|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Science Fiction » alt.startrek » Which is faster: The Enterprise or the Millenium Falcon
| Which is faster: The Enterprise or the Millenium Falcon [message #267881] |
So, 21 Mai 2006 05:22 |
|
Please help me answer this question. A friend at work claims that Star
Trek ships are more powerful but I am not sure what the answer is.
I don't understand if something flying at warpspeed is moving faster
than a ship moving at lightspeed. Are Star Wars ships faster than Star
Trek ships????
Also, I guess Star Trek ships are powerful. They have phasers, photon
torpedos, and shields. But how does that compare to Star Wars
vessels?? The Millenium Falcon and Star Destroyers have big lasers
cannons and also contains hundreds of X Wings.
One more question. If we were to compare Starbases or Starports (like
Deep Space Nine) versus the Death Star, which is better suited for a
battle.
Thank you!!!
|
|
|
| Re: Which is faster: The Enterprise or the Millenium Falcon [message #267882 ] |
So, 21 Mai 2006 06:12 |
|
In article <1148181766.906721.264030 [at] j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Zero" <talltree0 [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> Please help me answer this question. A friend at work claims that Star
> Trek ships are more powerful but I am not sure what the answer is.
>
> I don't understand if something flying at warpspeed is moving faster
> than a ship moving at lightspeed. Are Star Wars ships faster than Star
> Trek ships????
Impossible to answer, but "lightspeed", "hyperdrive" and "warp speed"
are basically the same thing - faster than light travel to enable ships
to travel between planets in a sensible timeframe (ie. hours / days /
weeks instead of decades and centuries).
> Also, I guess Star Trek ships are powerful. They have phasers, photon
> torpedos, and shields. But how does that compare to Star Wars
> vessels?? The Millenium Falcon and Star Destroyers have big lasers
> cannons and also contains hundreds of X Wings.
Another one that's impossible to answer and again the two franchises
are basically the same. Star Wars ships do also have torpedoes,
missiles and bombs, as well as shields (TIE Fighters are one of the few
ship types that don't have shields).
> One more question. If we were to compare Starbases or Starports (like
> Deep Space Nine) versus the Death Star, which is better suited for a
> battle.
An irrelevant question really. Space stations are stationary objects
and aren't really designed to take part in battles, although they can
be used to defend particular places. Besides which, the Death Star can
move anyway it wants to since it has hyperdrive engines, unlike Deep
Space 9.
|
|
|
| umm... the enterprise... but only cuz there are more people in it to push. [message #267883 ] |
So, 21 Mai 2006 13:33 |
|
cheers!
Doc
"Zero" <talltree0 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1148181766.906721.264030 [at] j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Please help me answer this question. A friend at work claims that Star
> Trek ships are more powerful but I am not sure what the answer is.
>
> I don't understand if something flying at warpspeed is moving faster
> than a ship moving at lightspeed. Are Star Wars ships faster than Star
> Trek ships????
>
> Also, I guess Star Trek ships are powerful. They have phasers, photon
> torpedos, and shields. But how does that compare to Star Wars
> vessels?? The Millenium Falcon and Star Destroyers have big lasers
> cannons and also contains hundreds of X Wings.
>
> One more question. If we were to compare Starbases or Starports (like
> Deep Space Nine) versus the Death Star, which is better suited for a
> battle.
>
> Thank you!!!
>
|
|
|
| Re: Which is faster: The Enterprise or the Millenium Falcon [message #267884 ] |
So, 21 Mai 2006 14:21 |
|
>> I don't understand if something flying at warpspeed is moving
>> faster
>> than a ship moving at lightspeed. Are Star Wars ships faster than
>> Star
>> Trek ships????
>
> Impossible to answer, but "lightspeed", "hyperdrive" and "warp
> speed"
> are basically the same thing - faster than light travel to enable
> ships
> to travel between planets in a sensible timeframe (ie. hours / days
> /
> weeks instead of decades and centuries).
>
Hyperdrives enter an otherspace that has different time/space
characteristics allowing ships to cover large distances in shorter
time, a short cut. Warp drive, as its name implies, warps realspace to
create FTL movement but you're still in and able to interact with the
real world. Star War ship do take much less time to cross interstellar
distances but can't observe or react to to outside world without
preplanning.
