By suspending disbelief and using on-screen evidence. www.stardestroyer.net 's Mike Wong is a master at applying “real” science and engineering to scifi. Though he may come off as an ass sometimes, I can’t find anything wrong with his math.
Besides, Stargate SG-1 roolz!
Sure it’s about mythology. There were several episodes dealing with the afterlife and faith and mysticism all throughout the run of all four series.
Star Trek’s mysticism, however, simply calls it “quantum something-or-other blahbitty blah”.
Star Wars. It knows what it is - cheap thrill entertainment - and never presumes to be anything else. Star Trek is pretentious.
Based on the technical aspects of each universe, I would say that the winner would be whoever the author of the work of speculative fiction about this battle, which is the only place it could ever happen, wants to win.
If I am the Author and I want the Trek guys to win, then guess what? Lasers actually are lasers, and the Trek guys can fire their weapons while in warp, and suddenly hit upon the offensive capabilities of the transporter.
If I want the Star Wars guys to win, then hey, the Trek guys are just a bunch of wussies, a 24th century UN, that won’t fight anyway.
Whoever the author wants to win, that’s who’ll win.
With a name like Tycho, I take it you’re a SW fan, particularly the EU?
Wars, all the way. Star Wars rules, Star Trek drools.
Well, first and foremost, I’m a Sc-Fi fan. I eat it up. But, I have preferences.
Though I have enjoyed most of what Lucas has fed us in Star Wars, I have to say I am a Trekker. Big surprise, huh?
One thing about Trek is, it offers me a weekly fix, whether to complain or praise. Wars, I have to wait years between fixes. As for the books, I haven’t enjoyed the Wars books as much as much as I like the Trek books. Not to say Trek-fi hasn’t had any stinkers, though.
Maybe I am predjudiced, having been exposed to Trek since the age of six-ish. Still, I did wait several hours in the Houston sun just to be one of the first to see SWIV: A New Hope (thanks Dad 
that was really cool of you to do for your kid). FTR, I was a major POTA* fan, too.
Like I said, I enjoy good sci-fi.
*Planet of the Apes
I second Raisinbread’s statement. I much prefer phasers and bat’leths to light sabers and the Force.
Plus, Chewbacca, C3PO and R2D2 are the most annoying characters ever… even beating out Wesley Crusher. I haven’t seen the Phantom Menace or I’m sure I’d include Jar Jar Binks as well.
It depends.
If we go in terms of amount of quality entertainment, TOS, TNG and DS9 have produced many hours of entertaining television, and even the three seasons of Voyager I watched had some good eps, so Trek wins.
If we go by least amount of crap, two bad movies and some questionable stuff in three good ones is nothing compared to all the bad episodes of five series comprising 25 and a half seasons of television, so Star Wars wins.
If we go by personal opinion, I like Trek, but I love Deep Space Nine, so Trek wins.
If we go by how annoying the fans are, Star Wars fans are less annoying, but Trek fans have a better name, (At least, the ones who don’t insist on being called “Trekker” do.) so it could go either way.
But… but… Trekkie sounds so stupid!
“If we go by personal opinion, I like Trek, but I love Deep Space Nine, so Trek wins.”
I mean I like Star Wars . . .
Someone tell me again why we can’t edit posts here.
Oh it does not.
Besides, asking to be called a Trekker instead of a Trekkie is like being asked to be called a Dork instead of a Geek.
Star Trek is an absolute disaster of mistakes, bad science and contradictions. You have to be the worst kind of hand-waver to be able to “prove” anything about the science or technology of Star Trek. And the only reason that there’s less of it in Star Wars is that the canon only consists of the five (soon to be six) movies.
It’s fiction, folks. Damned entertaining most of the time, but gods, get a life.
I prefer geek, thank you. 
I’m not a Star Wars fan but my best friend in High School was (yeah, we argued this all the time) and from what I remember, the SW books are canon.
I agree. The argument that Trek is “more realistic” than Star Wars is laughable in the extreme. Those who buy Star Trek technical manuals thinking they’re looking at the future of science are right up there with those who bother to learn the Klingon language and think they’re actually doing something productive on my list of people the world could do without.
I’ve heard otherwise. Anyway, there are well over 200 Star Trek novels. How many SW books are there again?
Who buys the manuals thinking they’re real? :dubious:
I think I owned the TNG Technical manual at one time but when I realized they were actually trying to explain the mechanics of 24th Century technology, I sold it post haste.
I still have the original Mr Scott’s Guide to the Enterprise though… it doesn’t take itself seriously and is a good read for OCD Trekker geeks such as myself.
Fun?
I’m sure someone’ll be in here sooner or later to tell us if they’re canon or not. My latinum’s on SPOOFE for that distinction.
Also, there’re more like 350 Trek books than 200. My personal collection is around 300 myself and I don’t own quite a few still.
And finally, I haven’t a clue as to how many SW books there are… I’m not a fan. Even if I knew, what’s that prove? Trek books are absolutely not canon.
Just in case anyone gets the wrong idea, I consider myself a huge fan of Star Trek. I’ve seen almost every episode of the pre-Enterprise series, and I will eventually catch up on all of the latter (I hope). I just think it’s laughable to try and pit two vastly different series against each other.
Now, B5 and Star Trek, that’s a whole different kettle of fish… 
Canon or not, they’re still Trek.