If you invent a "new material" using magitech, then no problem.

If you extrapolate out from currently known materials to theoretically possible imaginable ones, none of them could handle the actual temperatures and stresses for the sort of energies and accelerations shown in Star Wars. 

I'm shooting from the cuff here but the faux neutronium would have to be pretty close to the original scifi device "neutronium"--protonic metal formed by energies equivalent to that generated from the gravitational collapse of stars into neutron stars.

Actual neutronium would be ridiculously dense--a tablespoon being close to the mas of the earth or some such thing (it's too late to try math on this).

So Star Wars ships are just "magic" and we leave it at that...or they use metals of ridiculous levels of strength and heat resistance...or they actually use superdense collapsed matter which brings us back to "ridiculous" again.

Consider the energies of weapons and mass/accelerations of ships you've posted previously.  These weapons often bounce off or are harmlessly absorbed by targeted ships in SW--so that has to be some incredible armor and thermal insulation.  What keeps gun barrels that focus this energy from melting?  How do the ships use a mass-light enough structure to make them practical while still retaining enough strength to lunge to percents of light speed with almost no delay?  What contains the thrust or generates the energy for it that possesses the ability to handle the heat and force?

You mentioned antimatter weapons barely scratching or denting SW armor somewhere back there in posts but to do that it would have to be incredibly dense.  What sort of material absorbs a surface detonation of multiple kilotons and isn't affected by the heat or force and isn't even moved off course?  It would have to be pretty darn dense.

As with ST, we're just gonna have to use "movietanium" to support all this.  "Science" isn't going to do it.

That's also a lot more energy than Star Trek's own weapons, even with your numbers. So why was it ever in danger again?

Comes back down to internal consistency. I like Star Trek as a show, but that they keep trying to give scientific-sounding explanations for everything grates on my nerves, as it boils down to "Whatever we feel like for now".

Just going to throw out SFDebris' site as it's an excellent set of reviews of Star Trek.

I would ask the 7DS chaps, some of the Atlantian Ships are from X3. Also does this mean that you are planning an X3 race(s)?

I would actually posit that SW inconsistencies are less, due primarily to the fact that SW has an actual continuity hierarchy.

ST, OTOH, lacks such a thing, with it primarily being "ST continuity=TV/movies".

Since the numbers in question here are turbolaser numbers, I'll point out two very big holes in his numbers. One, he does not know the porosity of the asteroids. Two, he does not know the composition of the asteroids.

In other words, we know many asteroids are porous. That means significantly less energy would be needed to vaporize them. Also, asteroids have many different compositions, thanks to asteroids being made of different metals or rocks and in different proportions. Most asteroids in space are made of carbon (75%). The next highest proportion is made of silicates. Only about 7% are made of nickel or iron, which he bases his numbers on.

In other words, his numbers are bogus.

I'll repeat my first post since you seem to have missed it.

"In the TNG technical manual, a figure of 1.5kg of antimatter is given as the maximum warhead material of a photon torpedo. (pg. 129) Using standard physics calculations a direct 1:1 explosion would equal to about 64.4 megatons. Warhead materials are however premixed to achieve the level of destructive force of an antimatter pod rupture containing 100 cubic meters of antideuterium. (pg. 69) Antimatter is stored as liquid or slush on starships. (pg. 68) The density of liquid antideuterium is around 160 kg per cubic meter. According to this comparison the high annihilation rate energy release would be comparable to about 690 gigatons. When you calculate it based off how we measure modern megatons (1 megaton=4,184 terajoules) gives us a total of 2,886,960,000 terajoules. The TNG photon torpedo has a yield of only 18.5 isotons. That's 156,051,891.892 terajoules per isoton. A modern yield photon torpedo does 25 isotons, resulting in 3,901,297,297.3 terajoules on target per torpedo. A quantum torpedo does 50+ isotons in damage, which is 7,802,594,594.6+ terajoules on target. A class 6 high yield torpedo does 200 isotons, which is 31,210,378,378.4 terajoules. A Borg multi-kinetic neutronic mine has a yield of 5 million isotons. That is 780,259,459,460,000 terajoules."

In what universe does a 200 gigaton shot outdo a 690 gigaton shot (18.5 isoton photon torp)? Much less a 932.43 gigaton shot (25 isoton photon torp)? Or a 1,864.86+ gigaton shot (50+ isoton quantum torp)? Or a 7,459.46 (200 isoton high yield photon torp)? And photon torpedoes can be fired in volleys of five to ten! That's a combined force of 9,324.3 gigatons.

