Fundamental differences

[SuperScaleConstruct]

Let me start by saying I agree the Federation would never be able to defeat the Empire. And Star Wars is a heck of a lot cooler then Star Trek. That being said, I disagree with the methods of comparision and reasons for this that I see. From what I see, much of the discussion here has downlplayed some fundamental differences between Star Trek and Star Wars when envisioning warfare between the two and lots of comparisions I see here are hopelessly and absurdly flawed towards star wars when doing any kind of comparision.

First of all the pinnacle of technology for the Emprie is clearly control over gravity and anti-gravity. That is the only thing that explains everything that can be done in Star Wars, seemingly effortlessly. From shields to propulsion, the ability to somewhat ignore mass, the bending of energy... the federation knows nothing of these things.

Federation tech is based on matter anti-matter conversions, both to and from. Replicators, transporters, phasers, warp drive, fundamental changes of one thing into another....the empire knowns nothing of these things.

Given this fundamental difference, and the impossibility of actually being able to predict how these 2 techs interact, I find the explanation that Imperial ships have greater total power output as the begining and end of the argument, to be very weak sauce. Those numbers are derived from assumptions about how much energy is needed to perform given tasks we see on screen. That these numbers would be the same as if we can calculate from newtonian physics with chemical reactions is wrong. They are using grav anti-grav tech or matter-anti matter conversion tech respectively - not chemical reactions using newtonian calculations. Looking at the chart on the main summary page for this discussion (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Ess ... nutes.html) If you want to say some tech, such as SW Turbo Lasers, still output energy that can be measured by newtonian calculations whatever thier power source, thats fine - that explains why the numbers need to be so high to match what we see (evaporation of asteroids ect). If the tech is not inducing a newtonian chemical or thermal reaction such as vaporizing matter, but is instead commencing some kind of matter-energy conversion, well applying a newtonian number of how much energy is needed to vaporize that is completely foul. It MIGHT require an order of magnitute (or more!) of energy to vaporize mass as it would to convert mass into energy - theoretically a process that actually produces energy not uses it.

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???!!!


So then what do we know about the ships and the societies? The Empire's daunting advantage is its grand scale, made possible by its mastery of gravity. To borrow a phrase from Master of Orion, they have super scale construction and ship building techniques which dwarfs the federation in terms of ship size, army size, manufacturing capability, infastructure, number of planets ect. It is an advantage that makes any federation attack on the heart of the empire probably close to meaningless.

But that doesnt mean the empire can invade the federation at will either. Lets rember the vital differences in navigational technology the two have. The Federation is centered on Earth in an outlying arm of the galaxy. They go about exploring thier corner of the galaxy dilligently and at thier own leisure - but at relatively short range in thier corner of it. In stark contrast the Empire is in the center of the galaxy and spans large portions of it. However it is primarily concerned with using its vast fleet to police its known territory. It shows no penchant for exploration at all and the idea it would gather a large fleet to conquerer some distant unknown sector of the galaxy outside of its known territories seems highly unlikely. Think about this - Vader was from Tatoonie and decades after he becomes 2nd in control of the emprie they still have not conquered this known criminal trading post planet! To put it short, despite the empire's grand scale, it is stretched thin across its territory.

An even more important point, not only is the empire disinclined for exploration, they have a significant known technical shortfall compared to the Federation in this area. Star wars ships stick to safe, known hyperspace routes with preplanned flight paths with little if any ability to map or navigate unkown regions on the fly. Scouting new routes is dangerous. Starfleet ships have no such limitation and reguarly fly into unknown territory, changing course to avoid obstacles in real time.

The result of this is that preliminary contact (or battles) between the Federation and the Empire would most likely happen on an imperial world or outpost which the Federation was exploring and most definately not the other way around. No matter the result of any battle - ultimately neither side would be able to reach the heart of the other's territoy to attack. Federation ships have insufficient range and Imperial vessels can not navigate freely into the unknown edges of the galaxy where the Federation resides. Complete stalemate - until one manages to understand the technolgy of the other and masters it enough to combine both fundamentally different technologies into thier society and ships, which could take generations, assuming they even have contact and some sort of trade. IMHO the Federation has a distinct advantage in technological advacement over time, but im not sure if it would matter - they still cant challege the vast fleets of the Empire in the core systems.

Interesingly, if we look at the storylines of both, I think we already see similiar scenarios have occured in both.

In Star Wars, the Empire is continually unable to defeat enemies that hide in the far reaches of the galaxy. The Droid Federation armies, the Rebel Alliance, even in the times of the old Republic- the Sith battle fleet. Each time it is a confounding problem that the empire must spend the bulk of its resources policing its own systems, it is completely ineffective at moving beyond its own borders or into the unknown. There is no reason to believe the Empire would all of a sudden somehow mount an effective assault on an independent power in the outer reaches of the galaxy. They demonstrated repeatly an incompetence in attempting to do so.

In Star Trek, the Federation is extremely adept at always somehow keeping powerful adversaries in check. Probably half the aliens in Star Trek are more powerful then the Federation, but they find a way to neutralize, counter and or somehow keep them at arms length. The dominion war is practiacally a model for how a ST - SW warfare might look like. The Dominion invades with superior numbers in ships that have many technical advantages initially including the ability to ignore Federation deflector shields. The Federation holds them off with politics, logistics and tactical as well as navigational expertise (control of the wormhole!), until a technical advantage is eventually worked out. 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.

[Darth Onasi]

If you want to say some tech, such as SW Turbo Lasers, still output energy that can be measured by newtonian calculations whatever thier power source, thats fine - that explains why the numbers need to be so high to match what we see (evaporation of asteroids ect). If the tech is not inducing a newtonian chemical or thermal reaction such as vaporizing matter, but is instead commencing some kind of matter-energy conversion, well applying a newtonian number of how much energy is needed to vaporize that is completely foul. It MIGHT require an order of magnitute (or more!) of energy to vaporize mass as it would to convert mass into energy - theoretically a process that actually produces energy not uses it.

I don't get what you're saying, you want to arbitrarily assume the process is different from the simplest explanation of what we see for no good reason?

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???!!!

Because long ago there were a lot of stupid people who wanked off to the idea of the Federation beating everything in Star Wars because of superior everything, and these people needed to be put in their place.
The debate now is essentially dead because, yes, the Federation are insects compared to the Empire. It's just how it is.

Think about this - Vader was from Tatoonie and decades after he becomes 2nd in control of the emprie they still have not conquered this known criminal trading post planet! To put it short, despite the empire's grand scale, it is stretched thin across its territory.

I'm sorry, did you somehow miss the Imperial patrol of two Star Destroyers over Tatooine seen in the movie?
Or the fact that Tatooine has a permanent Imperial garrison and governor?