>
>
>> Also, I guess Star Trek ships are powerful. They have phasers,
>> photon
>> torpedos, and shields. But how does that compare to Star Wars
>> vessels?? The Millenium Falcon and Star Destroyers have big lasers
>> cannons and also contains hundreds of X Wings.
>
> Another one that's impossible to answer and again the two franchises
> are basically the same. Star Wars ships do also have torpedoes,
> missiles and bombs, as well as shields (TIE Fighters are one of the
> few
> ship types that don't have shields).
>
Concussion missles and proton torpedoes are high explosives probably
on a scale we now can only imagine. Photon torpedoes are anti-matter
that pack quite a wallop for its size. The space opera nature of Star
Wars make the power of their weapons highly speculative but it still
has the feel of wet navy-air force on a bigger scale. Missles and
torpedoes impacting heavily armored battleships and dreadnaughts.
Phasers' main nesessity is to harmonize with enemy shield phasing so
they can slip through to deliver their damage thus don't need to be as
brutally destructive as the torpedo. Consitering the weaknesses and
advantages of both sides they could be consitered close to equal in
weapons and defense but Star Trek might have an advantage in speed and
manueverability of large vessels at tactical sublight speeds.
>
>
>> One more question. If we were to compare Starbases or Starports
>> (like
>> Deep Space Nine) versus the Death Star, which is better suited for
>> a
>> battle.
>
> An irrelevant question really. Space stations are stationary objects
> and aren't really designed to take part in battles, although they
> can
> be used to defend particular places. Besides which, the Death Star
> can
> move anyway it wants to since it has hyperdrive engines, unlike Deep
> Space 9.
A better comparison is the Death Star to a large borg ship. How would
DS9 fare then? On it's own though, the Death Star has a huge
compliment of ships and fighters for any long range engagement. The
Star itself needs to be very close to a target to use its main weapon
plus it takes forever to charge and fire that thing. That and the fact
it's so bloody slow makes it far too vulnerable unless it's going to
try blowing away DS9 with turbolasers while taking massive damage from
base size phasers and many, many photon torpedo launchers. Last, DS9
is not a big starbase. I think the Death Star might win.
|
|
|
| Re: Which is faster: The Enterprise or the Millenium Falcon [message #267887 ] |
So, 21 Mai 2006 14:11 |
|
Zero wrote:
> I don't understand if something flying at warpspeed is moving faster
> than a ship moving at lightspeed. Are Star Wars ships faster than Star
> Trek ships????
I think it was Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise that said Warp 1 was
lightspeed. Warp 2 was 2*2 lightspeed. Warp 3 was 3*3*3 lightspeed, etc.
But I also read later that it was non-canon.
When TNG came out, I read that if you could reach Warp 10, /that/ was
lightspeed. Warp 9.9 is as close as you can come due to Einstein's
theory (of course we saw what happened to Tom Paris & Capt. Janeway when
they went past Warp 10.)
Star Wars ignores Einstein (as well it should.) Lightspeed is just that.
So, depending on what measurement you want to go by, lightspeed is the
same as Warp 1 or Warp 10 (but I'm inclinded to go with Warp 10.)
--
OSI
|
|
|
| Re: Which is faster: The Enterprise or the Millenium Falcon [message #267888 ] |
So, 21 Mai 2006 15:30 |
|
"OSI" <abuse [at] msn.com> wrote in message
news:ONYbg.23833$ba.5726 [at] tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> Zero wrote:
>
>> I don't understand if something flying at warpspeed is moving faster
>> than a ship moving at lightspeed. Are Star Wars ships faster than Star
>> Trek ships????
>
> I think it was Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise that said Warp 1 was
> lightspeed. Warp 2 was 2*2 lightspeed. Warp 3 was 3*3*3 lightspeed, etc.
> But I also read later that it was non-canon.
>
> When TNG came out, I read that if you could reach Warp 10, /that/ was
> lightspeed. Warp 9.9 is as close as you can come due to Einstein's theory
> (of course we saw what happened to Tom Paris & Capt. Janeway when they
> went past Warp 10.)
>
> Star Wars ignores Einstein (as well it should.) Lightspeed is just that.
>
> So, depending on what measurement you want to go by, lightspeed is the
> same as Warp 1 or Warp 10 (but I'm inclinded to go with Warp 10.)
