Star Trek Ships vs. Stargate Ships

[cocytus]

Three words:Asgard Intergalactic Hyperdrive
Suck it,Star Trek....LOL

[Rise Of The Phoenix]

As you say, Silent Enemy was a modified weapon, and not a true representation of the NX-01's capabilities. In fact, firing that weapon damaged the ship! As for the Goa'uld... well, when the Hatak in Enemies collided with a planet, the detonation of the ship's power source produced a huge explosion.http://www.gateworld.net/gallery/dis...992&fullsize=1 I also again refer to the act of turning Netu's surface into an inhospitable waste land. Whilst it is true we did not see this event, based on the bare minimum firepower for Hataks (the 200MT stated in But there for the Grace of God), it is not inconceivable for this event to have taken place quickly. We also have Ba'al's depopulation of an inhabited system that he was about to lose control of to a rival System Lord, as referenced in Summit. Again, we do not see the incident, but it is possible to infer, based on what else we know, that this was an 'energetic' event.

As Tetsujin pointed out I made a mistake with regards to the actual weapon, as he stated the weapon wasn't actually modified it was just supplied with a greater level of power.
Again this example is still proof of a much older federation vessel being highly capable of leveling a very large mountain, I tried looking for comparisons between the size of mount mckinley and cheyenne, I believe cheyenne is smaller than mckinley, if that's the case then 200 year old phasers are superior to an unknown Goauld weapon (unknown since the kind used on Goauld vessels to achieve the 200mt shots wasn't stated, visual examples shown don't support 200mt pulse cannons on Ha'Taks).
BTW the Ha'Tak was headed for Sokar's old planet, which happened to belong to Apophis new base, Jacob mentions the base's technology, being that this was Apophis's base there's a highly likely chance that there was a lot of Naquadah on that planet, so we can't assume that all of the explosion was caused by the ship's reactors going up.
Still as Tetsujin said any ship slamming into a planet fast enough to cause it's reactors to blow would likely cause a big bang, it's not a true reflection of weapons capabilities, any Star Trek ship can fly in real space using warp drive and slam straight into any target like a planet and cause one hell of a bang if it's reactors went off.
As you said we don't see the Ba'al example, what's energetic depends on what you believe, it can vary from person to person, we have no evidence on what happened exactly, same with Sokar's planet.

I don't dismiss dialogue, I just treat visuals as a higher source. The visuals in Star Trek are actually pretty consistent, and they're consistently low. There is supporting dialogue to back up this position, whereas there is no supporting visual evidence to support the dialogue claims for high firepower.

See as far as I'm concerned what's more consistantly shown or stated on the shows is what we should take as gospel and canon for each show.
With the Goauld we have no visual examples of high yield firepower and that is very consistent over the whole of stargate, in fact it's pretty consistent for most races on the show.
In terms of yields being stated for the races on Stargate, we don't have much apart from the one There But For The Grace Of God, not from what I recall.
We have far more examples of higher yields in both diologue and visuals in Star Trek, I'm not gonna repeat the examples because they're available over the last few pages to review.

I went back to that page- bit like a trip down memory lane!- and whilst he does raise an interesting point, bear in mind that at the point of detonation, the shield was not very big, and would have caught the brunt of the blast. It expanded so much because of the injection of energy, and to be honest, given my first-hand experiences of Mr Oragahn, I'll put more stock in the work from SB.com.

Hope you enjoyed it.
You still have no info on the size of the planet, like Mr Oragahn said the shield could have had an effect on how the blast looked.
All things need to be taken into consideration.

Regarding A Matter of Time, this only puts phaser power in the low TW range, nothing especially amazing, and to achieve this Geordi had to make modifications to the phaser array to achieve this. Regarding Skin of Evil, yes, were it the only example of low firepower, it could be explained away as variable yields, but it's not the only example, and other examples are of military situations.

Like Tetsujin said in his reply to your reply of my post where did you get the Terawatt figure?
I'll refer you to my previous consistency point, that's what I value when it comes to these discussions.
That's the most scientific approach whatever way you look at it.

No worries, I understand completely about difficulty accessing material- not to mention time constraints! BTW, good holiday?

When I've got the money I would like to buy all the Star Trek series on DVD, I own much more Stargate related stuff than I do for Star Trek, it's good that they're not too expensive per season now, got the new Star Trek film on Bluray today, I like it even though it messes with the canon of the show.
I need to get seasons 2 to 5 of SGA and 9 and 10 of SG1, plus Continuum.

Yeah was good thanks, went to Bath for a Week, an absolutely beautiful city, lovely people.
Shame I had to come back and then get a bug, had to work 6 days too, which was annoying, but I'm better now which is cool I guess

I don't accept the 'god-like being' argument, nor do I accept that Worf was surprised by low little power it took to knock out the shields. The bare facts of the dialogue are that the first two shots to hit the shields were not powerful enough to take out the shields, then the third, much more powerful shot did. This suggests an increase in power was enough to prove effective. As I explained to Tetsujin, something can be powerful without doing physical damage to an object.

I'll refer you to Tetsujin's statement about Particle weapons.

We know the asteroid was most likely a rocky one (this is stated in the transcript of the episode), and there is nothing to support low anti-matter reserves.

Nothing specific was stated about what the asteroid was composed of, you cannot say without a shadow of doubt that other things weren't present.
As far as the anti-matter goes, if kilos of anti-matter were present then surely they would have had an effect on the explosion, if whatever storage tanks used for anti-matter ruptured they would surely have an effect on the blast.

If they were firing at the site of the warp ship so much, the most logical conclusion is that they were trying to stop first contact. They could then assimilate earth at their leisure. The fact that they couldn't even do any serious damage to the warp ship, despite firing several shots, speaks volumes about their capabilities.

The warp ship wasn't a military asset to Earth, the only conclusion we can draw from that example is the Borg weren't intending to outright destroy it.
We can't take Picard's assumptions as truth, we'd need to hear it from the Borg, I don't recall them saying they wanted to destroy Cochrine's ship, perhaps they didn't have enough Anti-Matter contained in the Sphere to do enough damage if destroying it wwas their intent.
All prior examples of the Borg in star trek have shown them to be much stronger than most other races in Star Trek, as I've stated before I've formed my opinion of what the answer to this thread should be through taking what is most consistent to be the truth of who has the more powerful ships, taking prior examples of lesser Star Trek races or older Starfleet the Borg being able to annihilate more advanced ships should mean they could have taken the facility and warp ship out easily if that was their intent, unless like I said they didn't have enough anti-matter to fit in their torpedoes, which is plausible if they used large quantities in their time travel technology, I'm speculating here, but it would give an in universe explaination of their lack of power there, otherwise we're left with Borg intent being the reason because your explanation of weak weapons makes little sense I'm afraid.

Even if the buildings could withstand high yields, the surrounding surface wouldn't be able to, and we see no signs of damage to said surface.

Look at the finale of DS9 then, ground assaults on Cardassia by the federation had a similar appearance, I'm not sure of whether it was stated that the Breen fired from orbit or sent ground teams down?

Not traveling as slowly as we see, against Tetsujin's claimed shield strengths for ST ships it wouldn't.

The sublight speeds of federation ships are stated on numerous occasions, since they are numerous and we have statements for how fast a particular sublight speed is.
I believe the motion picture states how fast a constitution class vessel travels when using a particular factor of impulse and Tetsujin's Pegasus example.

Mike does actually factor in the flares- he explains them on his site. Secondly, they don't report any shields or filters protecting the inside surface.

He dismisses them in the post you quoted before.
They are clearly an issue, which should not be swept asside without consideration.
We do not know how many were affecting the ship, so all we can say is they were an issue, they were near the enterprise at least, since the effects are not present at first then they become apparent later in the episode.
I'll admit the example doesn't provide us with concrete numbers of how many flares were around, but to completely write them off because the intensity and numbers of the flares aren't stated is unscientific.
No pro Stargate side would appreciate such an example being shunned just because specific details aren't specifically stated even when it's so clear they are having an effect and I wouldn't ignore such evidence on either side as it makes this debate completely unfair.


I didn't say filters or anything were mentioned, I stated that a race with the tech level to make a dyson sphere, with the engineering capabilities to construct such a structure should have the abilty to surpass a race of the federation's level.
It's not crazy to speculate that such a race should have the technological capabilities of the federation and beyond considering qualified starfleet personnel considered the dyson sphere an engineering marvel.
In Think Tank the Think Tank's ship was made of Carbon Neutronium, a material which I think was stated to be part of the Dyson Sphere's construction and the Enterprise's phasers were incapable of penetrating such a material (according to Worf), Carbon Neutronium was I believe stated by Janeway to be only a theory or not even theorized about by the federation, if this doesn't show how far beyond starfleet's technological capabilties the race that created the dyson sphere would have been then I don't know what would.


As far as my view point goes, like I said above I think consistency in evidence is what is most important, which is why I support the view that Star Trek would win this battle, I actually love both shows equally so I'm unbiased.

