A serious discussion... ST/SW

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Okay, even so, 7000Gs is hard to judge as a speed. And for that to be a minimum seems a bit far. However, (before anyone snaps at me) it is hard to tell without an actual speed rating. Km/h, or m/h will easily suffice if anyone has that information available.

Velocity is useless, acceleration is what matters in space

Anyway, back to the topic at hand, a chart of the velocity values of various warp speeds has been given in Trek. It showed up in an episode on a display screen. This contains some interesting information that can allow me to extrapolate a Galaxy's energy requirements. On the side of the chart it has a listing of MegaWatts per cochrane.

That does NOT look like a real screenshot. Expecially the *power approaches infinity*

This is fairly straight forward thus far, right? And we have the power requirements for each warp speed per cochrane. From this it is very easy to figure out the total required power if you simply multiply the Cochrane value of each warp factor by the power per Cochrane. There is another picture I have, although this one is not canon. However, it is essentially a compilation of canon information. From this you can calculate the amount of energy a Galaxy class would have to pump out to travel at a given warp speed.

Now, it has been clearly stated that the Galaxy can travel at Warp 9.6 for twelve hours. So our warp speed is 9.6.

LIAR! In "Encounter at Farpoint" going warp 9.6 was "at extreme risk"

The Cochranes (or how many times faster the speed of a Warp value is) for Warp 9.6 are 1,909. Given these facts, a Galaxy should be able to produce a good 4.77x10^18 watts, or 4,770,000 TeraWatts. However, (and I'm getting speculative) this is likely not it's maximum power output, as it has topped out it's speeds before and still had enough energy for the gravity plating, lighting, communication, weaponry, replicators, computer core, shields, (and so on) to remain operational. But this is just a minute detail, and the increase of power specs (besides the shielding and possibly weaponry) would be minimal.

But let's move to something purely canon. Something straight out of TNG.

The sixth season TNG episode "True Q" has a student by the name of Amanda Rogers taking a tour of Engineering with Data and Geordi. She says aloud that she wonders what the warp core is capable of. At that point, Data (speaking of the warp core) says: "We are presently generating twelve point seven five billion gigawatts per-" before he's cut off by the alarm.

The amount he listed is even higher than the previous value. He said the ship was generating 12,750,000 TeraWatts. Mind you, he didn't say during what time span. Since they were simply orbitting a planet at the time, with no tactical systems operational, he was likely looking at a longer timespan a few minutes, or possibly even a few hours. This is speculation, but he was likely talking in the one to two day range, although this is only speculation.

So that puts the possible output of a Galaxy class somewhere between (approx) 4.8 and 12.8 million TeraWatts. The latter number is seemingly too high considering the circumstances when Data said it, but somewhere between the two numbers would be likely. Perhaps somewhere around 6 million, but once again this is only speculative. In the end, a canon 4.8 million TeraWatts is a modest calculation for a Galaxy's power output.[/img]

Which is nothing compared to an Imperial ship.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

First and formost, True Q is a bad reference point for power generation. Why? Because his unit of measurement, GigaWatt, has a time unit built in, therefore the 'per' cannot refer to a period of time. It might be 'per full load' or 'per hull cycle' or even 'per cup of Captain Picard Earl Grey'.

The other Canon instances of power generation mentioned put it much lower: TeraWatt range(1-999 TW)

7000G's is acceleration. Velocity is largely meaningless in space: For ships not using Trek's bizarre Impulse drive, any speed can be obtained simply by accelerating for the right length of time. However, there are numerous instances of fractional-C speeds, often in the novels. As for the movies, it was recently pointed out that to reach Hoth's asteroid belt in the time we saw, the ISD's and the Falcon would have to be moving at a notable fraction of c before actually hitting the belt(Where any sane man would slow down.).

As for the Galaxy's power output, that's not too impressive, considering that an outdated Acclamator class Transport generated a whopping 1e29W from it's main reactor.

Um, you mean 1e24 W, not 29.

[SirNitram]

Sorry about that, yes, 1e24W, not 29.

[StarshipTitanic]

Doesn't an Acclamator produce more energy for its shields than a Galaxy does total? Rep, what are you trying to prove?

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Wait, where are you guys getting this 7000G linear acceleration from for the ISDs in ROTJ? I'm looking all over on Saxton's site, but I can't find it.

I thought that was the acceleration for the Jedi Starfighter.

[SirNitram]

Wait, where are you guys getting this 7000G linear acceleration from for the ISDs in ROTJ? I'm looking all over on Saxton's site, but I can't find it.