>
Actually warp 1 is still light-speed in the TNG/DS9/Voyager universe (at
warp 1, the journey from here to Alpha Centauri would take a little over 4
years). Warp 10 is *infinite* speed which means you're everywhere in the
universe all at once.
All the warp factors between 1 and 10 are on an exponential curve, if memory
serves - each warp factor is significantly faster than the last.
Star Wars on the other hand has never stated how fast its FTL drives go, but
they do seem to be able to cross the galaxy in a matter of days (the
Republic was supposed to contain several million inhabited solar systems,
which I'd imagine would mean it was very large...)
--
Jack of Hearts in The Eeeeevil Cabal (TINC...)
http://www.evilbill.org.uk - Diablo, Quake & Tomb Raider
There is no spoon.
|
|
|
| Re: umm... the enterprise... but only cuz there are more peoplein it to push. [message #267889 ] |
So, 21 Mai 2006 15:47 |
|
No, no, no.
They would have more people to run on the treadmills that turn the giant
rubber band that makes the engine go faster! ;-)
Doc Martian wrote:
> cheers!
> Doc
>
>
> "Zero" <talltree0 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1148181766.906721.264030 [at] j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Please help me answer this question. A friend at work claims that Star
>> Trek ships are more powerful but I am not sure what the answer is.
>>
>> I don't understand if something flying at warpspeed is moving faster
>> than a ship moving at lightspeed. Are Star Wars ships faster than Star
>> Trek ships????
>>
>> Also, I guess Star Trek ships are powerful. They have phasers, photon
>> torpedos, and shields. But how does that compare to Star Wars
>> vessels?? The Millenium Falcon and Star Destroyers have big lasers
>> cannons and also contains hundreds of X Wings.
>>
>> One more question. If we were to compare Starbases or Starports (like
>> Deep Space Nine) versus the Death Star, which is better suited for a
>> battle.
>>
>> Thank you!!!
>>
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Which is faster: The Enterprise or the Millenium Falcon [message #267890 ] |
So, 21 Mai 2006 15:44 |
|
Zero wrote:
> Please help me answer this question. A friend at work claims that Star
> Trek ships are more powerful but I am not sure what the answer is.
>
> I don't understand if something flying at warpspeed is moving faster
> than a ship moving at lightspeed. Are Star Wars ships faster than
> Star Trek ships????
Most of the time Wars ships are faster. Some of the time Trek (depends on
plot speeds).
>
> Also, I guess Star Trek ships are powerful. They have phasers,
> photon torpedos, and shields. But how does that compare to Star Wars
> vessels?? The Millenium Falcon and Star Destroyers have big lasers
> cannons and also contains hundreds of X Wings.
Tie fighters actually.
X-Wings belong to New Republic / Rebellion.
>
> One more question. If we were to compare Starbases or Starports
> (like Deep Space Nine) versus the Death Star, which is better suited
> for a battle.
>
For raw power and size you want the Death Star.
> Thank you!!!
There is a very interesting newsgroup devoted to this topic:
alt.startrek.vs.starwars.
http://www.sfdebris.com/trekwars.html
Check out this faq first: http://www.sfdebris.com/faq.html
--
Wouter Valentijn
www.wouter.cc
www.nksf.nl
www.zeppodunsel.nl
liam=mail
The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank.
Mister Scott, "A Taste of Armageddon", Star Trek.
|
|
|
| Re: Which is faster: The Enterprise or the Millenium Falcon [message #267893 ] |
So, 21 Mai 2006 17:30 |
|
EvilBill wrote:
> "OSI" <abuse [at] msn.com> wrote in message
> news:ONYbg.23833$ba.5726 [at] tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>> Zero wrote:
>>
>>> I don't understand if something flying at warpspeed is moving faster
>>> than a ship moving at lightspeed. Are Star Wars ships faster than
>>> Star Trek ships????
>>
>> I think it was Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise that said Warp 1
>> was lightspeed. Warp 2 was 2*2 lightspeed. Warp 3 was 3*3*3
>> lightspeed, etc. But I also read later that it was non-canon.
>>
In TOS (never mentioned on screen, so indeed not canon), speed was warp
factor cubed (to the third power).