An even more important point, not only is the empire disinclined for exploration, they have a significant known technical shortfall compared to the Federation in this area. Star wars ships stick to safe, known hyperspace routes with preplanned flight paths with little if any ability to map or navigate unkown regions on the fly. Scouting new routes is dangerous. Starfleet ships have no such limitation and reguarly fly into unknown territory, changing course to avoid obstacles in real time.

Did you see the Empire have any trouble navigating to Hoth in ESB? Hardly a safe, known route there.

In Star Wars, the Empire is continually unable to defeat enemies that hide in the far reaches of the galaxy. The Droid Federation armies, the Rebel Alliance, even in the times of the old Republic- the Sith battle fleet. Each time it is a confounding problem that the empire must spend the bulk of its resources policing its own systems, it is completely ineffective at moving beyond its own borders or into the unknown. There is no reason to believe the Empire would all of a sudden somehow mount an effective assault on an independent power in the outer reaches of the galaxy. They demonstrated repeatly an incompetence in attempting to do so.

The Seperatists, who were fighting the Republic, not the Empire, and who achieved victories through force of numbers and Grevious' tactics?
The Rebels, who were constantly on the run, having to keep mobile to avoid the crushing might of the Empire?
The Sith? Do you mean as in KOTOR? The fleet that outnumbered and outgunned the Republic?

In Star Trek, the Federation is extremely adept at always somehow keeping powerful adversaries in check. Probably half the aliens in Star Trek are more powerful then the Federation, but they find a way to neutralize, counter and or somehow keep them at arms length. The dominion war is practiacally a model for how a ST - SW warfare might look like. The Dominion invades with superior numbers in ships that have many technical advantages initially including the ability to ignore Federation deflector shields. The Federation holds them off with politics, logistics and tactical as well as navigational expertise (control of the wormhole!), until a technical advantage is eventually worked out. 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.

Bullshit. The Dominion was held off through the sheer luck of the deus ex machina wormhole aliens making the reinforcement fleet "go away". Even then they were still kicking the Federation's ass. Only a three way alliance between the Klingons, Romulans and Feds turned the tide, and even then it was close.

[The Romulan Republic]

Let me start by saying I agree the Federation would never be able to defeat the Empire. And Star Wars is a heck of a lot cooler then Star Trek. That being said, I disagree with the methods of comparision and reasons for this that I see. From what I see, much of the discussion here has downlplayed some fundamental differences between Star Trek and Star Wars when envisioning warfare between the two and lots of comparisions I see here are hopelessly and absurdly flawed towards star wars when doing any kind of comparision.

Hate to say it, but this is an invitation to have your topic either ripped to shreads or sumarily locked. Don't take it personally.

First of all the pinnacle of technology for the Emprie is clearly control over gravity and anti-gravity. That is the only thing that explains everything that can be done in Star Wars, seemingly effortlessly. From shields to propulsion, the ability to somewhat ignore mass, the bending of energy... the federation knows nothing of these things.

Wrong. The Federation has control over gravity. How else can they walk around on their ships? How else can their ships take off in the manner that they do?

Federation tech is based on matter anti-matter conversions, both to and from. Replicators, transporters, phasers, warp drive, fundamental changes of one thing into another....the empire knowns nothing of these things.

I think you're confusing matter/anti-matter reactions with matter/energy conversions.

Given this fundamental difference, and the impossibility of actually being able to predict how these 2 techs interact, I find the explanation that Imperial ships have greater total power output as the begining and end of the argument, to be very weak sauce.

You can observe what both sides are capable of performing with these technologies, and draw conclusions about what they would be able to do to eachother. Never mind that the Feds have gravity manipulation.

Nor has anyone said that its the bigging and end of the argument, and if they have, their a dumbass for ignoring the Empire's superior propulsion systems and vastly superior numbers. It wouldn't matter if the Federation could one-shot Imperial ships. With those numbers, any senario involving a conventional total war can only end one way.

Those numbers are derived from assumptions about how much energy is needed to perform given tasks we see on screen. That these numbers would be the same as if we can calculate from newtonian physics with chemical reactions is wrong. They are using grav anti-grav tech or matter-anti matter conversion tech respectively - not chemical reactions using newtonian calculations. Looking at the chart on the main summary page for this discussion (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Ess ... nutes.html) If you want to say some tech, such as SW Turbo Lasers, still output energy that can be measured by newtonian calculations whatever thier power source, thats fine - that explains why the numbers need to be so high to match what we see (evaporation of asteroids ect). If the tech is not inducing a newtonian chemical or thermal reaction such as vaporizing matter, but is instead commencing some kind of matter-energy conversion, well applying a newtonian number of how much energy is needed to vaporize that is completely foul. It MIGHT require an order of magnitute (or more!) of energy to vaporize mass as it would to convert mass into energy - theoretically a process that actually produces energy not uses it.

Since you begin by again stating falsely that the Feds don't use gravity manipulation tech, I'm not inclined to trust the rest of your argument. And the Empire used no energy conversion to blow up Alderan (I thought you said they didn't have such tech?), they simply fucking blew it up. Their's your proof of power levels right their. And if the Federation uses exotic techniques that use less energy, while still achieving far less damage than the Empire's weapons are capable of, that hardly strengthens your case.

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???!!!

While I'd love their to be more of a debate here, I'm not going to distort the evidence or make unfounded assumption to make it happen. What's the point of having a debate where we ignore the evidence?

So then what do we know about the ships and the societies? The Empire's daunting advantage is its grand scale, made possible by its mastery of gravity. To borrow a phrase from Master of Orion, they have super scale construction and ship building techniques which dwarfs the federation in terms of ship size, army size, manufacturing capability, infastructure, number of planets ect. It is an advantage that makes any federation attack on the heart of the empire probably close to meaningless.

A lot of that advantage comes from their faster Hyperdrive, which gives them access to vast resources as well.

But that doesnt mean the empire can invade the federation at will either. Lets rember the vital differences in navigational technology the two have. The Federation is centered on Earth in an outlying arm of the galaxy. They go about exploring thier corner of the galaxy dilligently and at thier own leisure - but at relatively short range in thier corner of it. In stark contrast the Empire is in the center of the galaxy and spans large portions of it. However it is primarily concerned with using its vast fleet to police its known territory. It shows no penchant for exploration at all and the idea it would gather a large fleet to conquerer some distant unknown sector of the galaxy outside of its known territories seems highly unlikely. Think about this - Vader was from Tatoonie and decades after he becomes 2nd in control of the emprie they still have not conquered this known criminal trading post planet! To put it short, despite the empire's grand scale, it is stretched thin across its territory.

Yes, the Empire's stretched thin. And maybe they would take a while to getting around to dealing with Trek. But that's ducking out of the debate. You're trying to argue who would win a fight by saying one of them won't fight. As for weather they had the resources if they wished to, they won't need a "large fleet". They would need somewhere between one destroyer and a sector fleet, depending on who you ask. This is from an Empire that can muster over a thousand sector fleets worth of ships.