[Rise Of The Phoenix]

Three words:Asgard Intergalactic Hyperdrive
Suck it,Star Trek....LOL

That means nothing when wherever those intergalactic hyperdrive equipped ships go they'll meet their match with firepower and defenses better than the ship with the Asgard tech.

[cocytus]

That means nothing when wherever those intergalactic hyperdrive equipped ships go they'll meet their match with firepower and defenses better than the ship with the Asgard tech.

You are aware,of course,what the word "intergalactic" means,aren't you?
How are you going to shoot what you can't even CATCH?

[Rise Of The Phoenix]

You are aware,of course,what the word "intergalactic" means,aren't you?
How are you going to shoot what you can't even CATCH?

Yes of course I'm aware of what the word intergalactic means.
Hyperspace windows are usually detected long before a ship drops back into normal space, it'll then have to charge weapons after exiting hyperspace and acquire it's target, giving the federation vessel or whatever Star Trek ship more than enough time to raise shields and retaliate.
Once a group such as starfleet has had a first encounter with a race from the Stargate universe and detected hyperspace readings they'll know what to look for and be more than prepared next time there's an engagement.
They'll charge weapons, raise shields and target where the Stargate ships will drop back into normal space.

If Stargate races know about their Star Trek counterparts enough to know they're going strike at them, then we have to assume the Star Trek races know about their Stargate counterparts.
You have to be fair to both sides, you cannot just assume faster propulsion equals instant win, just because your ships are fast, we need to take everything into consideration and stronger shields and weapons of Star Trek make for the win in this battle.

[darth_timon]

As Tetsujin pointed out I made a mistake with regards to the actual weapon, as he stated the weapon wasn't actually modified it was just supplied with a greater level of power.
Again this example is still proof of a much older federation vessel being highly capable of leveling a very large mountain, I tried looking for comparisons between the size of mount mckinley and cheyenne, I believe cheyenne is smaller than mckinley, if that's the case then 200 year old phasers are superior to an unknown Goauld weapon (unknown since the kind used on Goauld vessels to achieve the 200mt shots wasn't stated, visual examples shown don't support 200mt pulse cannons on Ha'Taks).

Whether the weapons were given enhanced power by an alien device or modified, the termology doesn't matter. Without that device, the feat in Silent Enemy would not have been possible. Plus, that much power flowing through the power grid caused damage to the ship, not a good thing when you're in a firefight!

With the 200MT business, not only is it supported by dialogue, but also from the Beach Head calculations, which establish several hundred megatons per shot for Goa'uld vessels. Given the size of the shield at the time of detonation, it is not unreasonable to assume that the shield would have absorbed most, if not all, of the energy from the nuke, and the 812GT figure is a conservative estimate for the size of the explosion. Whilst I agree that the events of Memories of Jolinar and Summit are not backed up by visuals and should not be taken as hard data, when put in context with the high energy events we know of they make sense.

BTW the Ha'Tak was headed for Sokar's old planet, which happened to belong to Apophis new base, Jacob mentions the base's technology, being that this was Apophis's base there's a highly likely chance that there was a lot of Naquadah on that planet, so we can't assume that all of the explosion was caused by the ship's reactors going up.

I'll grant that the collision and detonation of power sources would make an impact on the size of the explosion- however, this is a good indication of the sort of power sources SG plays with, and this is before Anubis came along with his improved technology.

[quote]See as far as I'm concerned what's more consistantly shown or stated on the shows is what we should take as gospel and canon for each show.
With the Goauld we have no visual examples of high yield firepower and that is very consistent over the whole of stargate, in fact it's pretty consistent for most races on the show.
In terms of yields being stated for the races on Stargate, we don't have much apart from the one There But For The Grace Of God, not from what I recall./quote]

See, with SG you can rationalise the low firepower we see- we know the Goa'uld like to be worshipped as gods (which you can't do if you kill all your prospective worshippers) and they like to scanvage for technology (which you can't do if you've vapourised said technology). With ST, we have no visual examples of high firepower (certainly not when compared to SG) and even dialogue to support low firepower. Only Relics offers any kind of proof of high shield strength for ST and this example is not concrete.

Hope you enjoyed it.
You still have no info on the size of the planet, like Mr Oragahn said the shield could have had an effect on how the blast looked.
All things need to be taken into consideration.

As far as planetary size is concerned, the most reasonable thing to assume is that the planet was earth-sized. This is best done for all the habitable planets we see on both SG and ST, as it levels the playing field. As I mentioned earlier, there's good reason to think that the shield absorbed most if not all of the energy from the explosion.

Like Tetsujin said in his reply to your reply of my post where did you get the Terawatt figure?

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/...s/Shield1.html

I'll refer you to my previous consistency point, that's what I value when it comes to these discussions.
That's the most scientific approach whatever way you look at it.

I agree that consistency is important. That's why I argue for low firepower and shield strength for Star Trek. It's what we see in the visuals, and it's supported by dialogue.

When I've got the money I would like to buy all the Star Trek series on DVD, I own much more Stargate related stuff than I do for Star Trek, it's good that they're not too expensive per season now, got the new Star Trek film on Bluray today, I like it even though it messes with the canon of the show.

My wife has all of SG1 (apart from Season 6 and Season 10) on DVD, and we have Season 1 of SGA. I'd love to get the rest, and I'd love to get the entirety of Star Trek too. I'd have to win the lottery to afford it though!

Yeah was good thanks, went to Bath for a Week, an absolutely beautiful city, lovely people.
Shame I had to come back and then get a bug, had to work 6 days too, which was annoying, but I'm better now which is cool I guess

Been through Bath, never actually been there- I know it's supposed to be one of the most historic cities in Britain though. As for a bug... isn't that always the way, go away, get ill? Happened to me on holiday more than once.

I'll refer you to Tetsujin's statement about Particle weapons.

Funnily enough, I was watching a documentary about the sun earlier, and charged particles are one of the factors behind electrical disturbances during periods of high solar activity. They do not however, cause phyiscal damage to the power grid.

Nothing specific was stated about what the asteroid was composed of, you cannot say without a shadow of doubt that other things weren't present.

Nothing is absolutely perfect. However, judging from the look of the asteroids, they were not the iron-nickel type. They looked distinctly rocky. I am willing to stake my reputation on it.

As far as the anti-matter goes, if kilos of anti-matter were present then surely they would have had an effect on the explosion, if whatever storage tanks used for anti-matter ruptured they would surely have an effect on the blast.

Then the logical conclusion, based on what we see of the firepower of torpedoes, is that they don't carry a lot of anti-matter to begin with.

The warp ship wasn't a military asset to Earth, the only conclusion we can draw from that example is the Borg weren't intending to outright destroy it.
We can't take Picard's assumptions as truth, we'd need to hear it from the Borg, I don't recall them saying they wanted to destroy Cochrine's ship, perhaps they didn't have enough Anti-Matter contained in the Sphere to do enough damage if destroying it wwas their intent.
All prior examples of the Borg in star trek have shown them to be much stronger than most other races in Star Trek, as I've stated before I've formed my opinion of what the answer to this thread should be through taking what is most consistent to be the truth of who has the more powerful ships, taking prior examples of lesser Star Trek races or older Starfleet the Borg being able to annihilate more advanced ships should mean they could have taken the facility and warp ship out easily if that was their intent, unless like I said they didn't have enough anti-matter to fit in their torpedoes, which is plausible if they used large quantities in their time travel technology, I'm speculating here, but it would give an in universe explaination of their lack of power there, otherwise we're left with Borg intent being the reason because your explanation of weak weapons makes little sense I'm afraid.

The most straight-forward way to stop first contact would be to destroy the warp ship. One direct hit from a modern-day bunker buster bomb would do it. Bombs from a WWII bomber could do it. Yet several shots from the sphere could not achieve this. They'd have to be scraping the barrel of their reserves to require several shots to do barely any damage. It doesn't make any logical sense for them to achieve so little.

Look at the finale of DS9 then, ground assaults on Cardassia by the federation had a similar appearance, I'm not sure of whether it was stated that the Breen fired from orbit or sent ground teams down?

If it's the result of orbital bombardment then it's hardly impressive- we can do more damage with modern day nukes.

The sublight speeds of federation ships are stated on numerous occasions, since they are numerous and we have statements for how fast a particular sublight speed is.

And yet the visuals do not correspond, not once, to the stated speeds- and this goes for SG as well as ST.

He dismisses them in the post you quoted before.
They are clearly an issue, which should not be swept asside without consideration.
We do not know how many were affecting the ship, so all we can say is they were an issue, they were near the enterprise at least, since the effects are not present at first then they become apparent later in the episode.
I'll admit the example doesn't provide us with concrete numbers of how many flares were around, but to completely write them off because the intensity and numbers of the flares aren't stated is unscientific.
No pro Stargate side would appreciate such an example being shunned just because specific details aren't specifically stated even when it's so clear they are having an effect and I wouldn't ignore such evidence on either side as it makes this debate completely unfair.

