Liquidacid Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 (edited) Actually it did we just didn't see the result as they presumably stayed in their own timeline and not the alternate they created. Or they did stay in the new timeline and their actions weren't notable enough to change the course of events then whats the whole deal with the people who regulate and travel time in Enterprise series... they specifically state they exist to stop people from altering the timeline...in fact that whole series has a large plot arc that specifically has the premise you CAN alter a timeline... not to mention the also state you can alter one specific timeline with time travel in every other series and a few of the movies.... hell they even warn each other every time they use time travel how it's dangerous because they CAN change the original timeline if every time they were altered they created a new one no one would ever care since you could ever affect the timeline or anyone in it.. thus making time travel effectively useless for the purpose of any of the plots... "OH the Borg went back in time..." "pfft who cares they will just create another timeline and be gone from here we are perfectly fine as they can't affect us at all" first contact is over 10 minutes into the film Edited February 7, 2012 by Liquidacid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WowWasBetter Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 then whats the whole deal with the people who regulate and travel time in Enterprise series... they specifically state they exist to stop people from altering the timeline...in fact that whole series has a large plot arc that specifically has the premise you CAN alter a timeline... not to mention the also state you can alter one specific timeline with time travel in every other series and a few of the movies.... hell they even warn each other every time they use time travel how it's dangerous because they CAN change the original timeline if every time they were altered they created a new one no one would ever care since you could ever affect the timeline or anyone in it.. thus making time travel effectively useless for the purpose of any of the plots... Sure they would care since traveling between parallel universes is possible they want to make sure there are as few of them as possible. The terran empire shows how prudent that is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liquidacid Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 (edited) Sure they would care since traveling between parallel universes is possible they want to make sure there are as few of them as possible. The terran empire shows how prudent that is despite the fact that if that was so it would directly contradict every single ST movie and episode (exept JJ's) where time travel is shown and was explained it still makes no sense... since then they could never stop them from doing it and just creating an infinite number of other timeline increasing exponentially... it would accomplish nothing because they could change nothing and they would be absent from the original timeline so still fail if you can't affect the timeline you are in it is effectively useless and pointless... if you can affect the timeline you're in not only does it make no sense logically but it's still practically useless since you can just keep changing it as many times as you want (this one was actually covered in a Voyager episode Year of Hell 1&2 which incidentally also directly proves your take on it incorrect) Edited February 7, 2012 by Liquidacid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MustrumRidcully Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 despite the fact that if that was so it would directly contradict every single ST movie and episode (exept JJ's) where time travel is shown and was explained it still makes no sense... since then they could never stop them from doing it and just creating an infinite number of other timeline increasing exponentially... it would accomplish nothing because they could change nothing and they would be absent from the original timeline so still fail if you can't affect the timeline you are in it is effectively useless and pointless... if you can affect the timeline you're in not only does it make no sense logically but it's still practically useless since you can just keep changing it as many times as you want (this one was actually covered in a Voyager episode Year of Hell 1&2 which incidentally also directly proves your take on it incorrect) Startrek is often inconsistent - including its handling of time travel. So what actually happens when you travel in time - create a parallel timeline or alter the course of your own - is not clear, and basically only depends on the whims of the writer. But even that doesn't really matter for the question whether Red Matter exists. It may be relevant to the question whether the Force can stop time travel or not (which isn't exactly something from canon in teh first place) - In Trek, people definitely can travel through time. And sometimes they change the timeline. (For example, Sisko travelling back to the 21st century and replacing Gabriel Bell. I doubt he missed that Grabriel Bell's history pics looked exactly like him. Even Nog noticed that...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malastare Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Ok the they can destroy a planet "Ace in the hole" is BS if you stacked about 100 nuclear bombs on the san andreas fault it would destroy the planet. It's not a big trump card because you don't want to destroy a planet. Sorry... this annoyed me. No. You'd make a big hole and nothing else. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you managed to get 100 strategic thermonuclear warheads of Ivy Mike level (10MT yield). That would put you at 1,000MT, if you somehow managed to not lose any energy in the muti-detonation. Even then, you'd have enough power to... oh... pull off two Mt. St. Helens explosions and some extra melting. There have been many explosions of greater magnitude than what you suggest: Lake Toba, Yellowstone, or pretty much any supervolcano. They don't even come close to "destroying a planet". Also, there's nothing special about San Andreas. It's actually one of the last faults you'd want to use. At least if you had a expansion zone (Mid-Atlantic Rift, or Great Rift Valley) you'd have a chance to crack the core. In the real world.... no... all the nuclear weapons in the world couldn't even punch a hole in the crust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ri_Aminus Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 klingon ship stealths over to imperial supply shuttle.klingons beam over a crate of tribbles.???empire dies of starvation. Game over. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha classic!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ri_Aminus Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 OK..... fleet numbers ok....now you say that its just the Klingons but i doubt the feds/cardys/romulans/dominion would just sit back and do nothing lol after all once the imps are thru or potentially thru with the klingons they're coming after the rest. Trek - Feds have approx 6-10,000 and have 52 classes of combat efficient star ships url 1: http://www.ditl.org/index.php?daymain=/pagarticle.php?14 url 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Starfleet_starships_ordered_by_class one of the shows creators rick berman estimates it at 30,000 - looool KDF have Bird of prey, all variants, b'rel and k'vort inc. (no numbers on specifics on amount of variants) D7/D5/D12. K't'inga. Negh'Var, Vor'cha, Warbird, url 1: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Klingon_starship_classes url 2: http://starchive.cs.umanitoba.ca/?ships/klingon/ Dominion - they have the highly useful Attack ship, battle cruiser, battle ship, breen cruiser, stand off cruiser, V-type cruiser - now as we all know who have or do follow trek, the dominion are powerful and the sheer amount of vessels ohhh and plus those pesky litttle buggers called the Jem'Hadar. this URL gives detailed outputs etc on the ships for all trek species. http://www.st-intelligence.com/ Below are the individualised urls for each species - didnt bother with the ferengi - they would prob join the empire hahahaha Feds: http://www.st-intelligence.com/ship_database/dom/st_dom.php Dominion: http://www.st-intelligence.com/ship_database/fed/st_fed2.php Klingon: http://www.st-intelligence.com/ship_database/card/st_card.php Romulan: http://www.st-intelligence.com/ship_database/kling/st_kling.php Cardassian: http://www.st-intelligence.com/ship_database/rom/st_rom.php ....anyways besides i doubt Q would let his beloved "Mon Capitan" or "Kathy" get squashed so the empire is fe*k*d...................lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kabloosh Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 (edited) Sorry... this annoyed me. No. You'd make a big hole and nothing else. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you managed to get 100 strategic thermonuclear warheads of Ivy Mike level (10MT yield). That would put you at 1,000MT, if you somehow managed to not lose any energy in the muti-detonation. Even then, you'd have enough power to... oh... pull off two Mt. St. Helens explosions and some extra melting. There have been many explosions of greater magnitude than what you suggest: Lake Toba, Yellowstone, or pretty much any supervolcano. They don't even come close to "destroying a planet". Also, there's nothing special about San Andreas. It's actually one of the last faults you'd want to use. At least if you had a expansion zone (Mid-Atlantic Rift, or Great Rift Valley) you'd have a chance to crack the core. In the real world.... no... all the nuclear weapons in the world couldn't even punch a hole in the crust. Those 100 nukes would unleash an ungodly amount of radiation into the atmosphere which would cause some SERIOUS damage to the global climate that could spiral things out of control causing a nasty nuclear winter or global warming effect. Lets hope we never find out. Edited February 7, 2012 by Kabloosh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ri_Aminus Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 You are assuming that Star Wars lasers work anything like they do in our galaxy. there is a flaw in your logic....the creator of star wars IS from our universe....and perhaps got the idea from our "universe" lasers? just playing devils advocate....and if he didnt...well, Trek IS based on reality, star wars isnt....so the only way to know who would win out right is for it to happen, sadly it wont. kinda puts a downer on it...... the hell are we gonna do now? loool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-Sheridan Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 agree on that but it could have also been done if they actually had good targeting computers. Jango could have pulled off