As for Tatooine, it was controlled by the Empire; they merely iggnored the Hutts as long as the Hutts didn't get in their way. The Empire didn't seem to meet any resistance when they put down troops and a blockade in orbit. Tatooine was Imperial-controlled, or at least too cowed to resist when the Empire blockaded the planet.

An even more important point, not only is the empire disinclined for exploration, they have a significant known technical shortfall compared to the Federation in this area. Star wars ships stick to safe, known hyperspace routes with preplanned flight paths with little if any ability to map or navigate unkown regions on the fly. Scouting new routes is dangerous. Starfleet ships have no such limitation and reguarly fly into unknown territory, changing course to avoid obstacles in real time.

This is a problem. I actually feel that terrain is probably the single biggest challange to an Imperial force unless something like Q gets involved. Their are solutions however, in the form of mass-produced probe droids and buying/stealing star charts from the locals.

The result of this is that preliminary contact (or battles) between the Federation and the Empire would most likely happen on an imperial world or outpost which the Federation was exploring and most definately not the other way around. No matter the result of any battle - ultimately neither side would be able to reach the heart of the other's territoy to attack. Federation ships have insufficient range and Imperial vessels can not navigate freely into the unknown edges of the galaxy where the Federation resides. Complete stalemate - until one manages to understand the technolgy of the other and masters it enough to combine both fundamentally different technologies into thier society and ships, which could take generations, assuming they even have contact and some sort of trade. IMHO the Federation has a distinct advantage in technological advacement over time, but im not sure if it would matter - they still cant challege the vast fleets of the Empire in the core systems.

The Empire can navigate Federation space. It will simply take time and reconissance.

Interesingly, if we look at the storylines of both, I think we already see similiar scenarios have occured in both.

In Star Wars, the Empire is continually unable to defeat enemies that hide in the far reaches of the galaxy. The Droid Federation armies, the Rebel Alliance, even in the times of the old Republic- the Sith battle fleet. Each time it is a confounding problem that the empire must spend the bulk of its resources policing its own systems, it is completely ineffective at moving beyond its own borders or into the unknown. There is no reason to believe the Empire would all of a sudden somehow mount an effective assault on an independent power in the outer reaches of the galaxy. They demonstrated repeatly an incompetence in attempting to do so.

On the contrary, the Empire was searching the entire Outer Rim for the Rebels. It was the fact that the Rebels were a small, mobile force hiding in a vast area of space that kept them alive. And even then, the Empire managed to track them to Hoth and then to Bespin.

Of course, the Empire is in a Galaxy which has been explored and charted over 25 thousand years. They would doubtlessly have a harder time navigating in Trek space. But then, the Federation's a lot less mobile than the Rebels.

In Star Trek, the Federation is extremely adept at always somehow keeping powerful adversaries in check. Probably half the aliens in Star Trek are more powerful then the Federation, but they find a way to neutralize, counter and or somehow keep them at arms length.

Its a question of degree. Alexander the Great was adept at defeating the enemies of his day, sometimes against obscene numerical advantages. That doesn't mean he could beat the modern United States. That's the degree of difference we're talking about when you put the Federation up against the Empire.

The dominion war is practiacally a model for how a ST - SW warfare might look like. The Dominion invades with superior numbers in ships that have many technical advantages initially including the ability to ignore Federation deflector shields. The Federation holds them off with politics, logistics and tactical as well as navigational expertise (control of the wormhole!), until a technical advantage is eventually worked out. 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.

Their are some parallels, though its hardly as similar as you claim. For example, the Federation may be able to survive through political manuvering. But this would be in the form of making consesions to buy the Empire off, not forming a coalition to go defeat them as in the Dominion war. The only allie who could help them much would probably be the Rebels, since they beat the Empire anyways.

Also, if the Federation controlled the wormhole they could presumably use a torpedo to collapse it. Of course, they could have avoided the Dominion war this way too if not for the Prophets. But this presumes they find the wormhole before the Empire establishes a beach head and begins the attack. Once that happens, their's probably not much they can do.

Bottom line, the Dominion is a poor comparison because the Dominion is far less powerful than the Empire in many ways. Its ships are slower, its troops more poorly equiped and less compitant, it has fewer ships, and it has never shown the abillity to blow up a planet.

[Peptuck]

First of all the pinnacle of technology for the Emprie is clearly control over gravity and anti-gravity. That is the only thing that explains everything that can be done in Star Wars, seemingly effortlessly. From shields to propulsion, the ability to somewhat ignore mass, the bending of energy... the federation knows nothing of these things.

Because - you say so.

Given this fundamental difference, and the impossibility of actually being able to predict how these 2 techs interact, I find the explanation that Imperial ships have greater total power output as the begining and end of the argument, to be very weak sauce.

Oh, this should be rich.

Those numbers are derived from assumptions about how much energy is needed to perform given tasks we see on screen. That these numbers would be the same as if we can calculate from newtonian physics with chemical reactions is wrong. They are using grav anti-grav tech or matter-anti matter conversion tech respectively - not chemical reactions using newtonian calculations.

And we know they are using this because - you say so.

Looking at the chart on the main summary page for this discussion (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Ess ... nutes.html) If you want to say some tech, such as SW Turbo Lasers, still output energy that can be measured by newtonian calculations whatever thier power source, thats fine - that explains why the numbers need to be so high to match what we see (evaporation of asteroids ect). If the tech is not inducing a newtonian chemical or thermal reaction such as vaporizing matter, but is instead commencing some kind of matter-energy conversion, well applying a newtonian number of how much energy is needed to vaporize that is completely foul.

And your evidence that they are conducting matter-energy conversion is.......?

It MIGHT require an order of magnitute (or more!) of energy to vaporize mass as it would to convert mass into energy - theoretically a process that actually produces energy not uses it.

WARNING! VIOLATION OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY!

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???!!!

That isn't an assumption. Its a conclusion based on observed fact.

For example, Slave I can destroy a multi-kilometer-wide asteroid with a single bomb. The Enterprise would require its entire torpedo payload to do the same. Ergo, the SW equivilant of a cop car can match the Enterprise's destructive capacity with a single explosive.

To put this in perspective, the Empire's equivilant of the CHIPs can outgun - with a single bullet from their handguns - the Federation's equivilant of the USS Iowa.

Is that comparison ludicrious? Yes. But that is how badly outgunned the Federation is here.

In stark contrast the Empire is in the center of the galaxy and spans large portions of it. However it is primarily concerned with using its vast fleet to police its known territory. *snip* Think about this - Vader was from Tatoonie and decades after he becomes 2nd in control of the emprie they still have not conquered this known criminal trading post planet!

Stormtroopers openly walk the streets on Tatooine and conduct investigations into fugitives. Stormtroopers established checkpoints and areas of control. Star Destroyers were intercepting suspicious civilian traffic. They very much had control over Tatooine.