Even if we factor in the flares, we have to remember that an Hatak sat in a more energetic region of a more energetic star for longer. The end result is that Hatak shield strength is greater than a Federation starship's shield strength.

I didn't say filters or anything were mentioned, I stated that a race with the tech level to make a dyson sphere, with the engineering capabilities to construct such a structure should have the abilty to surpass a race of the federation's level.
It's not crazy to speculate that such a race should have the technological capabilities of the federation and beyond considering qualified starfleet personnel considered the dyson sphere an engineering marvel.
In Think Tank the Think Tank's ship was made of Carbon Neutronium, a material which I think was stated to be part of the Dyson Sphere's construction and the Enterprise's phasers were incapable of penetrating such a material (according to Worf), Carbon Neutronium was I believe stated by Janeway to be only a theory or not even theorized about by the federation, if this doesn't show how far beyond starfleet's technological capabilties the race that created the dyson sphere would have been then I don't know what would.

They'd abandoned the sphere, as a result of the star's instability. If they had the means to protect themselves somehow from the dangers of the star, they would not have abandoned it.

As far as my view point goes, like I said above I think consistency in evidence is what is most important, which is why I support the view that Star Trek would win this battle, I actually love both shows equally so I'm unbiased.

What I'd like to propose is that we move beyond firepower for a moment, as we're likely to continue to disagree on those issues. What say we look at the tactical and stragetic side of things- fleet strength for example?

[Tetsujin]

What you're referring to is artistic licence, or producer's intent, or whatever you want to call it. The producers have made the statements that the technology can do certain things, and that, plus what you're assuming is the natural progression of our technology, is what you base your arguments on.

Again I have admitted that it all is artistic license because it is all fiction. However basing it on original logical intent is a a step down from visuals as far as how much artistic license is taken. I will also state again, since I must not have been clear enough, I am not talking about any form of logical progression as far as our technology is concerned. I am using their technology and our logic in using the technology. How far we would come in whatever time frame is irrelevant.

The problem is, on the basis of your own position, I can assume that the Goa'uld, whose System Lord civilisation has existed for thousands of years, should logically have developed powerful weaponry and tough ships. I can also take your own position of 'dialogue is closer to writers' intent' and use Carter's quote of 200MT as clear proof of high firepower for Hataks. You claim to have disproved this, yet you haven't, not under your own methods and certainly not under mine.

No, you cannot assume such a thing logically. No matter how long a species has been in existence there always can be events that hold back or slow technological progression. Our own history includes long period where advancements in technology and science in general for the most part just didnt occur because of superstition and the like. Even if these events dont occur, logically, some species just advance would at slower rates than others in the same way individual people learn certain things at different rates. Also achieving a level of technology does not mean that you will remain at that level or be otherwise forced to a lower level of advancement though internal or external means. The precarious situation of our species and a possible nuclear winter caused by war is a prime example. The results of such a thing could potentially put us back in the stone age completely resetting advancement for our species at square 1.

Also what I bring forth is logical extension of show events. The 200MT figure is not supported in visuals, calculations based on visuals and dialogue, nor logically, so it being taken as fact is highly debatable.

So this should clearly illustrate that your assumptions on what I meant when I tried to explain my viewpoint were incorrect and should be re-examined.

Suspension of Disbelief is not based on any form of artistic licence- at least, it's certainly not when compared to your method. Plus, applying real science to what we see and hear is certainly more objective than your method, since real science is completely neutral.

Suspension of disbelief is entirely based on the artistic license of the subject in question. To suspend disbelief to the level that you are suggesting you would have to believe all dialogue and visuals in the show and then apply real world physics to what you see. That approach in inherently flawed because it leaves room to argue illogical events as though they are not and to comprehend an event in a way that takes it out of context of the science of the show because real world physics may not apply and have been circumvented for the sake of the show. So while I do agree pure suspension of disbelief is neutral, it at the same time is not viable as the sole viewpoint in debate when discussing science fiction. I also do not believe that your argument can be seen as neutral since when evidence is brought forth to contradict your statements you would have to believe it completely since you can not assign priority of truth when suspending disbelief since all statements and visuals must be taken as fact.

I don't claim suspension of disbelief to be perfect. It has it's flaws. However, your method will arrive at a stalemate more readily than mine, since I can use your own method to claim equal if not superior firepower for SG, and we can go around in circles with our opinions until the sun goes nova. Your refusal to accept science and logic, and your desire to dismiss evidence you don't agree with, is your own.

With my method it would end in a stalemate only if evidence concluded that a stalemate in ships capabilities was true. Your method allows for illogical inconsistencies, mine does not since my method is governed by logic and realistic usage of technology withing the capabilities described and shown. Like I said previously suspending disbelief in this case is basically removing all rationality and then trying to reapply logic to it while somehow ignoring its illogical origins.

[Tetsujin]

Whether the weapons were given enhanced power by an alien device or modified, the termology doesn't matter. Without that device, the feat in Silent Enemy would not have been possible. Plus, that much power flowing through the power grid caused damage to the ship, not a good thing when you're in a firefight!

You seem to be missing the point. One, this is only reference that a 200 year old ship, using a 200 year old power grid was able to display such power at all. Two, while damage was done to the ship both , times the second occurrence, which was a controlled overload showed, the damage was heavily mitigated. Third, whether this type of thing would be good in a firefight is irrelevant since the NX-01 is not even close to being the ship used as a standard, but the NCC-1701-E which is 6 generations of ship apart from the NX-01 and each subsequent ship has a large tactical superiority over the ship prior(If not a large technological superiority in general). This is proven by the many episodes where a current ship battles or is merely compared verbally to a older model. In the episode "In a Mirror, Darkly” we see a dramatic general performance gap between the Avenger(NX class) and the USS Defiant (Constitution class) which is only a single generation of upgrades over the NX class. That is the point.

With the 200MT business, not only is it supported by dialogue, but also from the Beach Head calculations, which establish several hundred megatons per shot for Goa'uld vessels. Given the size of the shield at the time of detonation, it is not unreasonable to assume that the shield would have absorbed most, if not all, of the energy from the nuke, and the 812GT figure is a conservative estimate for the size of the explosion. Whilst I agree that the events of Memories of Jolinar and Summit are not backed up by visuals and should not be taken as hard data, when put in context with the high energy events we know of they make sense.

Firstly, the 200MT figure is only supported by a single instance of dialogue. Secondly, using your own numbers from “Beach Head” I proved that it clearly was not hundreds of megatons. Even allowing the 800GT figure which is speculation based on yet another one time stated figure and suspect evidence, and allowing the 3 shot per second which is low end on how many shots they fired you get about 150MT per shot on super high end. Which still doesn’t quite fit with the 200Mt number especially when more realistic numbers of 4,5, and 6 shots per second are taken into account.

I'll grant that the collision and detonation of power sources would make an impact on the size of the explosion- however, this is a good indication of the sort of power sources SG plays with, and this is before Anubis came along with his improved technology.

Naquadah is not a power source, it is a reactant. Regardless of technology if you input enough energy to bring naquadah to a critical state it will create a large explosion. This has no bearing the power of controlled reactions.

See as far as I'm concerned what's more consistantly shown or stated on the shows is what we should take as gospel and canon for each show.
With the Goauld we have no visual examples of high yield firepower and that is very consistent over the whole of stargate, in fact it's pretty consistent for most races on the show.
In terms of yields being stated for the races on Stargate, we don't have much apart from the one There But For The Grace Of God, not from what I recall.

You can not determine what is canon and what is not if you are simply suspending disbelief. By suspending disbelief you are accepting that all events as portrayed in the show are true and not simply the ones that fit with your argument. So any instance of low power and ability is true by the standards in which you claim to be arguing since science and logic is only applied to comprehend and not to judge what is real when you suspend disbelief.

See, with SG you can rationalise the low firepower we see- we know the Goa'uld like to be worshipped as gods (which you can't do if you kill all your prospective worshippers) and they like to scanvage for technology (which you can't do if you've vapourised said technology). With ST, we have no visual examples of high firepower (certainly not when compared to SG) and even dialogue to support low firepower. Only Relics offers any kind of proof of high shield strength for ST and this example is not concrete.

Your statement is illogical. You can not rationalize low firepower. Claiming that they would not kill “worshipers”(humans) would either indicate that they care for the survival of the humans and/or that a system lord has dominion over so few humans that killing 100-10000 would decrease the amount of “worshipers” by a noticeable degree. Neither statements are the case. System lords view humans as a resource and a semi renewable one at that. When you control dozens of planets populated by humans destroying a group of them would amount to nothing. Also from the viewpoint of a dictator, any insurrection would have to be swiftly dealt with by killing most if not all doubters leaving only the knowledge of such an act as a deterrent. Yes, they are scavengers, however are you saying that allowing an insurrectionist movement to survive in order to gain possible technology is less rational than quelling said insurrection completely, securing power, and still possibly finding technology, in the mind of a dictator?