the shot. Just look at all their space battles and how many stray shots they have. Targeting computers are countered by Electronic Jamming which the DS1 had in abundance and is common place in Star Wars. All their armor is pretty consistent when it comes to how much damage they can take. We know that At-St are made of Durasteel and we know that all their space ships are also made of dura steel. We see how much damage their weapons do to it and it's all pretty consistent. Apparantly you dont understand the concept of armor density Or are you seriously saying that a SCOUT vehicle should have the same durability as a spaceship By your stupidity, if someone drops a log onto a car, that means a tank would be crushed by the same log. Only an idiot would argue that an ATST being crushed by a log automatically means Jango Fetts ship can be crushed by the same log. Who knew... all the Rebels had to do to defeat the ATATs was to drop logs on them, right ? This is why I call you intellectually dishonest because I do not honestly believe your seriously arguing that apples are the same as oranges because they are both called 'fruit'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrykerOne Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 In the real world.... no... all the nuclear weapons in the world couldn't even punch a hole in the crust. True... there's nothing remotely within current human capability that could even come close to destroying or severely damaging the planet itself. About the best we could do is wipe out most of the life on the planet and make a bunch of craters that, while pretty impressive looking up close, are actually no more than scratches. Probably the best way to actually affect the planet itself would be to try to use a bunch of nukes to set off a supervolcano (assuming you can find one close enough to erupting) since that might at least make a mess big enough to see from space. It would still just be a minor blemish on the crust though... As far as Klingons vs the Imps goes, it's an interesting question. The Klingons do have cloaking and more powerful individual weapons (aside from the occasional superweapon or planetary defense cannon, Star Wars tends to use massed fire from relatively small guns) but the Empire has a lot more guns and probably more ships. I'd probably give it to the Klingons simply because the Empire relies on fighters and bombers for a lot of its firepower and Star Trek ships tend to be able to obliterate small craft very easily based on the few episodes I've seen where one gets attacked by a fighter swarm. I suspect the Klingons would be able to protect themselves from fighter / bomber waves with their disruptors (or just cloak and move away once they get too close) while using long range torpedo fire to weaken the enemy, then simply cloak and move in for the kill shot to critical areas like the bridge or engines after the shields are down. The cloaking itself isn't a game winner since they can't fire while cloaked (I'm assuming normal Klingon ships, not special prototypes) but it does give them a tactical edge. The real clincher is the lack of long range heavy weapons on most Star Wars ships... Klingon torpedoes and possibly the Negh'Var's heavy disruptor cannon are almost certainly going to outrange turbolasers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarjarloves Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Targeting computers are countered by Electronic Jamming which the DS1 had in abundance and is common place in Star Wars. Apparantly you dont understand the concept of armor density Or are you seriously saying that a SCOUT vehicle should have the same durability as a spaceship By your stupidity, if someone drops a log onto a car, that means a tank would be crushed by the same log. Only an idiot would argue that an ATST being crushed by a log automatically means Jango Fetts ship can be crushed by the same log. Who knew... all the Rebels had to do to defeat the ATATs was to drop logs on them, right ? This is why I call you intellectually dishonest because I do not honestly believe your seriously arguing that apples are the same as oranges because they are both called 'fruit'. wait..... did you just say the more metal you have of the same material the higher the density??? and yes if a tank was made out of the same materials as a car (aluminum, plastic, and a steel chassis) then yes i would expect it to get crushed like a car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeepsMcJuggs Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 (edited) wait..... did you just say the more metal you have of the same material the higher the density??? and yes if a tank was made out of the same materials as a car (aluminum, plastic, and a steel chassis) then yes i would expect it to get crushed like a car. *facepalm* Yes, yes he did. J-Sheridan, density means mass per unit volume. In other words, two inches of aluminum is less dense than two inches of steel. Thickness has nothing to do with armor density. No literally, what are they teaching kids in schools these days? Edited February 7, 2012 by PeepsMcJuggs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustTed Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 My take is you can gauge the technological advancement of a species based on how fast they can travel. That's a good indication on how "big" your galaxy is on a practical level, and how powerful your society is technologically. In Star Trek, at maximum warp, crossing