It shows no penchant for exploration at all and the idea it would gather a large fleet to conquerer some distant unknown sector of the galaxy outside of its known territories seems highly unlikely.

Because - you say so.

An even more important point, not only is the empire disinclined for exploration, they have a significant known technical shortfall compared to the Federation in this area. Star wars ships stick to safe, known hyperspace routes with preplanned flight paths with little if any ability to map or navigate unkown regions on the fly. Scouting new routes is dangerous.

Probe droids. Also, purchasing star maps from third-party sources.

No matter the result of any battle - ultimately neither side would be able to reach the heart of the other's territoy to attack.

Bullshit. The Imperials would simply spam probe droids in a worst-case scenario, and then jump a fleet of ISDs to Earth. Cue surrender or BDZ threat.

In Star Wars, the Empire is continually unable to defeat enemies that hide in the far reaches of the galaxy. The Droid Federation armies, the Rebel Alliance, even in the times of the old Republic- the Sith battle fleet.

The CIS controlled half the galaxy. The Sith controlled a large empire. The Rebels were repeatedly thrashed. Did you forget Hoth, for fuck's sake? Not to mention that the CIS and the Sith were fought by the Old Republic, not the Empire.

The only reason the Rebels weren't utterly crushed was because they fought guerilla-style. The Federation does not have that luxury.

There is no reason to believe the Empire would all of a sudden somehow mount an effective assault on an independent power in the outer reaches of the galaxy. They demonstrated repeatly an incompetence in attempting to do so.

Because - you say so. Despite the fact that they managed to track down the Rebels to Hoth and hurt them hard (and before that, hurt them at Derra IV) and knew exactly where the majority of the Rebel fleet was in ROTJ.

In Star Trek, the Federation is extremely adept at always somehow keeping powerful adversaries in check.

Because they are at the same size and tech level. The Federation spans a hundred and fifty worlds and their biggest construction achievement is a multi-kilometer-wide starbase. The Empire spans a million plus worlds and their biggest industrial achievement is building a planet. In secret. With petty cash. Using the shipping resources of a single company. And then doing it again for the lulz.

Probably half the aliens in Star Trek are more powerful then the Federation, but they find a way to neutralize, counter and or somehow keep them at arms length.

By being at the same tech level and rough size. Again, the Empire is vastly bigger. As in, NATO + the USSR ganging up on the Andorres larger. Except moreso.

The dominion war is practiacally a model for how a ST - SW warfare might look like. The Dominion invades with superior numbers in ships that have many technical advantages initially including the ability to ignore Federation deflector shields. The Federation holds them off with politics, logistics and tactical as well as navigational expertise (control of the wormhole!), until a technical advantage is eventually worked out.

Technical advantage? I don't call the Wormhole entities dues ex machina'ing away the Dominon fleet a technical advantage. Or did you merrily forget that the Federation was losing that war even with the Klingon and Romulan fleets?

It is the same with one powerful menacing foe after the other, no reason the Empire would be different.

Except that the Empire has every single possible advantage in industrial capacity, strategic speed, manpower, and sheer power output.


So, ultimately, your argument boils down to the following:
-The Empire's tech revolves around gravity manipulation, which you have not proven.
-The Empire's weaponry may use matter-to-energy conversion instead of DET. Which you have not proven. In spite of the fact that the ICS supplies power output and weapons yield figures in standard measurements.
---Observed effects of SW weaponry also outstrip the observed effects of Federation weaponry. E.g. the SW equivilant of a police car being able to do with one bomb what the most advanced Federation vessel would require its entire torpedo payload to achieve.
-The Empire would be unable to fight a conventional war against an enemy with fixed defendable territory because they couldn't stamp out the Rebellion in a guerilla war, despite pasting them everytime they forced the Rebels into a conventional battle.
-The Federation defeated a numerically superior enemy on the same rough tech level through a combination of desperate alliances with two other large powers, a deus ex machina, and inciting a rebellion in one of its opponents' primary member species, so they would be able to hold off an invasion by a unified galactic power one hundred thousand times their size, with faster ships, superior power output and weaponry, and the industrial capacity to build the entire Federation Fleet a ten thousand times over without breaking a sweat.

No.

[harbringer]

Warp drive involves mass adjustment as if it didnt no FTL would be possible in the universe (unless your counting worm holes). Gravity on board their vessels holding people to the decking without centrifugal motion (which isnt real gravity control per se if my understanding is correct.) all this pretty much implies the federation can manipulate gravity (without resorting to demonstrated manipulation in episodes).

The Empire has world devastators, advanced composites and armor, crystals that focus energy in ways we dont understand (and possibly never could) and various industrial products that say that they seem to understand the underlying structure of matter even if they don't seem to bother messing with it every 2 minutes.

As such I really don't see your point and I doubt anyone else does either....... actually they don't.

Military wise it isn't close so other than something new or better tactics or something there really isn't a debate hasn't been for a long time. People with powerful hand weapons and resistant armor Vs guys with lower powered weapons and no armor... hmmnnn how is that one going to work out .... A vast array of armoured verhicles V's ohh a dune buggy or FAV hmmn thats a hard one ... open cockpit against armor.... You get the message I hope.

and yes the Empire would love sauce with the Federation thank you, does it come in ranch??. Other wise all the points much better addressed by others

[atg]

But that doesnt mean the empire can invade the federation at will either. Lets rember the vital differences in navigational technology the two have. The Federation is centered on Earth in an outlying arm of the galaxy. They go about exploring thier corner of the galaxy dilligently and at thier own leisure - but at relatively short range in thier corner of it. In stark contrast the Empire is in the center of the galaxy and spans large portions of it. However it is primarily concerned with using its vast fleet to police its known territory. It shows no penchant for exploration at all and the idea it would gather a large fleet to conquerer some distant unknown sector of the galaxy outside of its known territories seems highly unlikely.

Wrong.
Grand Admiral Thrawn lead a long term mapping expedition in the Unknown Regions with the direct support of the Emperor. The Empire also had the only maps of the inner core area's, something the New Republic never mapped and, IIRC, had to trade with the Imperial Remnant for when they were on the run from the Yuuzhan Vong. If others had mapped this area before the Empire, ie The Old Republic, why did the New Republic never have copies?

Think about this - Vader was from Tatoonie and decades after he becomes 2nd in control of the emprie they still have not conquered this known criminal trading post planet! To put it short, despite the empire's grand scale, it is stretched thin across its territory.

'Cause things don't/can't change in the 20-odd years between RotS and ANH. As mentioned there was by the time of A New Hope an Imperial Governor and Garrison on Tatooine, including AT-STs and other vehicle's.

An even more important point, not only is the empire disinclined for exploration, they have a significant known technical shortfall compared to the Federation in this area. Star wars ships stick to safe, known hyperspace routes with preplanned flight paths with little if any ability to map or navigate unkown regions on the fly. Scouting new routes is dangerous. Starfleet ships have no such limitation and reguarly fly into unknown territory, changing course to avoid obstacles in real time.