We also have no visuals to support SG firepower other than mark IX explosions on planets of unknown proportions. Also there are many references of ST weapons capabilities. One of the most promising example is that a fleet of 20 ships (15 Modified Keldons and 5 D'deridex ) could destroy 30% of the crust of a planet in a single volley, the entire crust in 1 hour and destroy down to the mantle in 5. This would mean that they could destroy the vast majority of the entire planetary body in 5 hours with only 20 ships using standard weapons. The amount of energy that would take even on a smaller planet is staggering. There are many other examples of extremely high yields in dialogue which you must accept as canon since you are being unbiased and suspending disbelief and can not simple suspend disbelief only on events that suit you.

As far as planetary size is concerned, the most reasonable thing to assume is that the planet was earth-sized. This is best done for all the habitable planets we see on both SG and ST, as it levels the playing field. As I mentioned earlier, there's good reason to think that the shield absorbed most if not all of the energy from the explosion.

No, its not. Considering how much planetary size varie even in our own solar system, stating that all planets across the galaxy are Earth sized is not acceptable. Even if I were to accept this and all planetary calculations were based on Earth sized planets, ST would instantly win by virtue of 20 older class ships being able to destroy most of the volume and mass of an earth sized planet in hours with SG showing nothing even approaching that using standard weapons with even a Gate-buster only affecting 100 miles.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/...s/Shield1.html

When we were talking about the TW figure we were not even discussing the episode in which this link references that figure. We were talking about the episode “A Matter of Time”. Also calculations that come to the conclusion that being 150,000km away from a star emitting numerous solar flares only would amount to 30MT is preposterous.

I agree that consistency is important. That's why I argue for low firepower and shield strength for Star Trek. It's what we see in the visuals, and it's supported by dialogue.

Except for when its not, but those instances just dont matter right?

Funnily enough, I was watching a documentary about the sun earlier, and charged particles are one of the factors behind electrical disturbances during periods of high solar activity. They do not however, cause phyiscal damage to the power grid.

So you are saying particles charge from a source 93 million miles away with no particular focused point of effect doesnt cause physical damage so a directed energy weapon fired at relatively close range fits in the same category? Serously? Did you even take into account “charged” means even slightly ionic? If you have used a magnifying glass the “fun” way before you know that radial effects of energy and a focused effect of that same energy can lead to significantly different results. I would also like to point out that if you charge a substance enough physical damage will occur via the breaking down of molecular bonds. So enough charge equals physical damage even if its only electrical discharge.

Nothing is absolutely perfect. However, judging from the look of the asteroids, they were not the iron-nickel type. They looked distinctly rocky. I am willing to stake my reputation on it.

Yes, and Earth looks like a ball of water for the most part, but I bet you will not stake your reputation that is it mostly water. Dont judge a book by is cover, and dont judge an asteroids composition by its surface characteristics.

Then the logical conclusion, based on what we see of the firepower of torpedoes, is that they don't carry a lot of anti-matter to begin with.

If logically they dont carry a lot of anti-matter then logically they would not be used as a viable weapon. It is as simple as that. This is exactly where suspending disbelief fails. You found a logical conclusion based on an illogical statement. Why would they go through a painstaking process to create a physical weapon when an energy weapon is more effective. Logically the weapon has merits of some kind since its a weapon I would say combat effectiveness would be primary. Honestly, even limiting it to 1.5 kg is very generous considering the amount of space they have to fit reactants into the thing and how small an amount they would have to use to correlate with your evidence.

[Tetsujin]

The most straight-forward way to stop first contact would be to destroy the warp ship. One direct hit from a modern-day bunker buster bomb would do it. Bombs from a WWII bomber could do it. Yet several shots from the sphere could not achieve this. They'd have to be scraping the barrel of their reserves to require several shots to do barely any damage. It doesn't make any logical sense for them to achieve so little.

Now, you are logically stating that a WWII weapon could have achieved the objective, and right afterward are trying to logically state that a ship painfully(understatement) more advanced than WWII era technology in every conceivable way could not? Even though a ship from 200 years ago can blow up a mountain and 20 ships can pretty much destroy a planet in a few hours. Logically even the kinetic impact of them hurling a part of the ship could have destroyed the Pheonix and the surrounding area so how is this not obviously a plot event? Right because you suspend disbelief therefore even though a ship 200 years older canonically can destroy a mountain you argue that a Borg ship cant vaporize a 300 year old missile converted into a ship is logical.

If it's the result of orbital bombardment then it's hardly impressive- we can do more damage with modern day nukes.

I doubt it was an orbital bombardment considering there being innocent people on Cardassia and SF not really in the mass murder business. An if we are talking about “Changing Face of Evil” nothing can be taken from that episodes event since no data was given. Its kind of hard to suspend disbelief on what you have 0 information on.

And yet the visuals do not correspond, not once, to the stated speeds- and this goes for SG as well as ST.

Did we forget me mentioning how the Enterprise covered kilometers in seconds using maneuvering thrusters? I would say that evidence and indication of massive speed capabilities. In ST:TMP the Enterprise traveled from Earth to past Jupiter in less than 2 hours equaling about .3c. Two examples, one of maneuvering thrusters showing impressive speeds and one of a 100 year old ship travelling at .3c at least. So no supporting evidence my foot.

Even if we factor in the flares, we have to remember that an Hatak sat in a more energetic region of a more energetic star for longer. The end result is that Hatak shield strength is greater than a Federation starship's shield strength.

How would you come to that conclusion while taking into account flared. The star in ST was less powerful but the enterprise was much closer than the Hatak and flares emit up to a large portion of the stars entire energy output in a plasma form and not simply radiation which would not only be greater in power but transfer much more energy into the shields. Also the Enterprise shields were severely weakened.

They'd abandoned the sphere, as a result of the star's instability. If they had the means to protect themselves somehow from the dangers of the star, they would not have abandoned it.

Not true. I can protect myself from radiation emitted by a nuclear reactor, that does not mean I am going to set up show near one. Why deal with a star bound to go crazy any minute when you can just go somewhere else and not have to deal with it at all. Still with the amount of power that could be harnessed through advanced photovoltaic technology and other sources of power the star could provide I would say powering a protective shield isnt unlikely or some sort of environmental conditioning system.

What I'd like to propose is that we move beyond firepower for a moment, as we're likely to continue to disagree on those issues. What say we look at the tactical and strategic side of things- fleet strength for example?

Fleet strength is an even more tenuous subject since who, what, where, and how, have to be more specifically stated which is why I argued against going in that direction. Even if we put fleets in a void ST would win through sheer numbers of capital ships. I also think its pretty obvious that SG fighters and the like have no change against a ST equivalent ship. Runabouts and Delta Flyer type ships would pretty heavily outclass any SG fighter save for possibly Ori fighters.

[darth_timon]

Tetsujin, your entire argument regarding suspension of disbelief, artistic licence and the best way to impartially analyse the events we see is down to your opinion and interpretation of where the technology of the respective forces should be.

Again I have admitted that it all is artistic license because it is all fiction. However basing it on original logical intent is a a step down from visuals as far as how much artistic license is taken. I will also state again, since I must not have been clear enough, I am not talking about any form of logical progression as far as our technology is concerned. I am using their technology and our logic in using the technology. How far we would come in whatever time frame is irrelevant.

Here you are basically saying that we should judge ST technology on how we, here and now, would logically use and interpret that technology. Using that as a starting point, you've arrived at the conclusion that Federation technology must be capable of producing multi-megaton weaponry, powerful shields, etc, because that's what we would do with their technology.

However, when the same situation is applied to SG and the Goa'uld, you suddenly start referring to how technology can stagnate. Why are you not giving the same benefit of the doubt to SG? Under your own logic, we have a society with big spacefaring, fast ships, a highly reactive and energetic mineral as a power-source (much like anti-matter is a powerful substance in Star Trek). We have on society that can travel between galaxies in mere hours (the Asgard), who can collapse stars into black holes, and we have the Ori worshippers whose ships are produced with the near infinite knowledge of ascended beings. Surely, under your own logic, such societies should have significant firepower and defences? After all, a civilisation with the ability to harness exotic power sources couldn't possibly have low firepower now could it?

Suspension of disbelief is entirely based on the artistic license of the subject in question. To suspend disbelief to the level that you are suggesting you would have to believe all dialogue and visuals in the show and then apply real world physics to what you see. That approach in inherently flawed because it leaves room to argue illogical events as though they are not and to comprehend an event in a way that takes it out of context of the science of the show because real world physics may not apply and have been circumvented for the sake of the show. So while I do agree pure suspension of disbelief is neutral, it at the same time is not viable as the sole viewpoint in debate when discussing science fiction. I also do not believe that your argument can be seen as neutral since when evidence is brought forth to contradict your statements you would have to believe it completely since you can not assign priority of truth when suspending disbelief since all statements and visuals must be taken as fact.