I thought that was the acceleration for the Jedi Starfighter.

It's in reference to going around Endor in ROTJ. I'll find the exact section tomorrow sometime.

The Jedi Starfighter's stated accel is actually less than that, 5000G's. But it's more maneuverable.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

The calculation is near at the BOTTOM of Wong's Robert Walper Hate Mail page

[Spanky The Dolphin]

I see.

Well, since the Acclamators have 3500G, 7000G sounds do-able for an ISD.

[Master of Ossus]

Doesn't an Acclamator produce more energy for its shields than a Galaxy does total? Rep, what are you trying to prove?

Not necessarily. An Acclamator can withstand more energy to its shields than a GCS can produce, but remember that it almost certainly takes less energy to deflect oncoming fire than it does to create it.

Incidentally, 7000 G's is CLEARLY a measure of acceleration. I have no idea where you got the idea that velocity had meaning in space. Velocity relative to what?

[Doomriser]

Wow, I've never seen these arguments before. I commend you for bringing them to our attention.

[Doomriser]

I'd like to clarify my statement. The '12 billion GW per-" quote and the 'canon' warp speed chart...never saw those before. Especially not, for example, after they were wiped out in about 1998.

Darth Wong explicity states that you should RTFW (Read the F#$@ Website) _before_ making claims that supposedly run contrary to established knowledge. A quote such as the one above stands out and would have clearly been and was one of the very first Trek arguments. Trek Representative, if you seriously think you can take on a pro-SW forum, you should research all relevant material and debating centres such as ASVS before stepping through the swinging doors.

[Master of Ossus]

How can something be generating any number of watts per [time unit]? Watts are always measured in joules/second. Data was clearly mistaken.

[Wicked Pilot]

Everybody Guess What Time It Is! That's Right Bob! It's Time To Apoint Another Village Idiot!

That's right Trek Representive, for your overbearing use of old tired arguements, and endless nikpicks, the title of Village Idiot is on it's way! Along with this grand prize, you will receive $2,000 dollars spending money* and vicious flames from rational minded people who are getting tired of the same old Trekkie garbage.

Thank you for playing The Trekkie Arguement is Wrong.



*Prize does not include cash. Flames subject to tax, title, and license. Must be a legal resident of this world. No substitutions allowed. If you are Graham Kennedy, your fanfic sucks donky balls.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

There's a thread in this forum which has a quote from Lucas himself, stating that the books are a parallel universe. Really that's just a polite way of saying that the novels aren't canon. No book truly is. Comments or SOME ideas can sometimes be used, but unless a comment has been authenticated in a later movie (Trek, episode), it has no canon value. Novels are simply opinions of fans, and opinions aren't canon. They explanations they provide often make a WHOLE lot of sense, and I've read a lot of Trek novels which offered insight, but none of them can be taken seriously. I'm sorry to be this direct, but (at least to me) it's straight forward.

It's probably been said about 50 times already. The SW novels are canon, unless they directly contradict the movies. The ST novels are completely worthless. As much as some of us would like to belive that Kirk is still alive in the TNG-era Federation, he's only alive in the mind of William Shatner and his books. In the canon ST universe, Kirk is still buried under a big pile of rocks.

As for Treknology, Star Trek science is essentially today's science with a few more elementary particles and a bit of a twist. A great deal of all science in

Wrong. Today's Trek writers don't have any clue at all about today's science. Witness their horrible treatment of the subject of evolution, the scientific gaffes of Voyager, the wierd radiation of the week syndrome in all Trek shows.

Transporters in their most primitive state are being tinkered with, and successful short ranged transports of particles have been done.

Wrong. We have not "trasnported" particles at all. All we did was copy the quantum state of one particle onto another particle. It may someday make for awesome advances in computing, but it will never be used to transport a person, and certainly not in the Trek way.

As for Trek being an impossibility, the only thing preventing such a reality is people unwilling to co-operate for everyone's benefit. Simply by

No, the fact that it's humans you're dealing with is one of the many, many things that will ensure that life will never, ever be like Star Trek. Sure, people will work for the benefit of the common good, but only if they get tangible rewards out of it. It's why systems like communism will never work. The only people who see tangible benefits are the ones running the system. Everybody else just has to bend over and take it.

Do you not believe that a WWIII killing a tenth of Earth's current population, with an alien intervention to help us learn more about the galaxy and ourselves, along with the ability to explore what we've been gazing at for decades, wouldn't bring at least the majority of the population together? Frankly, I'd be surprised if it didn't.

