply to SWvST, and are a poor logic to use in a debate.

And that is assuming that his suppositions are correct-- in fact, the evidence shows that both factions use generally the same kinds of technology drawn from the same (or nearly) principals in their technology to achieve similar feats, and that the tech used by the Empire is generally more advanced and more developed, and better overall (with a very few exceptions). His arguments are wrong on so many accounts, that "crazy" would probably be a good descriptor for them.

*Note: I say the Protoss should have better power output because of their longevity; in fact they may not, and it is not possible to tell for sure because Star Craft calcs are about as reliable as an astrological reading at times.

[Stark]

Oh yeah I wasn't disagreeing with you, just highlighting the part that is so dumb is breaks my brain.

[Formless]

Oh yeah I wasn't disagreeing with you, just highlighting the part that is so dumb is breaks my brain.

Both forms of dumb break my brain. Where do these people come from, who have never heard of evidence? Is logic really that unpopular?

[Batman]

It apparently is when logic says YOUR side gets royally trounced, or the evidence doesn't support the conclusion you WANT it to.
Though in this case I can't say if the guy is in willful denial or seriously is so clueless that he believes what he's actually saying makes a iota's worth of sense.

[Formless]

IMHO the only reasonable way to proceed with this exercise is to assume that neither is so superior as to be totally invincible to the other, as I see many here like to claim. What the hell is the point of this discussion and this website if you are going to assume that???!!!

I read that and vote for willful denial. Somehow we are all "assuming" the Empire will win instead of accepting the arguments that were put forth years ago that conclusively proved it without a doubt. Has this guy actually read the main site?

[Darth Onasi]

He's also making absurd claims of capabilities against canon, like saying the Republic can't attack Seperatist worlds, when they do, and the Empire doesn't police Tatooine, when they do.
I can only assume his goal is to paint the Federation as the equals of the Rebellion, in that they won't win militarily, but will successfully fight guerilla style.

[Singular Intellect]

What SuperScaleConstruct's arguement seems to boil down to is "We don't know how their technology works or what physics principles they employ, therefore we should throw out our models of physics and technology when analysing it and replace it with...", at which point he kinda of trails off mumbling...

[Lord Revan]

What SuperScaleConstruct's arguement seems to boil down to is "We don't know how their technology works or what physics principles they employ, therefore we should throw out our models of physics and technology when analysing it and replace it with...", at which point he kinda of trails off mumbling...

actually it ends with "my rules which say..." and then trails of mumbling

this time it's using "the path matters" as a smoke screen but it's essentially changing rules until he gets the results he wants.

to illustrate lets take an object that has a mass of 1 kg and lets lift it to a height of 1 m, now the (gravitic) potential energy of that object should be about 10 J (potential energy formula was Mhg where M is mass, h the height (difference) and g the standard gravitic accleration (which is roughly 9.81 m/s^2, but since the other values have only 1 signifigant number so about 10 m/s^2 will do)), now lets put the same object to the same height but before doing that lets do a crazy dance with it, now the potential energy formula would still be Mhg (and thus the energy would be the same).

and now we come to the OP argument, which essentially says that, since in the second case we did a crazy dance before coming to rest, common physics shouldn't apply and we can throw in what ever we wish.

ofc ignoring that in most cases only thing that matters in the energy state before and after, not the path we took there.

[Darth Wong]

Well, I mean that even if his analysis of the tech types wasn't shit, he is still assuming that different means equal. Even if turbolasers were in some way based off gravitics, or the engines of the empire were similarly reactionless gravity drives, that says nothing to the calculations that say that said turbolasers have more power than the Federations annihilation torpedoes, or the massive evidence that says that the Empire's ships are faster and more maneuverable then Federation ones. That explains the question of how the technology works, not what it is capable of.

Don't you see? He is treating technologies as if they're comic book superhero powers, or special unit attributes in a typical computer RTS game. In his mind, they must balance out, because that's the way it always works in those genres.

He has absolutely no concept whatsoever of how real technology works, or how it is designed, or how it is analyzed. We're talking about pure kiddie-think here.

[Formless]

Agreed, although I think it is more simply that these kind of people for whatever reason think that life must ultimately be fair. In those games, sure its fair, if you discount skill between players. In this debate, it is not.

[Darth Wong]

Agreed, although I think it is more simply that these kind of people for whatever reason think that life must ultimately be fair. In those games, sure its fair, if you discount skill between players. In this debate, it is not.