What is basically the case is that every form of argument regarding a fictional universe can be taken to be based on artistic licence. However, there are varying levels as to how far arguments are based on this principle. There's assuming things must be the case that aren't even hinted at, then there's looking at the visuals and dialogue and coming to conclusions based on what we see and hear. One approach uses the scientific method, the other is pure speculation.

Take the 200MT figure for example, which, despite your argument to the contrary, is supported by both dialogue and visuals. You can dispute the exact figure from Beach Head all you want, but even you have to acknowledge that the MT per min figure for a Hatak is in the realm of hundreds of megatons- is ROF goes up, the yield of each shot goes down, but the amount of energy delivered over the same timeframe remains the same, so ultimately you are nitpicking.

With my method it would end in a stalemate only if evidence concluded that a stalemate in ships capabilities was true. Your method allows for illogical inconsistencies, mine does not since my method is governed by logic and realistic usage of technology withing the capabilities described and shown. Like I said previously suspending disbelief in this case is basically removing all rationality and then trying to reapply logic to it while somehow ignoring its illogical origins.

My method involves actually looking at evidence and taking events in context. Your method involves disregarding anything you interpret as being unreasonable for the show. Which technique is more honest?

[darth_timon]

You seem to be missing the point. One, this is only reference that a 200 year old ship, using a 200 year old power grid was able to display such power at all. Two, while damage was done to the ship both , times the second occurrence, which was a controlled overload showed, the damage was heavily mitigated. Third, whether this type of thing would be good in a firefight is irrelevant since the NX-01 is not even close to being the ship used as a standard, but the NCC-1701-E which is 6 generations of ship apart from the NX-01 and each subsequent ship has a large tactical superiority over the ship prior(If not a large technological superiority in general). This is proven by the many episodes where a current ship battles or is merely compared verbally to a older model. In the episode "In a Mirror, Darkly” we see a dramatic general performance gap between the Avenger(NX class) and the USS Defiant (Constitution class) which is only a single generation of upgrades over the NX class. That is the point.

I am not missing the point. You have one example where an alien device is providing extra power to the phasers, and is thus not a true representation of the NX-class's firepower. You are then basing your conclusions on the assumption that this device should be taken as a normal reflection of the NX-class's firepower! To go on to point out the apparent 'logical' progression of the technology from that point is to do from a false starting point. Such an approach also dismisses all the evidence that contradicts such firepower.

Firstly, the 200MT figure is only supported by a single instance of dialogue. Secondly, using your own numbers from “Beach Head” I proved that it clearly was not hundreds of megatons. Even allowing the 800GT figure which is speculation based on yet another one time stated figure and suspect evidence, and allowing the 3 shot per second which is low end on how many shots they fired you get about 150MT per shot on super high end. Which still doesn’t quite fit with the 200Mt number especially when more realistic numbers of 4,5, and 6 shots per second are taken into account.

Your interpretation of the shots fired is your own, and I don't agree with them. Besides which, even if we take them as true, the level of firepower delivered over the same time frame would be the same. Plus, the way you dismiss evidence, clear evidence from dialogue in the case of But there for the Grace of God, is simply you dismissing evidence you don't like. Finally, if you're going to play semantic games regarding the size of planets, I will do the same. Lets assume the planet in TDIC was less than half the size of Pluto, but just really really dense, so that people could walk around it easily. Or we can use earth-sized planets as a level playing field for both universes. P.S: The 812GT figure is a conservative estimate!

Naquadah is not a power source, it is a reactant. Regardless of technology if you input enough energy to bring naquadah to a critical state it will create a large explosion. This has no bearing the power of controlled reactions.

Anti-matter is a reactant that reacts with normal matter to generate energy that be harnessed either to supply power or as a weapon. Naquadah is the same. When used to supply power, it is defacto a power source. Besides, it's more nitpicking on your part. Naquadah that goes boom usually does so with impressive results- remember the SGI episode Family Ties? The naquadah in that ship triggered a huge explosion. SG forces- and the Goa'uld in particular- use naquadah for pretty much everything, including as a power source.

You can not determine what is canon and what is not if you are simply suspending disbelief. By suspending disbelief you are accepting that all events as portrayed in the show are true and not simply the ones that fit with your argument. So any instance of low power and ability is true by the standards in which you claim to be arguing since science and logic is only applied to comprehend and not to judge what is real when you suspend disbelief.

I'm not the one dismissing evidence I don't like. You are doing that job, by catagorically dismissing anything that presents ST in a weak light, and anything that presents SG in a strong one.

Your statement is illogical. You can not rationalize low firepower. Claiming that they would not kill “worshipers”(humans) would either indicate that they care for the survival of the humans and/or that a system lord has dominion over so few humans that killing 100-10000 would decrease the amount of “worshipers” by a noticeable degree. Neither statements are the case. System lords view humans as a resource and a semi renewable one at that. When you control dozens of planets populated by humans destroying a group of them would amount to nothing. Also from the viewpoint of a dictator, any insurrection would have to be swiftly dealt with by killing most if not all doubters leaving only the knowledge of such an act as a deterrent. Yes, they are scavengers, however are you saying that allowing an insurrectionist movement to survive in order to gain possible technology is less rational than quelling said insurrection completely, securing power, and still possibly finding technology, in the mind of a dictator?

Did you even watch SG1? The Goa'uld are always lording over their opponents, being pompus and arrogant. They like their enemies to know they are beaten. That's their modus operandi! Likewise, they like to scavange for technology. They stole from anyone they could! Both of these are known facts about the Goa'uld and proven by countless episodes. They also value their reputation as gods.

We also have no visuals to support SG firepower other than mark IX explosions on planets of unknown proportions. Also there are many references of ST weapons capabilities. One of the most promising example is that a fleet of 20 ships (15 Modified Keldons and 5 D'deridex ) could destroy 30% of the crust of a planet in a single volley, the entire crust in 1 hour and destroy down to the mantle in 5. This would mean that they could destroy the vast majority of the entire planetary body in 5 hours with only 20 ships using standard weapons. The amount of energy that would take even on a smaller planet is staggering. There are many other examples of extremely high yields in dialogue which you must accept as canon since you are being unbiased and suspending disbelief and can not simple suspend disbelief only on events that suit you.

As I stated earlier, shall I do what you do and insist we cannot take the planet in TDIC as earth-sized? Shall we assume it to be much smaller? Additionally, we have no visible signs of damage to the planet that would be associated with such high energy events. You cannot 'pick and choose' what parts of the episode to ignore- we have clear visual evidence that contradicts the dialogue and the dialogue from earlier on suggested a much longer timescale than '30% of crust per volley', so even the dialogue contradicts itself in that episode!

No, its not. Considering how much planetary size varie even in our own solar system, stating that all planets across the galaxy are Earth sized is not acceptable. Even if I were to accept this and all planetary calculations were based on Earth sized planets, ST would instantly win by virtue of 20 older class ships being able to destroy most of the volume and mass of an earth sized planet in hours with SG showing nothing even approaching that using standard weapons with even a Gate-buster only affecting 100 miles.

Except of course, that you seem to have nothing against considering the planet in TDIC as earth-sized- and the visuals are against you. But I forgot, that's part of canon evidence you prefer to dismiss in favour of dialogue, dialogue that contradicts itself within the same episode! Then of course, you forget that the Mark 9 can be mass-produced- the Horizon module can carry up to nine missiles at once, and deploy them all at once, and each one is capable of a minimum of 812GT. Even the earliest naquadah-enhanced missiles in the SG1 Season 1 finale were said to be at least 1GT each!

When we were talking about the TW figure we were not even discussing the episode in which this link references that figure. We were talking about the episode “A Matter of Time”. Also calculations that come to the conclusion that being 150,000km away from a star emitting numerous solar flares only would amount to 30MT is preposterous.

You don't like Mike's conclusions, take them up with him. I for one will take the conclusions of the guy with a degree over yours.

Except for when its not, but those instances just dont matter right?

Speak for yourself. You dismiss any evidence you don't like, including all the visual evidence!

So you are saying particles charge from a source 93 million miles away with no particular focused point of effect doesnt cause physical damage so a directed energy weapon fired at relatively close range fits in the same category? Serously? Did you even take into account “charged” means even slightly ionic? If you have used a magnifying glass the “fun” way before you know that radial effects of energy and a focused effect of that same energy can lead to significantly different results. I would also like to point out that if you charge a substance enough physical damage will occur via the breaking down of molecular bonds. So enough charge equals physical damage even if its only electrical discharge.

Eventually you will get physical damage. However, I have demonstrated to you how damage can occur without physical damage occuring, using particle energy. This backs up my position.

Yes, and Earth looks like a ball of water for the most part, but I bet you will not stake your reputation that is it mostly water. Dont judge a book by is cover, and dont judge an asteroids composition by its surface characteristics.

It's actually in the transcript for the episode that the asteroid is made of proto-planetary material- which is certainly not iron-nickel.