The vastly higher speed of Hyperspace could influence the ability to map or detect obstacles on the fly. However this does not mean that a ship couldn't take relatively short hops, scanning the area before taking the next jump. Or hell, just use thousands of probe droids.

[Darth Wong]

Ho hum. Another Trekkie with no scientific background whatsoever, who makes arguments like "you can't calculate energy using conventional physics", even though any other interpretation means that these technologies become perpetual motion machines because they could achieve a net energy state increase far in excess of the actual work required.

The mere fact that they require fuel to power their ships and other systems rather than running infinitely on nothing proves that he's wrong.

[NecronLord]

I’m going to be nice, because it's obvious you are honestly operating under a serious lack of understanding of the science involved, please try not to be offended by this: you seem to be operating under some terrible misconceptions about ‘incompatible techs’ oh, and Newton.

Imagine two groups of students are given a task of accelerating one kilogram of mass to a given velocity. One group decide to make a one kilogram (unladen) rocket, while the other group make a railgun that shoots a kilogram piece of iron. These generate their energy in different ways, the rocket does so by releasing chemical potential energy, while the railgun takes energy from the mains electricity supply. However, the actual minimum amount of energy required to accelerate the mass is the same in both cases. There are of course, inefficiencies, aerodynamic, the fuel of the rocket in addition to its own mass, and so forth, but this example serves to show that even if two radically different technologies are used to accomplish a task, they can still be quantified by the same means.

This is much the same as with a proton and a photon torpedo. The insides might work completely differently, but what they do is what we measure.

Now a lot of sci-fi writers (stargate is particularly guilty of this, though Star Trek does it too, with ‘mass-lightening’) have strange ideas about anti-gravity, but Star Wars, at least, has never suggested that it’s a way to in effect get free energy. Nonetheless, I can see, with the staggering sillyness of some sci-fi takes on anti-gravity, why you might think this was a way to get free energy. In Star Wars, at least as far as we know, the reactors of a ship need to generate a suitable amount of energy to use its ion engines or repulsors to accelerate at a given speed. While they may be inefficient to different degrees, we could nonetheless (if we had reliable mass figures, which we rarely do) use this to calculate output numbers.

As for Newton, you seem to be thinking that ‘Newtonian’ refers to space rockets. It doesn’t. It generally reffers to the laws of motion in Newton’s Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica and while space rockets (until they become relativistic) can generally be described by the laws in that book, he had no idea about such a concept.

Both Star Wars and Star Trek ships operate under Newton’s laws of motion (see those red things at the back of the Enterprise, the impulse engines? They’re essentially rockets that push it around at sublight speed; for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction) in most circumstances. If anything, it’s the Star Wars ones that screw around with it more (banking fighters in vacuum, though I’m told this can be explained with very fancy gyroscope tricks).

“Unknown sectors” of the galaxy is essentially non-canon in Star Wars since Episode II. While the Jedi archivist Jocasta Nu may be arrogant, she must have grounds for saying “If a planet is not in our archives, it does not exist” which blows silly Expanded Universe ‘unexplored regions’ out of the water.

The dominion war is practiacally a model for how a ST - SW warfare might look like.

By which you mean ‘only divine intervention will save the federation?’ Because that's how they survived in DS9.

[NecronLord]

It MIGHT require an order of magnitute (or more!) of energy to vaporize mass as it would to convert mass into energy - theoretically a process that actually produces energy not uses it.

WARNING! VIOLATION OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY!

Eh. I've no idea what he's actually saying, but technically, it's possible that it might require more than E=MC² to shove someone into another dimension or whatever the fuck phasers do. It'd require exceptional evidence, and beg the question why the hell they use antimater rather than phaser fuel cells to power their ships (though really, they should have no reason for using antimatter anyway, given the mass→energy conversion the transporter is apparently capable of) but I'm not sure if what he's saying is actually a conservation of energy issue.

Because they are at the same size and tech level. The Federation spans a hundred and fifty worlds and their biggest construction achievement is a multi-kilometer-wide starbase. The Empire spans a million plus worlds and their biggest industrial achievement is building a planet. In secret. With petty cash. Using the shipping resources of a single company. And then doing it again for the lulz.

Despite this claim being oft-repeated, I've never seen anyone provide any evidence that XTS was solely responsible for providing transport for the Death Star II project. They were contracted for it, yes, but I don't recall any mention of exclusivity.

[Swindle1984]

Federation tech is based on matter anti-matter conversions, both to and from. Replicators, transporters, phasers, warp drive, fundamental changes of one thing into another....the empire knowns nothing of these things.

I believe you mean matter-energy conversions, not matter anti-matter. The Empire has matter-energy conversion, quite obviously. They also have anti-matter. I believe it was Han Solo who stole some antimatter while attending an Imperial academy so he could blow up the academy's insignia on the moon as a joke; instead, the whole moon blew up.

The Empire has replicators. They just call them duplicators, and while the technology is available, they don't rely on them nearly as heavily as the Federation does.

Transporters? They exist in Star Wars. Boba Fett used one to capture a bounty once.

Phasers? Blasters and turbolasers are more powerful and more efficient. Ditto for hyperdrive vs warp drive.

[Peptuck]

It MIGHT require an order of magnitute (or more!) of energy to vaporize mass as it would to convert mass into energy - theoretically a process that actually produces energy not uses it.

WARNING! VIOLATION OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY!

Eh. I've no idea what he's actually saying, but technically, it's possible that it might require more than E=MC² to shove someone into another dimension or whatever the fuck phasers do. It'd require exceptional evidence, and beg the question why the hell they use antimater rather than phaser fuel cells to power their ships (though really, they should have no reason for using antimatter anyway, given the mass→energy conversion the transporter is apparently capable of) but I'm not sure if what he's saying is actually a conservation of energy issue.

Because they are at the same size and tech level. The Federation spans a hundred and fifty worlds and their biggest construction achievement is a multi-kilometer-wide starbase. The Empire spans a million plus worlds and their biggest industrial achievement is building a planet. In secret. With petty cash. Using the shipping resources of a single company. And then doing it again for the lulz.

Despite this claim being oft-repeated, I've never seen anyone provide any evidence that XTS was solely responsible for providing transport for the Death Star II project. They were contracted for it, yes, but I don't recall any mention of exclusivity.

Good points, Nec. I was a little bit sleep-addled when I wrote that, so I might have seen violation of conservation of energy where there was none.

[NecronLord]

Transporters? They exist in Star Wars. Boba Fett used one to capture a bounty once.

Congratulations, you've knocked my hatred for Fett-wank up another notch.

[Ghost Rider]

Transporters? They exist in Star Wars. Boba Fett used one to capture a bounty once.

Congratulations, you've knocked my hatred for Fett-wank up another notch.