I'm not so sure they think life must always be fair, but they certainly seem to think that fiction should be. As far as they're concerned, since both entities are fictional, they should observe computer game convention rather than any kind of logic. But they're forgetting that this is built into the way the question is asked.

If we ask "according to computer game convention, would Star Wars clobber Star Trek", his answer would be correct: they would probably wind up being about equal, because that's what computer game designers do. The players demand it.

However, that's not what we're asking. We're asking "what would realistically happen", which implies that the rules of this engagement will be drawn from reality, not computer game cliches.

[Alien-Carrot]

You know, being a trekkie myself, (applies flame retardent), i gotta say, this hurts.

It hurts me to see this kind of stupidity applied to a concept that i have some liking of. Ok that didnt make much sense, but you get the point.

Yes starships have artificial gravity, but they are many times attributed to "magnetic" deck plating and no real evidence this is actually control over gravity like star wars.

i honestly cant remember trek ever having magnetic deck plating. in fact the "Enterprise" episode "In a mirror darkly" clearly shows a gravity plate with the actual words "Artifical Gravity" stenciled on it.

And what about "Undiscovered Country", where the bird of prey lost its artifical gravity to a torpedo volley.

And where exactly on those spandex uniforms do you keep the metal boots necessary for magnetic plating to work.

To assume the weapons, shields, reactors and everything else of both sides are anything except derivatives of these 2 different base technologies, seems to be making it up at you go along.

We can currently produce laser bems that can destroy missles in flight, or burn through a double thick cinder block wall. this is not based on matter/anti matter, or gravity control. We can als produce a limited plasma shield, (albeit only 1 inch in diameter), using only electricity and hydrogen. while the plasma shield uses a magnetic field to keep in in shape, it isnt PRODUCED by the gravity, only shaped. and its not based on matter/anti matter at all.

I understand this perfectly. And It is completly non-applicable and irrelevant when talking about Sci-fi tech which specifically breaks laws and measurements of physics as we understand them. What you don't seem to understand is the 'rules' of good science fiction are that it must be internally consistent

First, when has science fiction ever been consistant. Hell, we cant even get a consistant speed for trek ship. Or wars ships for that matter.

Second, rules of good science fiction? What about the rules that govern existance. We call them the laws of physics. And nothing in either genre ever actually breaks those laws, just bends them alot.

As I already said, if you assume any given technology example does NOT break real current physics then sure, you can measure it like that. The problem is it legitimate to argue about what does and what does not break those rules. At least some aspects of the tech of both SW and ST must and obviously does break these rules.

And how exactly does a photon torpedo break the laws of physics?

I totally disagree. The reason it is not mentioned in Star Wars is because it is such a fundamentally integral part of thier society that characters always assume it is there and working, without questions about it, plot points about it, or any effort whatsoever to make it happen. The tech of Anti-gravity is the basis of large sections of society in star wars. We see it endlessly in everything from vehicles to ships even large scale structure construction. It appears that using, creating and neutralizing gravity is exactly the fundamental power in SW (besides the force). There are only 3 real possibilities here for the empire:
1)manipulate gravity in a way that allows manipulation and movement of mass at near infinite efficiency, and then use conventional power sources like chemicals or nuclear
2)somehow use control of gravity as a way of actually generating power (this might be infinately renewable, but not infinately strong)
3)some other source of infinite energy is available so much so that the conventional laws such as gravity dont even present any significant power drain on this advanced tech

The first two have limits, and yet could explain the Star Wars galaxy. The third is so fantasical and absurd, think about the side affects. Yet that is the one you guys embrace. The empire is near omnipotent with infinite energy. Silly

Give me a million dollars, and i can build a landspeeder. using cold war technology. no anti gravity necessary to make something hover. just need electricity and big fans.

Worlds Coolest Car

I dont even understand your objection. It is stated hundreds of times the Warp core runs on Matter/antimatter reactions ie turning matter directly into energy. and the transporters and replicators work by converting matter into energy and vise versa.

Actually, from what i remember, transporters and replicators use magnetic beams to de-molecularize substances, move them to another area, and re-molecularize them. it is never stated that they turn matter into energy, just that they use an energy beam to move the particles to the target location.


And one more thing, if trek has no gravity tech, WHAT THE FUCK ARE THEY USING FOR TRACTOR BEAMS?

And i apoligize to all the intelligent people who read this post and have to decipher my atrocious grammer and spelling. This is what dropping out of highschool does to ones typing skills.