If logically they dont carry a lot of anti-matter then logically they would not be used as a viable weapon. It is as simple as that. This is exactly where suspending disbelief fails. You found a logical conclusion based on an illogical statement. Why would they go through a painstaking process to create a physical weapon when an energy weapon is more effective. Logically the weapon has merits of some kind since its a weapon I would say combat effectiveness would be primary. Honestly, even limiting it to 1.5 kg is very generous considering the amount of space they have to fit reactants into the thing and how small an amount they would have to use to correlate with your evidence.

It's not logical for such a civilisation to have such weak weaponry, but it is however the evidence of what we see on screen. You can dismiss it all you like, but that won't change it.

[darth_timon]

Now, you are logically stating that a WWII weapon could have achieved the objective, and right afterward are trying to logically state that a ship painfully(understatement) more advanced than WWII era technology in every conceivable way could not? Even though a ship from 200 years ago can blow up a mountain and 20 ships can pretty much destroy a planet in a few hours. Logically even the kinetic impact of them hurling a part of the ship could have destroyed the Pheonix and the surrounding area so how is this not obviously a plot event? Right because you suspend disbelief therefore even though a ship 200 years older canonically can destroy a mountain you argue that a Borg ship cant vaporize a 300 year old missile converted into a ship is logical.

It's canon that the Borg could not achieve this goal. Their best shot at disrupting first contact would have been to destroy the warp ship. They bombarded a stationary target with multiple shots and failed to achieve this. You can cite plot device as much as you like, but you will be dismissing evidence and relying on 'producer's intent' yet again.

I doubt it was an orbital bombardment considering there being innocent people on Cardassia and SF not really in the mass murder business. An if we are talking about “Changing Face of Evil” nothing can be taken from that episodes event since no data was given. Its kind of hard to suspend disbelief on what you have 0 information on.

It's funny how you like to use words like logic when they support your viewpoint, but call anything that doesn't support your viewpoint illogical. We know Breen ships were able to get within range of earth. We see damaged structures on the surface, via a shot of San Francisco. What is the most reasonable deduction from that event?

Did we forget me mentioning how the Enterprise covered kilometers in seconds using maneuvering thrusters? I would say that evidence and indication of massive speed capabilities. In ST:TMP the Enterprise traveled from Earth to past Jupiter in less than 2 hours equaling about .3c. Two examples, one of maneuvering thrusters showing impressive speeds and one of a 100 year old ship travelling at .3c at least. So no supporting evidence my foot.

You apparently forget every single battle ever seen on Star Trek- none of which support your claims.

How would you come to that conclusion while taking into account flared. The star in ST was less powerful but the enterprise was much closer than the Hatak and flares emit up to a large portion of the stars entire energy output in a plasma form and not simply radiation which would not only be greater in power but transfer much more energy into the shields. Also the Enterprise shields were severely weakened.

What part of 'the corona is a hotter, more energetic region', do you not understand? The photosphere is much cooler than the corona! Even if we were to put the Hatak in the cromosphere, the Hatak would still be in a hotter region and absorbing more energy! If the Hatak were in the photosphere, it would still be absorbing more energy from a hotter star! What part of this does not make sense?

Not true. I can protect myself from radiation emitted by a nuclear reactor, that does not mean I am going to set up show near one. Why deal with a star bound to go crazy any minute when you can just go somewhere else and not have to deal with it at all. Still with the amount of power that could be harnessed through advanced photovoltaic technology and other sources of power the star could provide I would say powering a protective shield isnt unlikely or some sort of environmental conditioning system.

The star was not 'bound to go crazy' at any moment, and the presence of liquid water on the interior, combined with how it had been abandoned despite being quite habitable, does not point to any radiation shielding. This is pure speculation (yet again) on your part.

Fleet strength is an even more tenuous subject since who, what, where, and how, have to be more specifically stated which is why I argued against going in that direction. Even if we put fleets in a void ST would win through sheer numbers of capital ships. I also think its pretty obvious that SG fighters and the like have no change against a ST equivalent ship. Runabouts and Delta Flyer type ships would pretty heavily outclass any SG fighter save for possibly Ori fighters.

First up, since runabouts and the like tend to be just as slow as capital ships, I don't see them heavily outclassing the SG fighters. They might have an advantage over Death Gliders, which aren't shielded, but that's as far as it goes. Runabouts were not designed for combat, and we have no idea that the Delta Flyer would have gone into general production.

Secondly, yes, if we placed all the ships from both sides into an unrealistic battle royale, sheer numbers would settle the outcome. SG ships could have twice the firepower of their ST counterparts and still lose the unreasonable scenario you put forward. Instead, how about a scenario where both sides have resources and territory to defend?

[Tetsujin]

Tetsujin, your entire argument regarding suspension of disbelief, artistic licence and the best way to impartially analyse the events we see is down to your opinion and interpretation of where the technology of the respective forces should be.

In a sense, but my method involves actually taking what logically can be done with that technology an taking it out of the bounds of the show. DEW's and shield strengths have to be taken from logical averages in the show. Actual events and weapons that are not used because of an in show treaty, weapon restrictions, or just plot restrictions, obviously are negated and brought up to what they should be. The photon torpedo is a prime example of a weapon that is restricted by in show decisions and not by what can actually be done with it if a real military minded individual had designed the weapon. (I am referring to payload only in this instance). So while it is up to a single person to discern what is logical, in general terms an average person should not disagree or should at least be able to understand the logical conclusion and agree at least in part with the reasoning behind it.

Here you are basically saying that we should judge ST technology on how we, here and now, would logically use and interpret that technology. Using that as a starting point, you've arrived at the conclusion that Federation technology must be capable of producing multi-megaton weaponry, powerful shields, etc, because that's what we would do with their technology.

I would word it as how a logical minded person in that shows continuity would use the technology without the restrictions placed on them by writers. I have come to that conclusion based on visual and verbal confirmation of an average of powerful weapons. It is not about what we would do specifically it is about what a graduate of SF academy should be thinking logically since I place the graduate of SF academy to be more knowledgeable than me in most scientific areas logically and I come up with answers to problems that they miss as far as the show goes.

However, when the same situation is applied to SG and the Goa'uld, you suddenly start referring to how technology can stagnate. Why are you not giving the same benefit of the doubt to SG? Under your own logic, we have a society with big spacefaring, fast ships, a highly reactive and energetic mineral as a power-source (much like anti-matter is a powerful substance in Star Trek). We have on society that can travel between galaxies in mere hours (the Asgard), who can collapse stars into black holes, and we have the Ori worshippers whose ships are produced with the near infinite knowledge of ascended beings. Surely, under your own logic, such societies should have significant firepower and defences? After all, a civilisation with the ability to harness exotic power sources couldn't possibly have low firepower now could it?

I am giving the same benefit to SG as I am judging both shows on the same standard. When I was referring to stagnation I was generally addressing SG as a prime example of stagnation of technological advancement. However stagnation can not be used as an argument to increase their capabilities as we see them in the show, since we have no background to compare what is the normal rate of advancement for their species. An example of this is how the Asgard seemingly are too advanced to think in simple terms which can in some areas hinder advancement and is in reality what caused their demise in my mind. In ST I bring weapons up to the full potential of that era with what has been shown in the series. In SG its a different story since most species do the most they can possibly do at all times anyway(save for the Lanteans in my opinion) so there really isnt much to increase upon without increasing their technological level as a whole. I dont take into account Ori ships because that would bring higher level beings knowledge into play and would lead to chaos. It would be like taking a ship upgraded by the Q as evidence. So while the SG races power can be viewed as limited, it is what it is, you cannot really judge a races existence and extrapolate where they should be technologically. This does not apply to my argument about ST since I am only using what they can already do at their current level of advancement and simply removing the “writers block” limiter.

What is basically the case is that every form of argument regarding a fictional universe can be taken to be based on artistic licence. However, there are varying levels as to how far arguments are based on this principle. There's assuming things must be the case that aren't even hinted at, then there's looking at the visuals and dialogue and coming to conclusions based on what we see and hear. One approach uses the scientific method, the other is pure speculation.

Take the 200MT figure for example, which, despite your argument to the contrary, is supported by both dialogue and visuals. You can dispute the exact figure from Beach Head all you want, but even you have to acknowledge that the MT per min figure for a Hatak is in the realm of hundreds of megatons- is ROF goes up, the yield of each shot goes down, but the amount of energy delivered over the same timeframe remains the same, so ultimately you are nitpicking.

My way in actuality is the scientific method since it is taking evidence from the show and logically determining the full capability of a technology based on that. The method you employ is taking evidence at face value even if logically it makes no sense and presenting it as if it does make sense. That is not scientific. The fact that the evidence you present contradicts other pieces of evidence is an example of how if you dont scrutinize the evidence you are left with a jigsaw puzzle that was never meant to be solved fully.