If there were actually Vulcans, and they found us in such a state, society would not become Star Trek. We may tolerate them, we'll certainly do everything in our power to wring their advanced tech from them, but we won't sit around a campfire singing kumbaya.

[Master of Ossus]

How can something be generating any number of watts per [time unit]? Watts are always measured in joules/second. Data was clearly mistaken.

Incidentally, this is just another example of bad "Treknology." This is so obviously false that I cannot understand how it slipped past most people. Including Trek Representative.

And guys, come on. He told us he didn't want to be flamed on his own thread. Start another thread in "Off Topic" if you want to flame him. Mind you, I'm not saying that he doesn't deserve it, but he also laid out a series of rules for this debate. Let's play by them, and we'll still show that the Empire would mop the floor with the Federation.

[Master of Ossus]

Incidentally, if we just go by the movies than the shield around part of Hoth would protect them from even multiple shots from the DS. Since the Rebels were able to put such a shield up in a matter of months, or possibly a year, we should assume that the Empire would be able to quickly and easily establish several invincible shields around their most important worlds, if, indeed, they have not already.

Just wondering, but what are you going by here. It isn't making too much sense to me. Or maybe I have had too much to drink.

Remember the obvious hyperbole in ESB: "The field is strong enough to deflect any bombardment."

Just going by canon, it is clear that the shield is invincible. Galaxy Guns, suncrushers, (official), and Death Star blasts would easily bounce off them.

Of course, it's not true, but we're playing by Trek Representative's rules, remember?

[Master of Ossus]

Also I believe at the beginning of AOTC Obi-Wan and Anakin were returning from a mission on Ansion. That was the plotline for an EU novel I believe so Lucas must hold the EU in some sort of regard to use it even passingly like that.

Oh yeah and I think some of the Jedi extras in the arena were EU creations.

First of all, I just wanted to say (again) that Approaching Storm sucked ass. Now that that's out of the way, you are correct, the border dispute was mentioned in AotC. Also, you are correct that many of the Jedi are EU creations, most notably Aayla Secura (sp?). She was a comic-book character that Lucas liked, so he decided to translate her onto the film, and went out in search of an actress to play the Twilek Jedi.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Okay, even so, 7000Gs is hard to judge as a speed. And for that to be a minimum seems a bit far. However, (before anyone snaps at me) it is hard to tell without an actual speed rating. Km/h, or m/h will easily suffice if anyone has that information available.

Hmmm, I will not flame . . . I will not flame . . . I will . . . oh the hell with it! Did you even pass high school physics? 7000G is a measure of acceleration!!!!!! There is only one maximum speed in space, and that is the speed of light (about 2.998E+8 m/s) And acceleration tells us how quickly the accelerating object can get up to any speed.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand, a chart of the velocity values of various warp speeds has been given in Trek. It showed up in an episode on a display screen. This contains some interesting information that can allow me to extrapolate a Galaxy's energy requirements. On the side of the chart it has a listing of MegaWatts per cochrane.

Meaningless. We don't know exactly what a "cochrane" is. Apart from the last name of Cochrane the inventor of warp travel. It is never defined anywhere in the TV series or the movies, which are the only things that have any canon meaning in Trek.

Given these facts, a Galaxy should be able to produce a good 4.77x10^18 watts, or 4,770,000 TeraWatts.

Wrong. If we were using Trek canon exclusively, then we learn that the Enterprise's warp core can only produce terawatt range power. Maybe even all the way up to a few thousand terawatts. But certainly nowhere near millions of terawatts. And even if we were to accept your outrageously inflated figures, an outdated troop transport can expend almost 200X more energy in a single firing of one of it's four heavy turbolasers.

But let's move to something purely canon. Something straight out of TNG.

The sixth season TNG episode "True Q" has a student by the name of Amanda Rogers taking a tour of Engineering with Data and Geordi. She says aloud that she wonders what the warp core is capable of. At that point, Data (speaking of the warp core) says: "We are presently generating twelve point seven five billion gigawatts per-" before he's cut off by the alarm.

Ahh, the infamous Data gaffe. I've usually seen it used as proof that Data is a blithering idiot, given that he's been proven to be wrong more than he has been proven right.

The amount he listed is even higher than the previous value. He said the ship was generating 12,750,000 TeraWatts. Mind you, he didn't say during

Ahhh, still sixty-five times less power than the energy used to fire a single heavy turbolaser.

So that puts the possible output of a Galaxy class somewhere between (approx) 4.8 and 12.8 million TeraWatts. The latter number is seemingly too high considering the circumstances when Data said it, but somewhere between the two numbers would be likely. Perhaps somewhere around 6 million, but once again this is only speculative. In the end, a canon 4.8 million TeraWatts is a modest calculation for a Galaxy's power output.

