Star Wars Fans: give it a rest

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
41

Textook example of a typical ST whine, “I know he just presented hard evidence, but I still won’t admit to it being correct.”

Just because something is referred to by a certain name, that doesn’t mean it HAS to be like every other ‘thing’ with that name. Are koala bears or panda bears bears? No, but they are commonly called this by a large majority of the population. They are slang terms.

Another example: In SW:ANH, Han Solo says they have to configure the navicomputer “before we make the jump to lightspeed.” Obviously hyperspace is not the speed of light, it is much faster, but again, it is a slang term, which the SW universe is full off (bantha-fodder, nerf-herder, etc…) Calling their weapons ‘lasers’ is much simpier than saying ‘high-energy blaster weapons,’ or even just ‘energy weapons.’

42

Ok, Star Trek technology goves the impression of being more advanced than Star Wars technology, even though it isn’t really. I think it’s for the following two reasons:

  1. Star Trek technology is advancing rapidly. The Federation has only been a spacefaring power for a few centuries. They’re still experimenting and coming up with clever new things. They’re also still overly impressed with their own technological advancement, and make a bid deal about it.

Star Wars technology hasn’t improved in centuries. All the important technologies were perfected long ago. Nobody bothers trying to figure out some clever phase modulation to get through an ISD’s shields, because odds are someone tried that already 300 years ago and it either didn’t work, or it did and that weakness was then corrected.

  1. Star Wars is about the story. How the technology works is irrelevent, so they never bother trying to explain it. Relative levels of technological advancement never become an issue.

In Star Trek, there’s so much more material that needs to be written (ongoing series versus a few movies) that the writers have to make the technology a plot issue over and over again.

Now, let’s consider a few relevant technologies:

Ship speed - Star Wars ships can cross the galaxy in a few weeks tops. A Star Trek ship takes about a century to cross the same distance.

Weapons - In the Star Wars universe, technology exists to build weapons that can completely destroy entire planets. Not just render uninhabitable, not just melt the surface, not just change into a slightly different planet (as the genesis device does), but completely destroy. That takes a staggering amount of energy, equivalent to converting a small moon’s mass entierly into energy.

Robotics - In Star Trek, a autonomous, humanoid robot is a wonderous, unique (well, mostly) device, which has never been reproduced since. In Star Wars, autonomous humanoid (and non-humanoid) robots are everywhere. They’re practically furniture. Unless I misremember one of the Star Wars books described humanoid robots which were indistinguishable from humans.

Of course, since both are space opera, not science fiction, and both have internal inconsistencies, the whole discussion is kind of silly.

43

Ok, Star Trek technology goves the impression of being more advanced than Star Wars technology, even though it isn’t really. I think it’s for the following two reasons:

  1. Star Trek technology is advancing rapidly. The Federation has only been a spacefaring power for a few centuries. They’re still experimenting and coming up with clever new things. They’re also still overly impressed with their own technological advancement, and make a bid deal about it.

Star Wars technology hasn’t improved in centuries. All the important technologies were perfected long ago. Nobody bothers trying to figure out some clever phase modulation to get through an ISD’s shields, because odds are someone tried that already 300 years ago and it either didn’t work, or it did and that weakness was then corrected.

  1. Star Wars is about the story. How the technology works is irrelevent, so they never bother trying to explain it. Relative levels of technological advancement never become an issue.

In Star Trek, there’s so much more material that needs to be written (ongoing series versus a few movies) that the writers have to make the technology a plot issue over and over again.

Now, let’s consider a few relevant technologies:

Ship speed - Star Wars ships can cross the galaxy in a few weeks tops. A Star Trek ship takes about a century to cross the same distance.

Weapons - In the Star Wars universe, technology exists to build weapons that can completely destroy entire planets. Not just render uninhabitable, not just melt the surface, not just change into a slightly different planet (as the genesis device does), but completely destroy. That takes a staggering amount of energy, equivalent to converting a small moon’s mass entierly into energy.

Robotics - In Star Trek, a autonomous, humanoid robot is a wonderous, unique (well, mostly) device, which has never been reproduced since. In Star Wars, autonomous humanoid (and non-humanoid) robots are everywhere. They’re practically furniture. Unless I misremember one of the Star Wars books described humanoid robots which were indistinguishable from humans.

Of course, since both are space opera, not science fiction, and both have internal inconsistencies, the whole discussion is kind of silly.

44

oh?

Some evidence. Try that in GD and they’ll hand you your asshole on a platter, fan boy.

And when I say your argument is idiotic, it really means I am impressed with it’s logic. :rolleyes:

“Ray Gun” is a slang term. “Laser” is a specific.

Obvious why? Just because you say so? I think not. The facts as present onscreen don’t support the case you’re trying to make, buddy. Try again.

45

oh?

Some evidence. Try that in GD and they’ll hand you your asshole on a platter, fan boy.

And when I say your argument is idiotic, it really means I am impressed with it’s logic. :rolleyes:

“Ray Gun” is a slang term. “Laser” is a specific.

Obvious why? Just because you say so? I think not. The facts as present onscreen don’t support the case you’re trying to make, buddy. Try again.