My method involves actually looking at evidence and taking events in context. Your method involves disregarding anything you interpret as being unreasonable for the show. Which technique is more honest?

You method looks at evidence as truthful regardless of how much it contradicts with the norm. In its own way it could possibly work, but how can you compare to separate entities based of off such a process? Its like comparing a fish with a mammal, you cant really say which is better by looking at who kills more things and who is bigger. Unless you put them on a level playing field first, since they both are specialized to suit their environment, you will never get an honest answer. If you compare a human being to a single insect the human will always win since we are much bigger.. However if you put them on a level playing field, in relative terms an average insect outclasses an average mammal in almost every way and we are lucky that they arent similar sized or bigger than we are since we could not compete at all in terms of physical ability.

[Tetsujin]

I am not missing the point. You have one example where an alien device is providing extra power to the phasers, and is thus not a true representation of the NX-class's firepower. You are then basing your conclusions on the assumption that this device should be taken as a normal reflection of the NX-class's firepower! To go on to point out the apparent 'logical' progression of the technology from that point is to do from a false starting point. Such an approach also dismisses all the evidence that contradicts such firepower.

One, the alien device did not add extra power(how much energy could that small device have added regardless) but merely caused a power surge in the ships own systems and this is proven by how the overload was recreated without the device even being present having been destroyed scenes earlier.
Two, no one said this was the enterprises normal firepower and by even saying overload kind of proves that we all understand that it wasnt a normal case so you are incorrect. Also I question how it is a false starting point since there are episodes that clearly showcase the difference in combat capabilities from one generation of ship to the next, with even a Constitution class heavily outgunning an NX Class and each subsequent ship bearing the name enterprise greatly outperforms the ship that bore the name previously. It does not dismiss the evidence but puts it in its proper place as an anomaly since there are many episodes of the show that show firepower greater than this.

Your interpretation of the shots fired is your own, and I don't agree with them. Besides which, even if we take them as true, the level of firepower delivered over the same time frame would be the same. Plus, the way you dismiss evidence, clear evidence from dialogue in the case of But there for the Grace of God, is simply you dismissing evidence you don't like. Finally, if you're going to play semantic games regarding the size of planets, I will do the same. Lets assume the planet in TDIC was less than half the size of Pluto, but just really really dense, so that people could walk around it easily. Or we can use earth-sized planets as a level playing field for both universes. P.S: The 812GT figure is a conservative estimate!

It doesnt matter if you dont agree with my numbers when even using numbers you do agree with(since they were your own) there was still a very large difference between what you said they output and what they actually did in calculation. Yes, over time would be the same however when it come to a moving object how much damage you can do when you actually hit is paramount. This calculation is based of of them firing on a stationary target. I am not dismissing it because I dont like it, I am dismissing it because it doesnt fit anywhere and even when you try to bring forth evidence to support it you ended up disproving it. Either way it goes destroying most of a planet with standard weapons is more than what SG has shown. The Earth sized average would just be more in my favor, but that doesnt mean I still cant say for certain what size the planet was. Even if you take into account the planet size being different you have to scale the size to the 100 mile blast radius Carter stated to even maintain evidence and the 812Gt figure at all. P.S: 812GT is the logical estimate taking into account actual solid evidence of any kind. Any time more was stated planet sizes were sole factors and the 100mi blast radius was ignored which is the only relatively solid in show evidence we have to support 812GT.

Anti-matter is a reactant that reacts with normal matter to generate energy that be harnessed either to supply power or as a weapon. Naquadah is the same. When used to supply power, it is defacto a power source. Besides, it's more nitpicking on your part. Naquadah that goes boom usually does so with impressive results- remember the SGI episode Family Ties? The naquadah in that ship triggered a huge explosion. SG forces- and the Goa'uld in particular- use naquadah for pretty much everything, including as a power source.

We can not make a relative comparison to naquadah and antimatter reactor since we have no clue how a naquadah reactor even works. All we know for sure is if you add enough energy to naquadah it goes boom. The results of a naquadah explosion are impressive compared to other explosive materials but not in comparison to anti-matter. Tell me, how much naquadah did that ship have to carry to produce the impressive explosion? It only takes a single ounce of anti-matter to create a 1MT explosion.


[QUOTE-=]I'm not the one dismissing evidence I don't like. You are doing that job, by catagorically dismissing anything that presents ST in a weak light, and anything that presents SG in a strong one.[/QUOTE]

I am dismissing anything that illogically portrays capabilities for both series. Whenever the same occurs for SG you use the “there must be some excuse”, but in ST you stick to “it must be correct”. That is a blatant bias. Attack on the surface in ST is their weapons are weak, but in SG its they are being weak on purpose for some reason when you have no real evidence to support why they would be doing that at the time. If it was the Wraith I would agree, but the Goa'uld dont need humans so the whole “wouldnt kill them because they want to be worshiped”, argument doesnt fly and can be construed as an attempt at trying to perpetuate a double standard. Correct me if I am wrong, but bring evidence to the contrary with you.

Did you even watch SG1? The Goa'uld are always lording over their opponents, being pompus and arrogant. They like their enemies to know they are beaten. That's their modus operandi! Likewise, they like to scavange for technology. They stole from anyone they could! Both of these are known facts about the Goa'uld and proven by countless episodes. They also value their reputation as gods.

I own and have watched the entire series first episode to last, once. I also have re-watched certain episodes on many occasions over the years. I believe I understand how the Goa'uld think. The Goa'uld are ego maniacs with delusions of grandeur who would not blink at the prospect of genocide just to prove a point. They do like for their enemies to know they are beaten.......then generally they kill them. They follow the generic super villain archetype. Also how can you scavenge from a people you put on a planet and everything they have they got from you. On the rare occasion they have attacked someone who might have something to offer, you would kinda worry about winning and not dying before you worry about snatching since an average Goa'uld values their own life and image above all else. Losing because you were incompetently trying to steal something that may or may not be valuable is not a good look for a wannabe god. For example, the Tollans. An ion cannon would be a nice toy to steal but they sure blew those up really quick to win didnt they?

As I stated earlier, shall I do what you do and insist we cannot take the planet in TDIC as earth-sized? Shall we assume it to be much smaller? Additionally, we have no visible signs of damage to the planet that would be associated with such high energy events. You cannot 'pick and choose' what parts of the episode to ignore- we have clear visual evidence that contradicts the dialogue and the dialogue from earlier on suggested a much longer timescale than '30% of crust per volley', so even the dialogue contradicts itself in that episode!

The planet was only shown after the first volley. Also I did not say 30% of the crust per volley. I said 30% of the crust with their first volley, with 100% of the crust being destroyed within an hour and the mantle being destroyed in 5 hours. So your inference should have been stifled if you read my entire post. Also we only see the planet the once so I am not picking and choosing anything and you are incorrectly inferring 30% of the crust per volley since that is not what I said nor what was shown or stated in the episode.

Except of course, that you seem to have nothing against considering the planet in TDIC as earth-sized- and the visuals are against you. But I forgot, that's part of canon evidence you prefer to dismiss in favour of dialogue, dialogue that contradicts itself within the same episode! Then of course, you forget that the Mark 9 can be mass-produced- the Horizon module can carry up to nine missiles at once, and deploy them all at once, and each one is capable of a minimum of 812GT. Even the earliest naquadah-enhanced missiles in the SG1 Season 1 finale were said to be at least 1GT each!

You are the one that suggested using Earth-sized as a standard, not me. I went with the assumption that it was smaller and just implied an Earth-sized planet would make the show of force more impressive. Nothing is contradicted and I fail to see where you are establishing such contradiction? Mass produced yes, but in what quantities? If they could be massed produced in large quantities and cost efficiently then every F-304 would be packed with them as a standard weapon and not a special use item. The Horizon module can be loaded with 10 live warheads at once, but it was since they were afraid of them being shot down out of the 10, 4 were decoys. So logically, if it was cost effective to make them you would simply employ 10 loaded missiles and hope as many as possible gets through. Having decoys leans toward the idea that they could not make 10 warheads since just having 10 live warheads would be more practical and effective tactically if it was possible.

Also if large missiles were so effective against maneuverable targets they wouldnt get shot down so much and would not need decoys. Regardless of yield, if I can shoot down your weapon then its power is rendered moot. Most effective displayed of Naquadah enhanced warheads were in special cases where they were either beamed in or used as a mine or setup in a location to apply energy to or destroy a stationary target.

You don't like Mike's conclusions, take them up with him. I for one will take the conclusions of the guy with a degree over yours.

Yet another example of taking evidence at face value without scrutiny. Saying multiple solar flares from any star only amounts to 30Mt of energy defies all logic and science(which I will again address later in more detail). Its out an out wrong considering the energy output of even the smallest star per second. I showed you upper limit calculations of the output of a solar flare from Sol and even that used scientific notation to avoid a long chain of numbers ending with “MT” In essence how he came to this 30Mt conclusion and how you believe him is beyond me.

Speak for yourself. You dismiss any evidence you don't like, including all the visual evidence!