Wrong, it's rabid, overinflated speculation. But even then, the Galaxy's entire power output is still insignificant compared to the power output of an old, outdated troop transport.

[Master of Ossus]

As for asteroid demolition, I still think

He still thinks? I haven't seen that on this board. Sorry for the flames, but after reading the post I decided you deserved it.

a beam weapon would be more sufficient for cutting larger chucks as well. You could program the targetting system for a certain number of mappeed impulses on the asteroid, carving it down to managable, harmless pieces. Projectiles are simply unpredictable weapons (when it comes to debris) which cause a good deal of sudden damage.
[/quote]

Where are you getting this? Projectiles are simply unpredictable weapons? Beam weapons would be better for cutting asteroids down to size? Perhaps you need to watch AotC again. Do phasers cut through rock as easily as the seismic charges? And if it would have been quicker for the E-D to use its phasers to destroy the asteroid in Pegasus, they would have done that. They would not have used torpedoes. Further, large pieces of "unpredictable" asteroid debris could be targetted with a second projectile. Since the E-D can fire several torpedoes simultaneously (ref. Yesterday's Enterprise, etc.) and since its torpedoes use an active-guidance system, they should be able to target large debris unless the targetting computers on ST ships are SEVERELY flawed.

Incidentally, THINK BEFORE YOU TYPE! Look, does it take more energy to break up an asteroid, or to vaporize it? If you said, "break it up," then you are an idiot. It takes FAR more energy to vaporize something. This should make perfect sense to anybody. In order to vaporize something, you need to pull it apart at a molecular or even an atomic level. It is FAR easier to break up rocks at a macroscopic level.

In regards to your comment that you "still think it to be the case, so you won't take my argument seriously," this is either proof of bias or gross incompetence. No one gives a damn what you "still think." We care about what the truth is. I cannot believe that anyone would say it takes more energy to break something than it does to vaporize it. That makes no sense, whatsoever. Please withdraw your statements, admit that I am right, and move on.

BTW, even if you were right (which you're not), it would STILL prove that SW is more powerful than ST, because a non-beam weapon seismic charge was able to break up more rock than the E-D's phaser arrays.

Admit that I am right on this, and move on to another sub-topic.

[Trek Representative]

Master of Ossus, it's fine. Let them flame me as much as they want. All I was attempting to do was have an intellectual debate on a subject that has run rampant for decades. But it appears some things will never change. No generally agreeable comparison between the two can be made. Few Warsies will ever give up this novel canoninity paradox. I think the only reason you won't is because the majority of all your technical information that supports your unlikely arguments comes from SW fans who made it up in their own way and got it marked "official" by the lazy Lucas. But more prominent than all others, either side of this debate will hold a low opinion of the other. It's quite obvious where most of you stand, and from previous encounters, Trek fans feel no differently towards you.

As most of the other threads in this forum clearly show, this is a Trek bashing site. I thought I could bring some sanity to the criticism, but it appears that is near impossible. I obviously have no place among the neanderthals of the Star Wars continuum. Those of you who actually appear intelligible, get out before they posion your minds.

Once upon a time there was a man named Roddenberry and a man named Lucas. They shared a similar dream. All they wanted to do was share an interesting and innocent idea with the rest of the world.

And through mindless arguing we've decimated them both...

[Ender]

I certainly have my work cut out for me.

Ender, admittingly, you can find quite a good deal in Star Trek that has no real relation to today's science except for the extensive technobabble. However, there are still many theories and ideas used which are simply extensions of today's science yet to be explored. I don't know what you're talking about with the flesh melting radiation of Nemesis. However, the claim doesn't seem too far off. If something radiative is at a hyper-reactive state, the amount of heat produced can be phenomenal. This can easily get water to a boilding point in a matter of seconds. As for skin melting, if the water expanded and evaporated too quickly the skin tissue COULD be torn from the muscles. If you are referring to a preview, or a cut scene, I have yet to see it, so (yes, I realize this isn't what it actually may be) these are just suggestions based on your claim. However, I don't know why you say the metric system, the definition of species, etcetera, is supposedly wrong. Granted, time travel in Star Trek is definitely screwed up, most of which (if not all) simply isn't possible. But I would appreciate an explanation of the previous claims.

The stuff is a trecknobabble thing called bioradiation that, when emitted from the scimitar or a little box, causes all organic life in range to literally melt, leaving everything else untouched. When the scimitar fires at planets, the beam will wrap around the planet several times (go figure that one out), and then press inward and cause it.
Metric system: They misuse Isoton left and right
Species: They claim that there are all these different alien species, yet they often interbreed, a violation of the definition of species.[/quote]

[Master of Ossus]

I certainly have my work cut out for me.

The 7000gees of an ISD is an interesting calculation. Not to mention the power put to that would be astronomical. Here's another tidbit, there were many other times in the movies that we've seen where a 7000gee turn would prove quick useful, such as when they are chasing the Falcon through the asteroid field. Or (speculative) is this only a maneuver to be used in extreme emergency?

There is a difference between a 7000G linear acceleration and a 7000G maneuver. Incidentally, the turn pulled by the proton torpedoes in ANH was in excess of an order of magnitude GREATER than 7000Gs. This does not necessarily mean that the Falcon can pull a 70,000+G maneuver in an asteroid belt, nor does it mean that a starfighter can, but it does indicate that SW missiles can. This is something that eludes ST technology, though it would have been useful several times.

Moving on.

Master of Ossus, I indicated earlier on how speculation is only used in a conjectural nature. To reiterate my point, if you were talking about something (canon or not) and are not attempting to explain it using factual information, it is only a speculative argument. Such "arguments" are allowed, but not when trying to prove a canon point, or when attempting to use the argument AS canon. Again, I'm sorry if I was not clear and will attempt to rectify this.

WHAT? You tell me that anything I use in an effort to "prove" canon is considered speculative? Why isn't canon accepted as fact? Canon is ALWAYS accepted as fact, even if we are not using official material. What the hell am I supposed to use if I cannot use official material, RL, etc., and canon needs to be proven before it is of use?

Grand Admiral Thrawn, there are likely Trekkies who do accept te SW novels. That was a flagrant and zealous statement on my behalf. I apologize as such, but I get my reference from the many Star Trek message boards I do roam, as well as (more predominantly) the personal opinions of Trekkers I have met. GENERALLY, although many enjoy the novels to a certain extent, they still do not see them as canon (that lovely word again). I'm sorry if I offended you with that statement.

People who recognize that SW would beat ST also realize that the novels are not canon. They are official. There is a difference, although it is not nearly so great as most rabid Trekkies believe it to be.

[Ender]

Okay, even so, 7000Gs is hard to judge as a speed. And for that to be a minimum seems a bit far. However, (before anyone snaps at me) it is hard to tell without an actual speed rating. Km/h, or m/h will easily suffice if anyone has that information available.

as was said, accel in space is all that counts. Using N-space drives, Wars ships have to hit C before entering hyperspace, so it should come to no suprise that they can cruise around at high fractions of C.

[Master of Ossus]

Why did humans essentially "conquer" the SW galaxy? There are so many other alien races, but humans are always on top?

And now you demand answers to questions that are unanswerable if you do not accept either real life (which you pass off as "speculative"), suspension of disbelief (which you ignored when you asked this question), AND official material (which you refused to accept for the purposes of this thread). You know perfectly well that if you eliminate all of these methods, there are no methods left for us to use to answer your question, especially since you have the utterly unbelievable belief that canon must be proven! How the hell did you expect us to answer this question? With a Magic 8 Ball?

Every single post of Trek Representative that I have looked at since the OP either contains a serious error in canon, suspension of disbelief, or a self-contradiction with himself on another post. I cannot believe how great this guy is. Someone should mail him a dollar. He's better than Loser099, John Clark (when he was funny and just starting out), and DarkStar COMBINED!

[Ender]

Everybody Guess What Time It Is! That's Right Bob! It's Time To Apoint Another Village Idiot!

That's right Trek Representive, for your overbearing use of old tired arguements, and endless nikpicks, the title of Village Idiot is on it's way! Along with this grand prize, you will receive $2,000 dollars spending money* and vicious flames from rational minded people who are getting tired of the same old Trekkie garbage.

Thank you for playing The Trekkie Arguement is Wrong.



*Prize does not include cash. Flames subject to tax, title, and license. Must be a legal resident of this world. No substitutions allowed. If you are Graham Kennedy, your fanfic sucks donky balls.

You know, he really hasn't done anything to deserve the troll/moron lable yet. It's not like he's JC, or TJ, or any of the other fucknuts who pop in here. While he has been reusing old arguments, he hasn't been insulting towards anyone yet. Simply flaming him for holding another opinion and some flawed arguments is going to give this place the real bad name that trekkie idiots already say we have. Perhaps we should have a list of preused arguments and counters too them, but the fact remains that he hasn't done anything to earn the abuse yet.