Whose tech is better: 'Star Trek' or 'Star Wars'?

reply to post by AthlonSavage


Why be such a div about it? I don't care really It is all personal opinion and not very important, so stop with the personal attacks please.

reply to post by AthlonSavage


Dude...they are both imaginary.
Lighten up.

-Peace-

Lol because I say starwars was made primarily for 13 year olds you starwars fans say that im getting personal and to lighten up. There is an interview somewhere where Lucas admits he made starwars for children. So I state this fact to you and you all become offended. Why do you think Lucas made Disney as the choice to take the starwars new gen forward.

AthlonSavage
reply to post by Eryiedes

 

I do sleep well at night knowing Starwars is a space soap opera for the less intellectually challenged.

It was this quote.
So yes you are taking it to seriously by saying If you like Star wars you are intellectually challenged...not nice dude and also very wrong.
Mind you wouldn't expect anything else from a trekkie....they take things far to seriously.
So yes lighten up because you are trying to piss people off over nothing...two entertainment mediums. So lol right back at you.
Anyhow Iam out cos you ruined the thread...cheers.

reply to post by boymonkey74


I liked this thread everyone got upset and I got a laugh.

AthlonSavage
reply to post by boymonkey74

 

I liked this thread everyone got upset and I got a laugh.

So, what you've just said, based on your past posts is:

"I like trolling people I consider to be children."

Wow.

-Good Bye-

reply to post by Eryiedes


I starred you.

Which is more fun? Star wars.

Which is more realistic? Star trek.

Which has better tech? Star trek.

Which would win? Star wars.

Eonnn
Which is more fun? Star wars.

You're probably right...just on the sole basis of the level of Space Chambara/Wushu combats inherent in the style of lightsabre deuls between Sith & Jedi. Ship engagements usually involve fleets of ships instead of 4v1 combats that seem to be the high end of motion picture ST ship battles. Mind you many will say that Abrams has spiced things up with his last two movies...personally, I can't stand the J.J. Reboots.

Which is more realistic? Star trek.

Also, probably right just because of The Force alone. Still, others will comment that the "Future is Dirty and Broken" look from SW also rings true instead of the hermetically sealed, never tarnished image of ST.

Which has better tech? Star trek.

Not according to the two sources I posted...Michio Kaku and Stardestroyer.net

Which would win? Star wars.

Hopefully the only "winners" are the people who forked over their hard earned bucks to see either one.

-Peace-

reply to post by Eryiedes


I have given this thread much thought and have realised in my meditation that I need to explain to you something that a thirteen year old would understand. Its like this Starwars is the Light side of the force and Star trek the Dark side. You know like McCarney and Lennon. The starwars is bubble gum mania and the darkside is where you go when you have had enough of lifes superficial nonsense and want to take a walk on the wild side.

Therefore Trek wins and always wins because its our destiny. Stawars is just a teen fantasy. Don't all star me at once.

I think star wars does not explain their properties clearly, example the shields. the fan of star wars just exaggerates their power to make an argument. They never went detail into their weapon system, if i were to make an assumption of the time the movie came out, those lasers were simply lasers.

If it was a simple shield to prevent lazer attacks, it can simply be drained and leave them defenseless.

Star Wars will need lot of assumptions and build on exaggerations to win the war against Star Trek physics based universe.

Also keep in mind, SW universe is an aggressive universe, always on war, what they show in the movies is their best weaponry.. while Star Trek is most in pacifistic state, in many episode they have hinted that they have banned lethal weapon(tho they exist) and now a better humans, that is why you don't see Star Trek using deadly weapons against their enemies.

Borg Tactical Cube for the win (had to render this one out it seemed fitting LOL)

reply to post by vkey08


You mean "Death Star II" for the win don't you?
How exactly can a Borg ship adapt to a weapon with enough firepower to reduce it to component atoms in a single shot?

-Live Long and Prosper-

Eryiedes
reply to post by vkey08

 

You mean "Death Star II" for the win don't you?
How exactly can a Borg ship adapt to a weapon with enough firepower to reduce it to component atoms in a single shot?