46

Christ, Weirddave, what’s with all the hostility? Maybe I’m misreading the tone in your OP and other posts here, but you’re sounding genuinely pissed off that anyone could even conceive that Star Wars could match Star Trek militarily. Can I just remind you how utterly petty and inconsequential this debate is? I don’t think the requirements of a GD debate aply to the imaginary confrontation between two imaginary spaceships. All this is, is a different way to frame “What do you like better, SW or ST?” That’s all. When someone says Star Wars would win, all he is really saying is “I like Star Wars better.” Creative answers like “they’re blasters, not lasers” are the entire purpose of the whole debate. They’re what make it interesting. Accusing people of “cheating,” calling their arguments “idiotic” and “pathetic” isn’t really called for.

After all, it’s not us Star Wars fan’s fault that Star Trek totally blows. :slight_smile:

47

Actally, I just don’t argue well when I’ve been sick with the fucking flu for eight goddamn days. Sorry, not at my best. And yes, I wouldn’t be sick if it wasn’t for damn Star Wars fans!!! :stuck_out_tongue: A guy dressed as a Wookie sneezed on me. :wink:

48

I participate in these debates realizing full well that they are 80% tongue in cheek, but I admit that last post was a bit snippy.

49

Jab1…

He never attempted it because he knew he couldn’t explain it. It’s like writing any other fantasy… did J.R.R. Tolkien try to explain how The One Ring “bent light at a quantum level”?

Critical1…

There’s another instance in TNG where laser weaponry is mentioned. In Episode 32, Loud As A Whisper, the Enterprise enters a warzone where the two sides are firing on each other with lasers. Picard orders the shields up (NOT the navigational shields… the two are completely different systems). Pretty strange action if he thought that lasers - ALL lasers - would be repelled by their navigational deflector.

Conclusion: Most likely, your example of lasers being useless against the Enterprise came into being because the lasers were exceptionally weak (as weapons). After all, do we really want to believe that there is absolutely no limit to the strength of the E-D’s navigational shield? Another way to think about it… does a bullet-proof vest protect against all bullets?

Well, let’s examine. First off, we’ll identify the characteristics of a “laser” (with props to Mr. Wong):

  1. The travel at the speed of light (in a vacuum, at least).
  2. One laser can travel through another (they’re just beams of light, after all).
  3. The photons that make up a laser all travel in the same direction, making it completely invisible until the beam hits something and scatters the photons.

Obviously, “turbolasers” violate 1 and 3 (don’t know about 2… never saw two turbolaser blasts hit each other). But, regardless, based on 1 and 3, we know that turbolasers cannot be lasers. Just in the same way we know that photon torpedoes don’t have a little propeller on the end to provide thrust.

'Dave…

But they’re not called “lasers”. Nor do they exhibit any of the characteristics of “lasers”.

But, since I like you, I’ll give you a chance… provide a single shred of evidence - aside from the names of the devices - that indicate that they are, in fact, “lasers”.

It sure is. And so are the movie visuals, which clearly, concisely, conclusively, and consistently display the weapons as behaving exactly as lasers do not. They do not propagate at C. They spray photons out in all directions as they travel. They can not possibly be lasers.

Actually, they do. Unless you want to argue that the Galactic Empire is the size of a single star system. If hyperspace truly was limited to the speed of light, it would have taken many hundreds of years for the Millenium Falcon to travel from Tatooine to Alderaan. It would have taken tens of thousands of years for Darth Maul to travel from Coruscant (core world) to Tatooine (outer rim).

I do not understand this hardon you have with ignoring non-movie evidence. The novels/sourcebooks are necessary for the level of understanding that you are trying to achieve, yet you want to ignore them. Why? Lucas has stated that the novels are officially part of the Star Wars universe. Is your word on the matter greater than Lucas’s? I think not.

50

Originally posted by Miller:

A truly pathetic discussion would be Space: 1999 vs. Lost in Space. And at least we aren’t discussing Battlestar Galactica

51

Yes Trek (or at least Federation) tech is changing much more rapidly than that in Wars, but there is improvement in the latter. The obvious example is the quite serious increase in military tech from the end of the Old Republic to the end of the Empire. Even just from the movies there’s the DSI and I, stormtroopers and ISDs, etc. From the other (official) material you get warships equipped with mini-superlasers, a cloaking device and new Tie variants.

Star Wars uses Turbolasers. Not lasers. The Borg use ‘cutting lasers’. But it’s okay, they can’t get through a navigational deflector. Anyway, they were obviously referring to the lasers which the enemy were about to use against them, not any coherent beam of photons, no matter how intense.

Oh, and there is some official (ie below canon, above irreleveant) material in Trek, there’s a couple of books linked to Voyager, and possibly one of the Tech Manuals (DS9?), I can’t remember.

By the way, Star Wars only comes about 7th on my list of favourite SF, I’m a Weber fan at heart.

52

Oh, yeah. You want to know you’ve had an ass-kicking? Fuck with Honor Harrington and the Royal Manticoran Navy.

53

Well, if you want to talk sheer power, Weber’s gone way beyond Honor Harrington. How about Emperor Colin I and his fleet of Death Stars?

54

Hey, should we hijack this one into a David Weber appreciation thread?

55

Who the hell is David Weber?

56

David Weber, the king of mid-list military science fiction.

Seriously, when the hell is someone going to come out with an Honor Harrington space sim? Is this not a property that is screaming out for liscencing?