Strangely it was something he picked up from a traveling circus side show guy. Magwit's hoop is the tech in question.

At least he didn't keep it, nor was it really his.

[Formless]

Transporters? They exist in Star Wars. Boba Fett used one to capture a bounty once.

The only one that existed was a unique technology that only teleported between two set locations (like a Stargate, but more limited, especially in terms of range), had shitty energy efficiency, required maintenance after every use, and Magwit (the owner) had no idea how the device worked; of all the tricks in his magic show, the hoop was, in fact, magic as defined by Aurther C. Clark. IIRC, Magwit not only stole the tech, the inventer died.

Contrast this with Starfleets Transporters, which are zap-anywhere, any time, reasonably efficient energy-wise, reasonably reliable, are found everywhere, are well known in how they work, etc. Not that they are a game breaking technology, since purpose built boarding/landing craft work just great for military purposes (and lack the moral ambiguity of transporters (cloning, murder, etc.)), and are not reliable enough for military purposes. However, it is still a technology that the Empire does not have access to.

[Stark]

There's a great deal of irony for me when someone says 'we must assume they aren't invincible to each other or what's the point of discussion', because it's dishonest and backward. Since evidence suggests the Empire IS largely invincible, there ISN'T a point to discussion, which is why the debate is dead. However, he WANTS there to be a discussion, he's working backwards to discard evidence, concoct a terrible methodolgy all in the name of allowing the discussion he wants to occur... even though he JUST SAID there's no point if it's not 'fair' which it isn't.

The mental contortions people go through to force the evidence to comply with their preconceptions is really crazy.

[Batman]

Transporters? They exist in Star Wars. Boba Fett used one to capture a bounty once.

The only one that existed was a unique technology that only teleported between two set locations (like a Stargate, but more limited, especially in terms of range), had shitty energy efficiency,

You know the energy efficiency of Star Trek transporters? DO elaborate. Magwit's teleporter was energy efficient enough to make it economically feasible to use for stage magic.

required maintenance after every use,

So?

and Magwit (the owner) had no idea how the device worked

This is relevant to the bloody thing existing why?

of all the tricks in his magic show, the hoop was, in fact, magic as defined by Arthur C. Clarke.

Essentially ALL of the technology in Wars is magic as defined by Arthur C. Clarke. Except that Clarke DIDN'T, of course, he said sufficiently advanced technology would be INDISTINGUISHABLE from magic.

IIRC, Magwit not only stole the tech, the inventer died.

Which has what bearing exactly on the technology existing?

Contrast this with Starfleets Transporters, which are zap-anywhere, any time,

Yeah. There's totally no range limit, ion storms, technobabble minerals, lots of rock being in the way, or low-level ionizing radiation have absolutely never interfered with transporter operations.

reasonably efficient energy-wise,

As per-you saying so.

[Formless]

You know the energy efficiency of Star Trek transporters? DO elaborate. Magwit's teleporter was energy efficient enough to make it economically feasible to use for stage magic.

I do not know the exact number for Star Trek energy efficiency, but considering that it is put to widespread use without apparently needing budgeting or worry, I submit that it was within acceptable limits. As for Magwits hoop, from what I remember, the power cells he used were burned out after every use. Dedicated power cells. Now, they could throw whatever energy at the technology they want, obviously since energy in Star Wars is no issue. However, it still would provide no advantage that a transport or shuttle couldn't provide.

So?

That increases the cost of using the technology. When there is already transportation that works fine without the gimmic of instantanious transportation, no one is going to care or waste their time on a technology on such a gizmo in the Empire. It is not worth it.

This is relevant to the bloody thing existing why?

It cannot be replicated. The device would have to be analized scientifically all over again before even another prototype can be made. Just because it does exist doesn't make it important.

Essentially ALL of the technology in Wars is magic as defined by Arthur C. Clarke. Except that Clarke DIDN'T, of course, he said sufficiently advanced technology would be INDISTINGUISHABLE from magic.

Magic to its fictional owner, moron. All the technology in Star Wars is magic to us, but most of it is NOT magic to the characters in the story. I know that the Third Law invocation was a little bit lose, but it has the same effect. No one in Star Wars can replicate Magwits hoop until someone can analyze the thing. Compare to the Federations transporters...

Which has what bearing exactly on the technology existing?

It doesn't, my point is that it is a one-of-a-kind one-shot plot device that wouldn't be seen anywhere else in the Star Wars universe, and thus effectively is still a technology that Star Trek has more experience using. Not that it even matters, since the technology is pretty much useless anyway, and there are plenty of other ways to get around. I'm just saying, it is something that the Federation has that they can reasonably expect no one else to be able to use in any crossover event edit: with Star Wars. (obviously there are other franchises like Star Gate where this is not true.)

Yeah. There's totally no range limit, ion storms, technobabble minerals, lots of rock being in the way, or low-level ionizing radiation have absolutely never interfered with transporter operations.

Yes, be technical and assume that I meant that the thing is a perfect machine with no drawbacks. Note that I also said:

and are not reliable enough for military purposes.

What you just described is exactly why it is not reliable enough. However, it can be used in many circumstances, and is not limited to pre-set destinations; just aim for the right coordinates, and beam them down/up. Magwits hoop can't do that. I was making a comparison, I was not defending Star Trek's non-existent supiriority. Clearly, transporter tech is one of few that the Federation has more stock and experience with, and Magwits hoop is just an oddity, and should be treated as such.

As per-you saying so.

I will concede that I have no number (and if I did, lord knows it would probably be arbitrary and found in some technical manual), but I will say that the Federation finds it a minor inconvenience that is not stopping them from using it literally everywhere.

[Batman]

You know the energy efficiency of Star Trek transporters? DO elaborate. Magwit's teleporter was energy efficient enough to make it economically feasible to use for stage magic.

I do not know the exact number for Star Trek energy efficiency, but considering that it is put to widespread use without apparently needing budgeting or worry, I submit that it was within acceptable limits. As for Magwits hoop, from what I remember, the power cells he used were burned out after every use. Dedicated power cells.

And were cheap enough that using them for stage magic was worth it. So either it didn't use all that much energy to begin with or energy is so ludicrously easy to come by in Wars that it doesn't matter.

Now, they could throw whatever energy at the technology they want, obviously since energy in Star Wars is no issue. However, it still would provide no advantage that a transport or shuttle couldn't provide.

Neither do Star Trek transporters.

So?

That increases the cost of using the technology. When there is already transportation that works fine without the gimmic of instantaneous transportation, no one is going to care or waste their time on a technology on such a gizmo in the Empire. It is not worth it.

Funny, the Trek cultures seem to keep using it despite of that.

This is relevant to the bloody thing existing why?

It cannot be replicated.

As per-you saying so.

The device would have to be analized scientifically all over again before even another prototype can be made.