Unless I'm mistaken, that would mean...*gasp*...one volley of standard torpedoes would equal 46.6215 quad turbolasers, which is 186 turbolasers. And that can come out of a ship no bigger than the Falcon. And that's according to your turbolaser numbers which can't be substantiated.

And aside from that, there are the unconventional warfare abilities that Star Trek has that Star Wars has no shield against. Examples include:

Timeships: One was used in Year of Hell in Voyager. It was out of phase with the normal space time continuum, making it immune to weapons fire, and literally erased its targets from history.

Red Matter: What good is having your planet guarded if a single small ship can race in, drop off a load of red matter, and pop up a black hole that sucks the planet in?

Founders: These shapeshifters would be able to impersonate anyone or anything with only the, now rare, force users in Star Wars able to detect them. Excellent for sabotaging or just taking ships over.

Transporters: The ability to beam to anywhere on a planet, or beam armed torpedoes onto warships, would be a definite advantage, as would beaming out important things such as power cores.

Self Replicating Mines: Each as strong as a photon torpedo of the time, that is to say, 25 isotons. Destroy one and it's neighbors replicate another in its place almost immediately. They also are programmed to swarm detonate and can cloak!

Star Trek Cloaking Devices: Undetectable even to Star Trek Sensors in their later stages, and some models even allow you to pass through matter entirely. Excellent for hit and runs. Advanced Romulan models allow you to stay cloaked while firing your weapons.

Let's see here, the torps, figures were stated in cannon, and given the number of gigatons stated, which were gotten from memory alpha, it's easy enough to do. Even an elementary school student can put those numbers into a calculator and figure it out. Simply multiply the numbers given.

A bomb with 90 isotons of enriched ultiritium had the explosion radius of 800 kilometers. Such a bomb was used to blow up a facility in Cardassian space in DS9. Also, in Scorpion, the Borg wanted to modify a class 6 high yield topedo to deal out the same force as a multi-kinetic neutrino mine, 5 million isotons, and its force would be enough to effect an entire solar system, the shockwave distributing nanites out to five light years. Enough proof there.

For your turbolaser numbers, I was refering to the numbers given on sd.net. Next time I will be more specific.

Timeship in Year of Hell was acting in defense of its people's empire. If the Galactic Empire threatened them, it would start deleting. Also, the Timeship Relativity goes back and forth in time at will. Then there's the Temporal Cold War in Enterprise. So time travel is widely used in Star Trek.

The Red Matter was originally used IN the original continuity, the black hole sent Spock into the past. Remember, to stop that whole supernova?

Transporters only need a thin opening to gain entry into a ship, and Star Destroyers have large hangars on the bottom of their ships. In addition, since a single torpedo would punch a hole in the Star Destroyer's armor, and their shields are SO EASY to take down, it's a simple thing to do.

Minefield can be deployed around planets taken over and crucial points, and since they replicate in a second, maybe two, bull rushing would mean MASSIVE casualties and a failed attempt.

Cloaking device, time to be captain obvious: Defiant has a cloak. Klingons, who are allies of the Federation, have cloaks on all their ships. Romulans would come to the Federation's aid, like in the Dominion War, they have cloaking devices.

Hit and run raids, unlike with the Empire and Star Wars, Star Trek ships CAN enter warp in a gravity well. Also, the Federation has transwarp technology and quantum slipstream technology, both of which are much faster than hyperspace travel.

(Edit: Grammar)

We would be better off keeping personal insults out of this. I apologize for insulting you with the elementary student comment. Back to the argument.

I have provided proof. I'm not going to repeat myself, so for any further proof you require, I will refer you to series and to memory-alpha.org since both state the same things I have put here. For things not in the series, I will explain here.

Red matter was originally used in the main continuum, it created a black hole, which sucked Spock AND Nero back in time. Then JJ Abrams made his own little universe. That's, as you say, our problem.

For cloaking devices in the Federation, I refer you, once more, to the series, in particular to "All Good Things..." where a Federation ship decloaks and engages a Klingon ship. Also there is the attempt at cloaking that Riker was a part of, that was in the TNG series. The Federation HAS been working on cloaking technology. It is sitting in the wings, waiting for the dissolution of the treaty with the Romulans, as is proven by "All Good Things..."

The Klingons are in an alliance and are ALWAYS chafing for honorable battle, do you REALLY believe they would stay out of a war that was so big?

The Romulans act for what is their best interest. A victorious Empire is not in their best interest.

As for hyperspace not happening in a gravity well, calculations are made so when you jump to hyperspace you don't run into gravity wells, gravity well projectors on interdictor cruisers are used to keep people from escaping into hyperspace, and you must be a certain distance from a gravity well (planet, star, whatever) to enter hyperspace. Star Trek, however, has done it several times.

And I have intentionally left the Borg out of the argument. The Borg would consider the Empire to be 'unworthy of assimilation' and would ignore the Empire, or destroy it very quickly if it was attacked by an Imperial Fleet. That doesn't make for a fun discussion.

Errr...Whiskey...you "provide evidence" line is not helpful. "Prove what I think is wrong and if you can't then what you think is.".

Your presumption that his assumptions are incorrect are in fact often your own assumptions.

Neither you nor he "know" whether or not a transporter could penetrate Imperial hulls.  You don't know their actual density or composition--it's impossible to know.

You don't know that cloaking devices aren't readily available to the Federation--they are certainly pervasive amongst Klingons, Romulans and many others and its a bit absurd to just dismiss them.  In fact, the whole reason phasic cloaking and "normal" cloaking aren't used by the Federation is becasue it was part of a treaty where the Federation agreed not to equip them--they certainly know how to do so and I imagine the Imperial juggernaut showing up might modify that agreement.

Imperial bioscanners (how its determined all ships have them I have no idea) can't be proclaimed effective on every life form in the ST universe any more than they can be claimed completely ineffective on them.  No one knows.

As to the turbolasers/photon torpedoes--I don't know the source of the figures but assuming they are correct he has a point mathematically.  Flapping arms and proclaiming, "Non Sequitor!" isn't a rebuttal.

My point is that all of your assumptions are accepted by you--whether proven or not and all you disagree with are rejected--whether by proof or assumption.  It comes across that if its SW and no one knows for sure, assumptions can be accepted but if its reversed, they are not acceptable.

...assumption--on both counts.

 And "screencap and show me scripts or it didn't happen!" is just  juvenile.

A fight between the empire and the federation go alot further than merely crunching ship and gear stats in any case.

Unless you want to magically transport the respective factions entire military might to a battle arena you have to take into consideration the universe they each exist in and their respective problems. The empire beeing a hyge tyrant need to have a military presence to subdue the worlds under its controll, they are also currently engaged in hostilities against the rebellion/alliance, they need to keep most of their armade tied up  with what its currently dooing or they will have a full scale uprising on their hands. That for one cannot be ignored. The empire has no allies, they just have themselves and a 900 thousand unruly worlds that would like nothing better than to regain their freedom. The federation on the other hand exists in a universe with other powers close at hand, they are in an alliance with the klingons, and the klingons would most likely be pulled into the war. A war would not start with the empire steamrolling the federation, it would have a first encounter, and then it could go alot of ways, some involving diplomacy, some skirmishing, and some a buildup of forces. In any case it would not be a mortal combat fight with each character respresenting the massed military presence of each faction.  You also need to take into considerations the romulans, because there is a very strong chanse that they would realize that the empire means to controll any world -dont need great intell to come to that conclusion, and that once the federation and klingons fall they will be next.  

Also the fight will most likely be in federation space simply because of the fact that the empire would be the aggressive part with the federatition taking a defensive role. (atleast in the start)

After reading abouth 50 star wars novels, watching all the movies/cartoons and watching all star trek shows out i must say imo that it seems quite clear that the federation has more advanced technology, they just need a screwdriver and a few hours to do almost anything lol. In star wars they have to make do with what they have, they dont have a macgyver sadly. But they do have a vast military with great monstrous ships and the will to use them.

Who would win, impossibly to say. None of you are military analysts specialicing in predicting outcomes, and even not the very best military analyst would attempt to predict anything in this case given that we hardly know anything abouth the respective factions science level. For us its just magitech. We may be able to guess what one thing would mean for another and how it would pan out but we dont know, its a huge void filled with some lights here and there. Good luck navigating through it. So why dont you just agree that the outcome would be impossibly to predict accuratly, sure whiskey can say that he think the empire has a better chanse and zeta and redneck can believe that the federation has a higher chanse but that should be it.

Malanthor,

You're echoing what most Star Wars fans think. I like Star Wars, it's very entertaining, just as Star Trek is, but Star Trek figures things out. Star Wars hasn't advanced its technology noticeably for a couple of thousand years.

Zeta, Star Trek is much more advanced than Star Wars. The technology, energy, and capabilities shown far outstrip Star Wars, which acts as if it were a space version of World War 2. If it where a fight between TOS and Star Wars, it'd be up in the air. But against TNG (Modern) Trek, no contest, Federation hands down. As for Whiskey's numbers, I'll be addressing that to him directly.

Whiskey, I would ask this of you: Can YOU prove, on screen, that turbolasers have the power you claim? Can you prove that their hulls are as strong as you claim? From what I've seen, there's plenty of evidence showing they are not as powerful as claimed, and their hulls, since they take damage from those shots, obviously aren't that strong as well.

I will not be on for a few days due to final exams. When I get back, I will find and read your responses, so it won't be till Friday.

The whole point was i only asked one simple question.

This is true.......to a point. There comes a point where the technological gulf between two powers is simply so great that it cannot be compensated for in any way possible.

The majority of Imperial worlds are quite content to be part of the Empire, due to Palpatine's enormous propaganda machinations. This is in no small part due to the predominance of the human species within the Star Wars galaxy, and generally the oppressed of the Empire tend to be aliens..............and you very rarely hear about civil demonstrations trying to end anti-alien sentiment. In fact, you never here about such.

Most of those other powers are expansionist, militarist and imperialist in nature. Assuming the Federation gets the first contact, and then everything comes out.............I foresee some very pissed off Klingons; the Empire's industrial and superluminal transit advantages would make the Klingon/Romulan competition for territory radically different, should one side (like the Klingons) gain Imperial technology.

Though actually getting such technology..............is unlikely.

Of course it won't be- for the Empire. The Federation's relative size/population density ratio, with their widely scattered colony worlds, allows a relatively small ISD task force to simply pick apart Federation territory.

It's actually rather up-in-the-air on that; the Romulans seek to advance their own interests, and a method of doing so might be to ally with the Empire, particularly for access to their advanced technologies.

The ability of the Federation to counterattack into Imperial territory depends on the vs crossing; that is, is it a wormhole (presumably somewhere in Federation territory)? is it an intergalactic Imperial expedition? Is it a hyperspace travel accident?

For the last, then there's unlikely to be more than a handful of ships, and, ergo, more likely to be a lot more bargaining on the part of the Imperials; they can't get reinforcements and resupply is a very iffy thing. The second option would likely have brought ten times (or more!) the crew amounts of the vessels deployed, for both replacing killed crewers and for the likely construction of new vessels via a mobile shipyard that would presumably be deployed with the expedition (repairs are important!).

In any case, for the latter two, there's no hope of Federation reprisals against Imperial territory; it's either too far or a totally unknown area. For the first...........given the low population density of Federation territory relative to the number of member worlds and colonies, it could be a very, very long time before they find the wormhole. Which means the Empire (assuming the Imperials find it first; not totally unreasonable IMO) will have had time to fortify it.

I put this down to the fact that the technology that SW has to work with is far more situationally flexible. Trek tech can do a lot of stuff, but either it's schizo-roled or it does one thing pretty well. The difference really lies in the relative static of SW technology being the probably result of reaching a technological peak.

You don't need to be a military analyst. Generally speaking, you examine past behaviours of each power to build up a "psych profile", if you will, of that star-nation. From their, you take industrial capacity, economic capability, naval power, and superluminal, firepower, and durability capabilities into account.

Wrapping that all up, well, it indicates that the Empire is an economic and industrial supergiant compared to the Federation, has far superior FTL capability, as well as superior firepower and durability.

It's called "black box" analysis, AFAIK. You treat the magitech as a black box; energy goes in, funky stuff happens, energy goes out for thermodynamic balance. Both series' FTL drives are like this; you put energy into it, you go FTL, and then you stop after you stop putting energy into it.

First off, see this:

Secondly, it is possible to accurately predict the outcome. Death Star 2 constructed to 60% completion in 6 months vs the 13 year cycle for 4 Galaxy-class starships- and also remember that the DS2 was a fully mobile, hyperdrive-equipped, planet-destroying battlestation.

You do realize that this could be because they've reached a technological plateau, or that perhaps they've discovered all science relevant to such technologies?

Evidence other than a nebulous statement, please.

I don't need to; the ICS books do that quite well, as does extrapolation from known capabilities referenced in the EU. A lone Imperial-class Star Destroyer is capable of a BDZ operation in the course of a 24-hour period; such an operation leaves the surface of a planet barren.

This requires a minimum of 14,000 megatons of firepower. 14 gigatons, in other words. That's 3 orders of magnitude greater than the maximum theoretical yield of a photon torpedo.

BTW, you still haven't provided evidence that photon torpedo warheads are kept stored as liquid antideuterium- or that it's even antideuterium at all. It could be anti-helium, or anti-hydrogen for all we know.

Also keep in mind that given the durability shown in the movies, and the firepower of the weapons- that they aren't the most durable things against their own weapons is fairly irrelevant to the discussion at hand; the superior firepower that they are capable of directing will tear through the comparatively weaker Feddie hulls, while Fed weapons will generally do no more than scratch the Imperial shield systems.

Punk.

No. Neither universe is superior; it's just that in a military conflict the Empire trounces the Federation.

Generally speaking, "SWvsST" is understood to be "Galactic Empire vs the United Federation of Planets" (not GW BTW; that's a British tabletop wargame company). Even the OP understood this, as he explicitly mentions "Federation vs Empire" battles.

There are technical publications of both series that establish numerical capabilities- it's just that, unfortunately for ST, the Trek tech books aren't accepted within the Trek continuity. I'll further note that ST's technology is far more technobabble than anything Star Wars has brought up; SW never really bothers to explain how the tech works. SW tech is automatically accepted as functioning properly and it's left at that.

Once again, it's not the entire settings taking each other on; it's the Empire and the Federation engaging in a military conflict. Looking at the numbers produced for both series (despite the non-canon status of Trek technical manuals), the Empire squishes the Federation like a bug.

TBH, as of late SWvsST doesn't particularly entertain me. This debate I've got going with Redneck-boy is fun because right now I'm just spamming him with "show me the evidence/proof" that he is incapable of producing.

Preference based on enjoyability; well, I enjoyed the DS9 episodes that I watched, and I loved the entirety of the SW movies, though the prequels I liked more for the effects and the awesome spess battles of the opening of EP3. What irks me most about Trek is that they try to explain the technology by stringing together meaningless phrases of scientific or scientific-sounding words. Generally, these strings of technobabble make absolutely no sense when you actually look at the meanings of the individual terms.

Oh, yeah, and Voyager. The entirety of Voyager irks me.

As for the actual debate- it's a discussion about the military capabilities of each power and how they would fare in a war against each other. Just looking at the numbers given from the (formerly canon) tech manual and the (always canon) ICS books- the Empire makes the Federation go *squish*.

While I respect your opinion, I also chalk it up to the flavor of each setting; SW has traditionally been about a few people causing galaxy-changing events. The movies are also centered on Anakin Skywalker (Darth Vader); they're more-or-less the story of Vader's rise to being a Jedi, his fall to the Dark Side, and his eventual redemption (at least in the eyes of his son, Luke).

In contrast, Trek is pitched as more of a possible future, and most of the powers are based on actual extant or former nations- though TOS Klingons were much better than TNG-onward Klingons; they had a much more interesting society that wasn't all "HONOUR IN BATTLE!!1!"

TBH, I hate most of the Trek ship designs. To me, they look very spindly and fragile- I mean, a good hit on a nacelle pylon of the Galaxy-class and it's crippled and left adrift. There's also the greater iconic nature of most SW ships; Star Wars has a far greater cultural permeation than Star Trek, IMO. Among the more "nerdy" portions of the population, it could swing either way, I don't really know enough to say which is more popular.

But for mainstream pop culture, there's a lot more Star Wars that's become pop culture than Star Trek.

Well, describe some of these inconsistencies and/or visual errors of models. I ask because I'm actually interested in what you have to say on that.

I don't really like Star Trek that much as of late; IMO, the picture it paints is just too optimistic. It just seems to lack a lot of depth- but OTOH, SW is far too much about galaxy-shattering/-changing events, especially in a direct manner. I'm actually working on a little project wherein the protagonists actions end up having "galactic" consequences- but it's exactly that, consequences, ripple effects. Most of which are unintended by the protagonists (a little nod to the Butterfly Effect, that).

Large numbers of rubber-forehead aliens are also not very cool. At least make the rubber-forehead aliens act alien.