the galaxy would take like a century. In Star Wars, the do it in hours. It makes me feel like the Star Wars galaxy is several thousands years more advanced technologically. But then, they don't have matter replicators, so... damn it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarjarloves Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 *facepalm* Yes, yes he did. J-Sheridan, density means mass per unit volume. In other words, two inches of aluminum is less dense than two inches of steel. In other words, thickness has nothing to do with armor density. No literally, what are they teaching kids in schools these days? I weep for the future. no really J-Sheridan the reason why a car can get crushed by a tree and a tank can't is because a car is made of a lot of plastic and aluminum. Heck most car companies stopped using steel frames in the 1970s. Now that I think about it even Chassis are made out of alluminum alloys so they can have better crumple zones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kabloosh Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) I weep for the future. no really J-Sheridan the reason why a car can get crushed by a tree and a tank can't is because a car is made of a lot of plastic and aluminum. Heck most car companies stopped using steel frames in the 1970s. Now that I think about it even Chassis are made out of alluminum alloys so they can have better crumple zones. I think it has more to do with the fact cars are made to crumble and tanks are not. Tanks have multiple layers of various types of materials. The Abrams is protected by armor based on the British-designed Chobham armor, a further development of the British 'Burlington' armor. Chobham is a composite armor formed by spacing multiple layers of various alloys of steel, ceramics, plastic composites, and kevlar, giving an estimated maximum (frontal turret) 1,320–1,620 millimetres (52–64 in) of RHAe versus HEAT (and other chemical energy rounds) and 940–960 mm (37–38 in) versus kinetic energy penetrators.[42] It may also be fitted with reactive armor over the track skirts if needed (as in the Urban Survival Kit) and slat armor over the rear of the tank and rear fuel cells to protect against ATGMs. Protection against spalling is provided by a Kevlar liner. Beginning in 1987, M1A1 tanks received improved armor packages that incorporated depleted uranium (DU) mesh in their armor at the front of the turret and the front of the hull. Armor reinforced in this manner offers significantly increased resistance towards all types of anti-tank weaponry, but at the expense of adding considerable weight to the tank, as depleted uranium is 1.7 times more dense than lead http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams George Lucas most likely didn't think this deep into the universe giving out how the war ships may of been armored so it leaves up a lot of speculation and whatever crap you can find on the internet with any form of credibility. That ATST could of been a light armored vehicle similar to an HMMV making the frame of the vehicle rather weak and easy to smash like a tin can when you smash massive tree trunks from both sides against it. Edited February 8, 2012 by Kabloosh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarjarloves Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 I think it has more to do with the fact cars are made to crumble and tanks are not. Tanks have multiple layers of various types of materials. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams George Lucas most likely didn't think this deep into the universe giving out how the war ships may of been armored so it leaves up a lot of speculation and whatever crap you can find on the internet with any form of credibility. That ATST could of been a light armored vehicle similar to an HMMV making the frame of the vehicle rather weak and easy to smash like a tin can when you smash massive tree trunks from both sides against it. even if it is light armored it is still made of Dura Steel and the frame alone should have provided protection against a tree. The Tree trunks aren't even damaged. If you did that to a thin sheet of steel say 1/2 of an inch it would maybe deform the steel at best but the tree would splinter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kabloosh Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 even if it is light armored it is still made of Dura Steel and the frame alone should have provided protection against a tree. The Tree trunks aren't even damaged. If you did that to a thin sheet of steel say 1/2 of an inch it would maybe deform the steel at best but the tree would splinter. This is a movie made in the early 80s. You aren't going to get accuracy and realism especially out of a science fiction movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarjarloves Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 This is a movie made in the early 80s. You aren't going to get accuracy and realism especially out of a science fiction movie. again this is how the Star Wars canon system works. Everything we see in hte movies is exactly how it works. i agree it sounds stupid but thats the rules we are following. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandonSM Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 again this is how the Star Wars canon system works. Everything we see in hte movies is exactly how it works. i agree it sounds stupid but thats the rules we are following. No. I disagree. I honestly think Movie Novelizations are more canon than the actual Movie because the Movie can be interpreted different ways, plus most of hte novelizations are better than the actual movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarjarloves Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) No. I disagree. I honestly think Movie Novelizations are more canon than the actual Movie because the Movie can be interpreted different ways, plus most of hte novelizations are better than the actual movie. you are free to "think" that however that is not how the star wars canon system works. edit: also that doesn't change the fact a durasteel AT ST was crushed by two logs. Edited February 8, 2012 by jarjarloves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeepsMcJuggs Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 This is a movie made in the early 80s. You aren't going to get accuracy and realism especially out of a science fiction movie. There's also the fact that it isn't sci-fi, it's space fantasy. Just because it's in space doesn't make it sci-fi. again this is how the Star Wars canon system works. Everything we see in hte movies is exactly how it works. i agree it sounds stupid but thats the rules we are following. Which is why comparing two sets of idiotic made-up numbers is, well, idiotic. I firmly believe debates like this need to focus on immutable points, like the basics of the technology, strategies and the like. Even fleet sizes are questionable, seeing as there's no canon information on the size of the Klingon fleet, nor the number of habitable planets they control, their total population across the empire, how long they've been populating galactic colonies, what percentage of their population actively serves in the military, their ship production speed, etc, etc. This is why there needs to be ground rules, such as: Shields - they both have them. We don't know which is stronger, so assume they're equal. Torpedoes - same, though Star Trek ships can fire them while at warp. Turbolasers vs. phasers - assume same power output. Turbolasers don't move at the speed of light, phasers do. Warpspeed vs lightspeed - warp is slower than hyperspace, but ships can scan ahead for threats while at warp. Lightspeed can get you across the galaxy in hours or days, but is considered unsafe without a pre-mapped corridor, and is susceptible to gravity wells. Sensors - Trek has everything sensors, Wars (ironically) has sensors that are closer to real-world tech. We don't know which has the better range, so assume they have equal range. Etc (I'll let you guys figure out the rest) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeepsMcJuggs Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) My take is you can gauge the technological advancement of a species based on how fast they can travel. That's a good indication on how "big" your galaxy is on a practical level, and how powerful your society is technologically. In Star Trek, at maximum warp, crossing the galaxy would take like a century. In Star Wars, the do it in hours. It makes me feel like the Star Wars galaxy is several thousands years more advanced technologically. But then, they don't have matter replicators, so... damn it! The problem with this argument is, if I recall, people in Star Wars don't fully understand how hyperdrives work. It's a forgotten black box technology. People can build and maintain them, but they can't fully explain how they do what they do. Also, Star Wars travel is generally limited to hyperspace corridors, whereas Trek ships can travel wherever they want, and seem to have no problems finding habitable planets wherever the hell they go. There's also the fact that Trek technology is always constantly advancing, whereas Star Wars has been described as being on a technological plateau, which is why the latter doesn't seem to have made any major scientific advancements in thousands of years (besides doomsday machines). But you are right: the ability of Star Wars ships traversing the galaxy in a very short time is a major game-changer, simply because they can build up their forces in locations Trek simply can't touch. Ofc, you could probably make the same argument for Trek building forces in locations that aren't easily accessible by lightspeed, like dense, unmapped star clusters and the like. Edited February 8, 2012 by PeepsMcJuggs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aximand Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 but that goes back to the asteroids not actually being destroyed by the force of the turbo laser since it's the same special effect used when the asteroid collides with the SD. thus the eternal loop of logic continues. That could be the shield flaring and destroying it, effectively making it explode right in front of the bridge and destroy the bridge. Just throwing that out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarjarloves Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 That could be the shield flaring and destroying it, effectively making it explode right in front of the bridge and destroy the bridge. Just throwing that out there. but we see what happens when the asteroids hit a shield and thats not it. It's very clearly the asteroid hits the bridge and explodes completely destroying the entire tower of the SD. If it is the shield that does it that would only raise MORE questions. as in *** is a shield doing emmiting the power of 6k megatons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts