1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Desktop pics (NO flesh pics though)

Discussion in 'Safety valve' started by geestar20, Feb 5, 2005.

  1. omegaman7

    omegaman7 Senior member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    7,276
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    118
    Its no secret, im a trekkie LOL! The reason I never got into star wars(The orginal), was it seemed to me, that there wasn't enough story line to the movies. All action and no story. I really should give it another chance though...
    Im not really knocking star wars here, im actually noting my own ignorance there of...
     
  2. Estuansis

    Estuansis Active member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    4,523
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    68
    Haha read my edit on crew capacity if you haven't :p

    I'm not knocking Star Trek either but the fact is Star Wars has better technology. After being humbled by the sheer scale of a Super Star Destroyer, the Enterprise is nothing more than a very outdated(ancient like at the advent of FTL travel) lightly armed light transport to me.

    And there's plenty of story to Star Wars. It's just that it hasn't been fleshed out as well as Star Trek's due to the absence of a long running TV series. To find the real story you need to read the books. Star Wars is MASSIVE. And even though some of the books are spin-offs, there's actually a running database of what is canon and what is fan-fiction. Surprisingly most of the books are accepted as official Star Wars history. Myself owning about 100 of the books I can say there are very few contradictions.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2009
  3. ddp

    ddp Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2004
    Messages:
    39,308
    Likes Received:
    119
    Trophy Points:
    143
    Estuansis, you got the distances wrong for star wars & star trek. star wars speed was just past light speed whereas star trek was lightspeed x 9.9 power. star trek was more thought out & realistic compared to star wars. a federation dreadnaught can take on an imperial star destroyer with a good chance of winning.
     
  4. omegaman7

    omegaman7 Senior member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    7,276
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    118
  5. Estuansis

    Estuansis Active member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    4,523
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    68
    I know this is largely put together through some lazy methods but it does outline the differences fairly well.

    http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/

    The raw power output and weapons capacity of an Imperial Class Star Destroyer absolutely dwarves anything in the Star Trek fleet. Please, tell me how a Federation Fleet can win against much more powerful technology and vastly greater numbers. Even ship to ship I'm just not seeing it.

    Also, I consider the technology of each to be fairly valid considering it's all science fiction. They've simply takne n the tech in different directions. Remember the Federation Star Fleet is 90% exploration and mainly experimental based on the theoretical future of Earth. The Imperial Fleet is actually there to control and police an empire many times larger than all of known space in Star Trek.

    Also, AFAIK Star Trek speed was not 9.9 but .99 lightspeed with only the newest ships breaking the barrier just barely. Whereas Star Wars actually deals with faster than light travel by an order of magnitude. If you watch the series they only cover a single quadrant of the milky way over a period of several years. In Star Wars it takes them only 4-5 hours to travel from the core systems to the outer rim. Also Star Trek is set several hundred years in our future. Star Wars is set in a universe where faster than light travel has been possible for THOUSANDS of years.

    Of course I could be entirely wrong. Link me to some more concrete facts if possible.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2009
  6. omegaman7

    omegaman7 Senior member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    7,276
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    118
    So, your suggesting the federation could barely break light speed? The first warp ship did that easily(Zefram Cochrane's warp ship). I could be mistaken, but i've always assumed that warp .9 was light speed. Just before warp one...
    http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Warp_factor

    Edit - LOL, looks like multiple sites have their info wrong. Where's Gene Roddenberry when you need him!
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2009
  7. Estuansis

    Estuansis Active member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    4,523
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    68
    So maybe I am wrong as far as how fast Star Trek's ships are. But if you look at the relative distances and how long it took to travel them Star Wars is obviously still several times faster. In Star Wars it takes maybe 4-5 days with an average speed commercial grade hyperdrive to cross the entire galaxy. Not to mention the measly 1-2 days needed by the giant military grade drives in Star Destroyers. I read somewhere the theoretical battle between Enterprise and an Imperial SD. It said that if the Star Destroyer made a 10 second jump in any direction, Enterprise would have to push max speed for two hours to catch up.

    I know this is a geek debate and has nothing to do with the thread topic, but the comparison being made triggered it all :p
     
  8. omegaman7

    omegaman7 Senior member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    7,276
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    118
    Eh, its all in good fun :) I've recently become bored with my wallpapers, so im trying to make some more as well as find some more :D I'll post more soon.
     
  9. ddp

    ddp Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2004
    Messages:
    39,308
    Likes Received:
    119
    Trophy Points:
    143
    warpspeed is the speed of light. warp 9.98 is lightspeed times itself 9.98 times. hans solo even says .1 past lightspeed for his ship's max speed which is faster then the star destroyers.
     
  10. omegaman7

    omegaman7 Senior member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    7,276
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    118
  11. Estuansis

    Estuansis Active member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    4,523
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    68
    I remember the statement about .5 past lightspeed but I believe it's in a different context as for Star Wars the faster the drive the lower the number. I believe he means he achieved a .5 hyperdrive Class rating which is .5 past and twice as fast as a Star Destroyer's Class 1. And there are Class 10 drives that break lightspeed and facilitate timely travel across the galaxy if only in weeks vs days. Most large military vessels use a Class 1 or 2.

    Found on Wookieepedia:

    http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Millennium_Falcon

    http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Lightspeed

    This may seem funny if you know your terminology because a parsec is a measure of distance. The Kessel Run leads through a cluster of black holes called The Maw. The theory is that he used the warped spacetime from edging around a black hole to reduce the distance.

    So at ".5 past lightspeed," the Millennium Falcon can actually top out at over 200 million times the speed of light.

    Found this on wikipedia:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warp_drive

    Star Wars' vessels are most certainly faster than Star Trek's. Remember the vast distances involved the Star Wars galaxy and that inter-planetary travel is considered day to day traffic. There are characters that participate in events on one side of the galaxy only to be present for the award ceremony on the other side only a few days later. They have networks and instant communication covering the entire galaxy.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2009
  12. omegaman7

    omegaman7 Senior member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    7,276
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    118
    Ahh but what about warp 10 theory :p Warp 10 is infinite velocity. You would occupy every square inch of the universe simultaneously...

    Sorry, I had to throw that one out there LOL!
     
  13. theonejrs

    theonejrs Senior member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2005
    Messages:
    7,970
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    116
    Oman7,
    Yes, but the result of that would be Cataclysmic, because it would likely destroy the entire Universe! Time would cease to exist, which would screw up the Time/Space continuum and probably cause the next big bang! Time Warps do exist, but they are very small! I know, because I've see it happen with my own two eyes as a young child. There were Adult witnesses to the phenomenon, as well!

    On July 4, 1949, an object belonging to me vanished right in front of My Mother, My Aunt and I. It reappeared July 4, 1989 in the same exact spot it disappeared, 40 years earlier right in front of the same three people! It has taken me close to 20 years to figure out where it went, but I think I have finally figured that out. I'll leave that answer for you folks to guess at for a while. Just apply a bit of common sense and logic to the problem and you should be able to figure out where it spent those 40 years! Just ask yourself, where would a vanished object go? We are so far off topic, anyway, I figured I would add insult to injury and bring up time warps! LOL!!

    Have fun,
    Russ
     
  14. omegaman7

    omegaman7 Senior member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    7,276
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    118
  15. creaky

    creaky Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Messages:
    31,683
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    96
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2009
  16. omegaman7

    omegaman7 Senior member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    7,276
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    118
    Haven't had anything inspire me on the artist front :p But I did find this via google. I use to see some pretty spectacular storms in the minnesota area. I imagine Rob knows what I'm talking about LOL!
    [​IMG]
     
  17. omegaman7

    omegaman7 Senior member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    7,276
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    118
  18. omegaman7

    omegaman7 Senior member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    7,276
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    118
    I thought this was cool. Rather magical :) I like dark wallpapers(easy on the eyes)and forest imagery, so it suits me well.
    Location
    [​IMG]
     
  19. Red_Maw

    Red_Maw Regular member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    913
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    If I remember correctly there should be a few similar free wallpapers at digitalblasphemy.com (the water mark).
     
  20. omegaman7

    omegaman7 Senior member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    7,276
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    118
    I do most of my image searching via http://images.google.com
    I get an extreme variety of pics that way. Though its wise to leave on the safe filter! Or you get some rather...nasty pictures LOL!
     

Share This Page