Assuming it is actually LOST technology as opposed to technology that, frankly, wasn't worth keeping around to begin with. Your evidence that it IS lost technology would be...?

Just because it does exist doesn't make it important.

It shows Wars has teleportation technology, and said technology is cheap enough to be used by stage magicians.

Essentially ALL of the technology in Wars is magic as defined by Arthur C. Clarke. Except that Clarke DIDN'T, of course, he said sufficiently advanced technology would be INDISTINGUISHABLE from magic.

Magic to its fictional owner, moron. All the technology in Star Wars is magic to us, but most of it is NOT magic to the characters in the story. I know that the Third Law invocation was a little bit lose, but it has the same effect. No one in Star Wars can replicate Magwits hoop until someone can analyze the thing.

As per-you saying so. Automatically false to boot as the people who built the bloody thing ARE from Star Wars.

Compare to the Federations transporters...

Which are disrupted by the presence of electrical transformers.

Which has what bearing exactly on the technology existing?

It doesn't, my point is that it is a one-of-a-kind one-shot plot device that wouldn't be seen anywhere else in the Star Wars universe, and thus effectively is still a technology that Star Trek has more experience using.
Not that it even matters, since the technology is pretty much useless anyway, and there are plenty of other ways to get around. I'm just saying, it is something that the Federation has that they can reasonably expect no one else to be able to use in any crossover event.

The term 'No' comes to mind.

As per-you saying so.

I will concede that I have no number (and if I did, lord knows it would probably be arbitrary and found in some technical manual), but I will say that the Federation finds it a minor inconvenience that is not stopping them from using it literally everywhere.

Everywhere where there aren't low-level ionizing radiation sources, lots of rock, shields, electrical transformers, or technobabble minerals, at any rate.

[The Romulan Republic]

Contrast this with Starfleets Transporters, which are zap-anywhere, any time, reasonably efficient energy-wise, reasonably reliable, are found everywhere, are well known in how they work, etc. Not that they are a game breaking technology, since purpose built boarding/landing craft work just great for military purposes (and lack the moral ambiguity of transporters (cloning, murder, etc.)), and are not reliable enough for military purposes. However, it is still a technology that the Empire does not have access to.

I'm sorry, but this is one of those talking points I see thrown out again and again, but for which I don't know that I've ever seen real evidence. Does the whole transporters=murder thing have any basis whatsoever in Star Trek canon, or is it just a half-assed rationalization from those who, finding the Federation's many faults insufficient, have decided to invent a new one?

Sorry if my rant went a bit too far, but it annoys the hell out of me to here such a serious accusation brought up without knowing of any real evidence to support it.

[Ghost Rider]

And this is why I keep an occasional topic here alive. You get a whole new crop of idiots.

1. Transporter bit. Really, Mike has demonstrated his proof, it is then your onus to prove that his logic is faulty. Like we do to anything that is in contention.

2. The reason of the SW resources for not using the transporters is a more then likely extension of the fact that in Trek that such technology is fucking abyssmal at how many things disrupt it. They may have worse problems and simply upping the power supply does not solve those issues. You do not try to prove a negative.

3. Magwit's hoop is not unique technology given that Fett never even glanced at it sideways, and if it was such a thing and had uses, he would be richer then most small planets. Since Fett didn't go back, blast Magwit's head off and sell this technology, I want to hear the other sides rationalization why a carnival side show would be able to keep this technology from the many powerhouses. And going "It cannot be replicated!!!" is a bullshit answer with only your personal supposition. Try making a real one.

4. As for transporters uses, it can be easily assessed the same way why the Federation doesn't use kinetic weapons against the Borg. They think their technology is better, regardless of evidence otherwise.

As for the OP? Yet another loud mouth who wants to create a conclusion first and then work from there.

[Stark]

I'm sorry, but this is one of those talking points I see thrown out again and again, but for which I don't know that I've ever seen real evidence. Does the whole transporters=murder thing have any basis whatsoever in Star Trek canon, or is it just a half-assed rationalization from those who, finding the Federation's many faults insufficient, have decided to invent a new one?

Sorry if my rant went a bit too far, but it annoys the hell out of me to here such a serious accusation brought up without knowing of any real evidence to support it.

What do you mean? They disintegrate you. Philosophical ramifications aside, they're not 'step through magic door' stuff, they're 'blow you into tiny nonfunctional pieces and assemble a fascimilie later'. That's as much a part of ST canon as you can get.

[Formless]

And were cheap enough that using them for stage magic was worth it. So either it didn't use all that much energy to begin with or energy is so ludicrously easy to come by in Wars that it doesn't matter.

The Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology (old edition, and I am aware it is not the most accurate thing in existence) says that it burned through its power cells in a minute of use. Cheap? Or is it simply that for a successful, famous stage magician it was a trivial expense that paid more in terms of tickets than it drained from Magwits pockets?

Neither do Star Trek transporters.

I never said that they did. However, for whatever reason the Federation made the investment anyway, and their transporter tech is demonstratably better developed. How many times do I have to say this?

Funny, the Trek cultures seem to keep using it despite of that.

Yes -- because their transporter tech is better developed. I was talking about the Hoop from Star Wars, a different technology. How does Star Trek style technology play into that again?

As per-you saying so.

Checking wookiepedia, considering Ghost Riders logic... ok, it says that it is rare, but not one-of-a-kind. Sorry for working from memory.

That said, if it was rare, it obviously must be not worth it to mass produce, or else most people do not know how it works. it is a stage trick, after all.

Assuming it is actually LOST technology as opposed to technology that, frankly, wasn't worth keeping around to begin with. Your evidence that it IS lost technology would be...?

Right, well my memory was flawed. However, the story still said that Magwit at least had no idea how it worked, and it is never stated that anyone did other then the alien he stole it from. The best any source I can find talks about theories about its operation, specifically the TEGWT, says that it is beyond the Republics level of technology, and proposes two theories. Wookiepedia is no better. Therefor, it seems reasonable that whoever knows how it works is as scarce as the technology itself.

Also, wookiepedia's theory is that it was based off the Gree hypergate or Kwa Infinity Gate technologies, which actually are lost technology.

It shows Wars has teleportation technology, and said technology is cheap enough to be used by stage magicians.

It is rare, and probably not cheap to get your hands on. Magwit is only one stage magician, not many.

As per-you saying so. Automatically false to boot as the people who built the bloody thing ARE from Star Wars.

Magwit himself was unsure of how the hoop worked; he stole the device from "a rather strange alien" after observing how to operate and repair it.

from Magwits perspective, and from the perspective of his audience, it was magic, because they had no idea how it worked, and the people who did are not making themselves known. I thought I made that clear the first time I said it, but apparently you need more sources.

Which are disrupted by the presence of electrical transformers.

Irrelevant. In the Federation, every star ship has one and probably has someone in it that understands how it works from a theoretical and practical standpoint, whereas Magwit's hoop was a rare stage gimmmic that he did not understand, and that apparently was not understood by most mainstream republic scientists.