Again its not about like or dislike, it is about logic. The visual evidence you show is illogical therefore I dont agree with it. There is visual and spoken evidence that supports high firepower and you dismiss that. Me liking or disliking it has nothing to do with it. And I have already touched upon this and brought of the issue of the double standard you seem to be trying to set up.

[Tetsujin]

Eventually you will get physical damage. However, I have demonstrated to you how damage can occur without physical damage occuring, using particle energy. This backs up my position.

Actually you havent. You said particle energy, but seem to have omitted the directed part. It is called a directed energy weapon not a “fill that area of space uncontrollably with highly dispersed charged particles” weapon. Was the magnifying glass analogy insufficient? Alright take the KE of a bullet. Lets say you spread the kinetic energy of a 50cal bullet over a large area of a person body. The KE transfer would be proportionate less noticeable and effective the larger the area it is spread across even though the same amount of energy is transferred overall. The same is true with your statement of ionized particles which wouldnt even need to be incredibly ionized to cause trouble with electrical systems since it would be like micro electric surges when they come into contact. And we know even a slight uncontrolled charge in the wrong place can screw with electrical systems.

It's actually in the transcript for the episode that the asteroid is made of proto-planetary material- which is certainly not iron-nickel.

So did they actually say it was not that or are you adding that. Since proto planetary material is anything that would be present in the creation of a planet which includes those materials in varying amounts.

It's not logical for such a civilisation to have such weak weaponry, but it is however the evidence of what we see on screen. You can dismiss it all you like, but that won't change it.

It is not the only evidence shown on screen since there is evidence to support high firepower, and that will not change. So in show there is evidence that supports me and logic supports me. Again I will state that even if you prove a million ways some weapons are weaker on screen the possibility of logical improvement is there in a very big way. So in a logical world weapon yields that can be quantified in the real world physics gives us the reality of much more powerful weapons as far as ST is concerned.

It's canon that the Borg could not achieve this goal. Their best shot at disrupting first contact would have been to destroy the warp ship. They bombarded a stationary target with multiple shots and failed to achieve this. You can cite plot device as much as you like, but you will be dismissing evidence and relying on 'producer's intent' yet again.

Its canon that they did not, not that they can not. If you apply logic you can see obviously that is a plot event and treating it as though it wasnt shows an irrationality at best and at worst a clear bias. Like I said even a small piece of the ship or a physics projectile of some kind could have easily destroyed the Phoenix. Once you add logic, and not so common sense , into the equation most of your arguments fall apart under their own weight since they arent rational displays of anything other than what the writers needed to happen at that time.

It's funny how you like to use words like logic when they support your viewpoint, but call anything that doesn't support your viewpoint illogical. We know Breen ships were able to get within range of earth. We see damaged structures on the surface, via a shot of San Francisco. What is the most reasonable deduction from that event?

I call it logic when it is logical and illogical when it is such. It has nothing to do with if you or anyone else says it or if it confirms or contradicts something I believe. Given the displayed amount of power normally shown in ST the most logically conclusion would be something happened to stop the regular application of energy of their weapons(shielding with bleed through accounting for physical damage) or that the damage is not from weapons fire at all. Also we see a single shot from a limited angle which includes what should be one of the most heavily protected areas on the planet if not the entire federation. Fundamental logic would state that this episode cant be used as evidence of any kind as I stated before since there is no proof to support any conclusions.

You apparently forget every single battle ever seen on Star Trek- none of which support your claims.

You are going to have to explain more than that. I cant say if I have seen every battle, but I have seen the majority of them from at least TNG on up. And most of them show weapons fire impacting shields, and when shields go down everyone seems to get the “we're screwed” look on their face. Other instances have ships with no shields being hit and destroyed instantly. So I assume your evidence is “I didnt see any big boom”? Which with another application of “uncommon” sense you would know the general MO of the writers is not to proliferate militarism in the visuals within the show, which huge explosions 24/7 365 would definitely do.

What part of 'the corona is a hotter, more energetic region', do you not understand? The photosphere is much cooler than the corona! Even if we were to put the Hatak in the cromosphere, the Hatak would still be in a hotter region and absorbing more energy! If the Hatak were in the photosphere, it would still be absorbing more energy from a hotter star! What part of this does not make sense?

Actually I seem to understand more than you do. While the corona has a higher temperature than the photosphere, the actual particle density is relatively extremely low compared to the photosphere which would inhibit the transfer of energy to an object per unit of time with even lower density as you move farther away from the star. The photosphere does have a lower temperature per particle, however since it is a much more particle dense region(and is the proverbial surface of a star) the actual transfer of energy is much higher the closer you get to the photosphere. Temperature is the measurement of the relative random movement of atoms, heat is the perceived transfer of energy from one particle to the next so while the photosphere has a lower temperature, its transferred heat would be greater overall.

Using Sol as a base, a solar flare can heat the surrounding area to tens of millions of kelvin while the normal temperature of Sols corona is one to three million kelvin. Also solar flares have been observed to release up to 6E25J of energy that is about 1.4E10MT (14,000,000,000MT) for a single flare. Even 1/6th of that on multiple occasions in a short period of time would be an insane amount of energy transfer and would be much more than the situation involving the Ha'tak. A solar flare is basically a fraction of the stars total output expressed in a single area. Now what part of this does not make sense to you because I can try to explain more clearly if you like?

The star was not 'bound to go crazy' at any moment, and the presence of liquid water on the interior, combined with how it had been abandoned despite being quite habitable, does not point to any radiation shielding. This is pure speculation (yet again) on your part.

The star was stated by Data in the dialogue to be unstable and was most likely abandoned because of said instability, indicating that the solar activity from that episode was not an isolated incident and became regular behavior for that star at some point after the spheres construction. Logically if it was so habitable they would not have left since you would not take the time to build a Dyson sphere and then abandon it even though there is nothing wrong with it.

If there was no radiation shielding the inner surface would not be livable at all. Are you forgetting that despite us having nothing to do with the process Earth has a “shield” that protects it from stellar radiation? Therefore an artificial shield would be necessary for the internal surface to be habitable to any degree by our standards(definitely if it were to contain water in a liquid state). Even though Earth is further away from the sun than the spheres internal surface, there could not be liquid water on this planets surface without the radiation “shielding” Earths core provides. Also using shielding at higher setting than would normally be exhibited by a planet is logical since having a diameter millions of kilometers less would be a good trade off when you consider the size of the construct and would have save them untold construction materials and time when all it would take to maintain the shield would be harnessing the suns own energy to power the shield that would protect them from it. One of the main concepts of a Dyson sphere in real world science would be the potential gain from being able to harness near the entire output of the sun rather than the insignificant portion of energy we receive so it is likely the alien race building the sphere would come to a similar conclusion. This whole situation is similar to how a City-ship uses its shield as a ”hull” while it travels in space.

First up, since runabouts and the like tend to be just as slow as capital ships, I don't see them heavily outclassing the SG fighters. They might have an advantage over Death Gliders, which aren't shielded, but that's as far as it goes. Runabouts were not designed for combat, and we have no idea that the Delta Flyer would have gone into general production.

Actually canonically runabouts have the ability to accelerate to fractions of c, and they also have a maneuverability edge over capital ships. Even if you believe visual evidence doesnt support high speeds on both shows there is a large gap in stated canon speeds on both shows. Also runabout (and most currently designed ships of that size) have shielding, which the majority of SG fighters lack except for Ori fighters. StG fighters geneally all have no shielding, no true FTL capability, no transporters, tractor beams, and are generally less capable in all respects compared to comparably sized ST vessels. It only adds fuel to the fire that Runabouts were not designed for combat yet still comfortably outperforms SG space superiority fighters. I dont believe that the Delta Flyer went into mass production, I was just stating that they could since even a stranded Voyager with limited resources was capable of building two of them. The mission scout ship or “Venture class” unofficially, for those who played ST armada I and II, would fill essentially the same niche as a heavy shuttle and it is currently in mass production, I just personally like the Delta Flyer and if ST made a truly weaponized shuttle it would be like a miniature defiant class.

Secondly, yes, if we placed all the ships from both sides into an unrealistic battle royale, sheer numbers would settle the outcome. SG ships could have twice the firepower of their ST counterparts and still lose the unreasonable scenario you put forward. Instead, how about a scenario where both sides have resources and territory to defend?

That would be difficult considering we have to determine which universe they are in, how many planets, if all elements and materials exist still, what races are taking part in the “war”, are their civilians, are we sharing technology amongst the two factions forces, are arms restrictions in the case of ST rescinded(like tactical and strategic weapon yield limits, subspace weapons, and no cloaking for SF ships), do we set each group as massive numbers of the best type of ship each racehas to offer or is it a mixed bag of specs, ect. I jokingly stated the battle royal since it would offer the least complications since a actual war simulation would be a headache just to setup ground rules and the basic scenario. I would prefer we stick with 1 on 1 engagements.