-Live Long and Prosper-

Quite easily actually. By the time it takes the Death Star to power up it's beam the Borg cube could just warp to the other side of the Death Star then it would just cut it to pieces and assimilate what is left. And the Death Star can only reduce planets to atoms it beam would just cut through a Borg ship and seeing how Borg ships regenerate the Death Star would again be useless because the Borg shields adapt after a couple of shots.

reply to post by buster2010


Not really.
DS II's improved composite turbo-laser recharges every two minutes.
That's a comperable fire rate to any ST analog ship-mounted beam or missile weapon.
Since one shot is all it'll take and Borg don't seem to perform evasive manuvers, the chance of a cube (or sphere) surviving a direct hit from the DS II's main weapon is zero percent.
Regeneration Nazi says:

"No Regeneration For You!!!"

-Peace-

reply to post by Eryiedes


It would seem that a problem could arise with the likelihood of the Borg sending many cubes, and in that case the DS 2 may have some some problems.

Also I thought it was three minutes to recharge, i could be very wrong on that count though, it has been awhile since my last tech discussion.

Penny

reply to post by Eryiedes


the death star can be destroyed easy if you can find a portal to the inner core. If not so bright farm boy Luke could destroy it with a random shot into an exhaust chute, the Borg will do it in their cyber sleep.

reply to post by pennylemon


You are correct.
It is three minutes.
I erred.
That doesn't really change anything...two minutes vs three?
Most Trek ship mounted phasers still cycle in the same amount of time. Since the Borg don't use fighters it's doubtful they would exploit it's sole weakness.
Also the Borg must survive a shot in order to adapt to the technology so, it would appear you are right back at square one with "reduced to component atoms".
Lastly the analogy was most powerful single ship...not a fleet of ships.
I mean I could do that too.
"If I had a fleet of Death Stars..."
Aside from that it's good night Gracie.

-Peace-

Eryiedes
reply to post by pennylemon

 

You are correct.
It is three minutes.
I erred.
That doesn't really change anything...two minutes vs three?
Most Trek ship mounted phasers still cycle in the same amount of time. Since the Borg don't use fighters it's doubtful they would exploit it's sole weakness.
Also the Borg must survive a shot in order to adapt to the technology so, it would appear you are right back at square one with "reduced to component atoms".
Lastly the analogy was most powerful single ship...not a fleet of ships.
I mean I could do that too.
"If I had a fleet of Death Stars..."
Aside from that it's good night Gracie.

-Peace-

edit on 28-1-2014 by Eryiedes because: Typo

edit on 28-1-2014 by Eryiedes because: Typo

When you have a ship that is capable of moving at warp 10+ speeds two to three minutes is an eternity. Also did you forget that the Borg has something called teleportation? But there is a good chance the Borg wouldn't even bother with the DS because they are not interested with old tech. The DS's main weapon is just a super powerful laser and the Borg like other ships in the ST universe just laugh at lasers.

reply to post by buster2010


I'm sorry but it you seem to be grasping at straws now.
Especially considering a any ST ship would be in range of the DS II long before a photon torpedo or phaser could even be considered effective.
Warp Speed is also a bit outdated for SW.
How long did it take Voyager to retrun to the Alpha Quadrent?
15-18 years depending upon the timeline used as a base reference?
Any ship with with even a lowly x2 Hyperdrive could arrive at a warp ships destination (providing they knew it) long before they even dropped out of FTL. It could cross the galaxy in 6 monthes. Makes the warp drive look anemic.
You can splice together what you feel would be a situation that gives your POV credence but in the stricted sence of the ST canon, most of your situations represent occurances that aren't likely to happen given standard Borg tactics.
Any ship approaching DS II would get vaporized before they could even achieve a weapons lock.
The only weapons they could negate are the tractor bean projectors, ion cannon or lighter turbo-lasers which you incorrectly designated as a "laser". It is actually "Blaster" technology.
Big problem to your "warp 10+" boast is Gravity Well Projectors (which the DS II did mount) that would prevent a warp field from forming.
You'll have to do far better than that.

-Peace-