The term 'No' comes to mind.

1. I was incorrect about the devices uniqueness (assuming accuracy on the part of wookiepedia). This was a product f working from memory.

2. I edited in a correction about non-Star Wars crossovers.

3. Do you really expect a rare stage magicians toy that most people have not heard about, including mainstream scientists, to play any kind of role in a SWvST crossover? The most that you could say is, they hire Magwit to entertain someone from the Federation, and the federation people are unimpressed.

Everywhere where there aren't low-level ionizing radiation sources, lots of rock, shields, electrical transformers, or technobabble minerals, at any rate.

And now you are ignoring all the times it did work throughout all five five iterations of Trek. Again, where did you get the idea I thought that this was a practical technology for military applications? Trek has one technology that the Empire does not use (or need). Deal with it. Pointing that out does not make one a trekkie.

I'm sorry, but this is one of those talking points I see thrown out again and again, but for which I don't know that I've ever seen real evidence. Does the whole transporters=murder thing have any basis whatsoever in Star Trek canon, or is it just a half-assed rationalization from those who, finding the Federation's many faults insufficient, have decided to invent a new one?

[/quote]
The technology disintegrates people at the molecular level and clones them from the ashes. Really, that is an old argument, and is represented in mikes page about the technology.

@ Ghost Rider: true, for whatever reason the Federation uses an advanced technology that the Empire does not have a need for, and that is likely not a practical technology even in Trek. That was my position from the start. I did not set out to disprove Mike, only show that Magwits hoop is not the same or as capable (for whatever that is worth) as the federations transporters.

[Samuel]

I know where Formless is coming from- I have the same manual.

As for the batteries running dry quickly...
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Image:Ma ... mitter.jpg

It probably needs dedicated batteries because of how small a slot it needs, not just power consumption.

[NecronLord]

Magwit was always accompanied by a green rabbit that he would pull out of a hat using a smaller version of the mystifying hoop. The rabbit was placed in many near-death situations (along with Magwit) during Boba Fett's hunt of Bar-Kooda. Fortunately, the green rabbit survived and continued to perform with Magwit.

Fucking hell.

[SuperScaleConstruct]

I'm surprised anyone would disagree the empire uses gravity based tech and the federation uses matter/antimatter and matter-energy conversion tech. 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. 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. 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). On the other hand SW does not use replicator, transporter, or mass/energy conversions

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.

I don't get what you're saying, you want to arbitrarily assume the process is different from the simplest explanation of what we see for no good reason?

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.

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.

Imagine two groups of students are given a task of accelerating one kilogram of mass to a given velocity. One group decide to make a one kilogram (unladen) rocket, while the other group make a railgun that shoots a kilogram piece of iron. These generate their energy in different ways, the rocket does so by releasing chemical potential energy, while the railgun takes energy from the mains electricity supply. However, the actual minimum amount of energy required to accelerate the mass is the same in both cases. There are of course, inefficiencies, aerodynamic, the fuel of the rocket in addition to its own mass, and so forth, but this example serves to show that even if two radically different technologies are used to accomplish a task, they can still be quantified by the same means.

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

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.

This is much the same as with a proton and a photon torpedo. The insides might work completely differently, but what they do is what we measure.

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.

Now a lot of sci-fi writers (stargate is particularly guilty of this, though Star Trek does it too, with ‘mass-lightening’) have strange ideas about anti-gravity, but Star Wars, at least, has never suggested that it’s a way to in effect get free energy.

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

By which you mean ‘only divine intervention will save the federation?’ Because that's how they survived in DS9

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.

I'm sorry, did you somehow miss the Imperial patrol of two Star Destroyers over Tatooine seen in the movie?
Or the fact that Tatooine has a permanent Imperial garrison and governor?

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.

Did you see the Empire have any trouble navigating to Hoth in ESB? Hardly a safe, known route there.

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? Many times in Star Wars there are references to the difficulties of navigating. Many times it seems to take minutes even in an emergency, for nav computers to plot a safe route out of the current area. No such limitation is seen on Trek ships at all and they change thier courses on the fly and can see obstacles ahead. I think we all remember what happened when the Falcon comes out of hyperspace looking for Alderon. Why is it they had no idea what they were flying into. That is a very significant difference from Trek, where thier sensors and navigation can see all kinds of things from light years away in real time. One way to look at it is the Enterprise is a honda civic, an ISD is like a high speed train. Sure the train is theoretically alot superior to the Civic for logistics, but which actually has the tactical advantage especially when traveling into the unknown? Definately not the one that travels precariously by known routes and cant see what is up ahead or stop or change course of obstacles. Assuming all the empire needs is a good map is a mistake as well, since they are fundamentally different tech there is no gurantee it can even fly everywhere a Trek ship can safely (the navigational deflector). How many times did Picard say to escape immediatly at warp speed on any heading..engage. Based on the paranoia multiple characters display about getting hyperspace coordinates wrong, this does not seem a trivial difference.

The Seperatists, who were fighting the Republic, not the Empire, and who achieved victories through force of numbers and Grevious' tactics?
The Rebels, who were constantly on the run, having to keep mobile to avoid the crushing might of the Empire?
The Sith? Do you mean as in KOTOR? The fleet that outnumbered and outgunned the Republic?

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. 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

Bullshit. The Dominion was held off through the sheer luck of the deus ex machina wormhole aliens making the reinforcement fleet "go away". Even then they were still kicking the Federation's ass. Only a three way alliance between the Klingons, Romulans and Feds turned the tide, and even then it was close.

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.

Bottom line, the Dominion is a poor comparison because the Dominion is far less powerful than the Empire in many ways. Its ships are slower, its troops more poorly equiped and less compitant, it has fewer ships, and it has never shown the abillity to blow up a planet.

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

And your evidence that they are conducting matter-energy conversion is.......?

WARNING! VIOLATION OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY!

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.

Because - you say so. Despite the fact that they managed to track down the Rebels to Hoth and hurt them hard (and before that, hurt them at Derra IV) and knew exactly where the majority of the Rebel fleet was in ROTJ.

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. 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. There is no evidence the empire (or republic) was ever good at recon, navigation, exploration or long distance projection of power. Those in fact, are specifically its weaknesses as it used most of its power to patrol and control its own systems.

There's a great deal of irony for me when someone says 'we must assume they aren't invincible to each other or what's the point of discussion', because it's dishonest and backward. Since evidence suggests the Empire IS largely invincible, there ISN'T a point to discussion, which is why the debate is dead. However, he WANTS there to be a discussion, he's working backwards to discard evidence, concoct a terrible methodolgy all in the name of allowing the discussion he wants to occur... even though he JUST SAID there's no point if it's not 'fair' which it isn't.

The mental contortions people go through to force the evidence to comply with their preconceptions is really crazy.

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