Warp 1: light speed, Warp 2: 8 times light speed etc. Warp 3 (indeed) 27
times the speed of light.
But if they had done it like you suggested it would mean the warp factor to
the power of that warp factor.
In that case Warp 6 would become 6^6 times C.Or 46,656 times the speed of
light. And warp 9 would be 387,420,489 times the speed of light.
>> When TNG came out, I read that if you could reach Warp 10, /that/ was
>> lightspeed. Warp 9.9 is as close as you can come due to Einstein's
>> theory (of course we saw what happened to Tom Paris & Capt. Janeway
>> when they went past Warp 10.)
>>
>> Star Wars ignores Einstein (as well it should.) Lightspeed is just
>> that. So, depending on what measurement you want to go by, lightspeed is
>> the same as Warp 1 or Warp 10 (but I'm inclinded to go with Warp 10.)
>>
>
>
> Actually warp 1 is still light-speed in the TNG/DS9/Voyager universe
> (at warp 1, the journey from here to Alpha Centauri would take a
> little over 4 years). Warp 10 is *infinite* speed which means you're
> everywhere in the universe all at once.
Yup.
See 'Threshold' (Voyager).
> All the warp factors between 1 and 10 are on an exponential curve, if
> memory serves - each warp factor is significantly faster than the
> last.
But it wasn't exactly a smooth graph in the TNG era.
> Star Wars on the other hand has never stated how fast its FTL drives
> go, but they do seem to be able to cross the galaxy in a matter of
> days (the Republic was supposed to contain several million inhabited
> solar systems, which I'd imagine would mean it was very large...)
On a few occasions Star Trek ships were also known to also be that fast.
Like Star Trek V.
--
Wouter Valentijn
www.wouter.cc
www.nksf.nl
www.zeppodunsel.nl
liam=mail
"The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank."
Mister Scott, 'A Taste of Armageddon', Star Trek.
|
|
|
| Re: Which is faster: The Enterprise or the Millenium Falcon [message #267896 ] |
So, 21 Mai 2006 20:31 |
|
"Wouter Valentijn" <liam [at] valentijn.nu> wrote in message
news:447087b1$0$31648
> EvilBill wrote:
>
>> Star Wars on the other hand has never stated how fast its FTL drives
>> go, but they do seem to be able to cross the galaxy in a matter of
>> days (the Republic was supposed to contain several million inhabited
>> solar systems, which I'd imagine would mean it was very large...)
>
> On a few occasions Star Trek ships were also known to also be that fast.
> Like Star Trek V.
>
You mean that thing is still considered canon? :P
--
Jack of Hearts in The Eeeeevil Cabal (TINC...)
http://www.evilbill.org.uk - Diablo, Quake & Tomb Raider
There is no spoon.
|
|
|
| Re: Which is faster: The Enterprise or the Millenium Falcon [message #267900 ] |
So, 21 Mai 2006 23:25 |
|
EvilBill wrote:
> "Wouter Valentijn" <liam [at] valentijn.nu> wrote in message
> news:447087b1$0$31648
>> EvilBill wrote:
>>
>>> Star Wars on the other hand has never stated how fast its FTL drives
>>> go, but they do seem to be able to cross the galaxy in a matter of
>>> days (the Republic was supposed to contain several million inhabited
>>> solar systems, which I'd imagine would mean it was very large...)
>>
>> On a few occasions Star Trek ships were also known to also be that
>> fast. Like Star Trek V.
>>
>
> You mean that thing is still considered canon? :P
:)
--
Wouter Valentijn
www.wouter.cc
www.nksf.nl
www.zeppodunsel.nl
liam=mail
"The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank."
Mister Scott, 'A Taste of Armageddon', Star Trek.
|
|
|
| Re: Which is faster: The Enterprise or the Millenium Falcon [message #267901 ] |
Mo, 22 Mai 2006 01:39 |
|
>
> I think it was Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise that said Warp 1
> was lightspeed. Warp 2 was 2*2 lightspeed. Warp 3 was 3*3*3
> lightspeed, etc. But I also read later that it was non-canon.
>
C x Warpspeed cubed, 2x2x2 3x3x3 etc.
> When TNG came out, I read that if you could reach Warp 10, /that/
> was lightspeed. Warp 9.9 is as close as you can come due to
> Einstein's theory (of course we saw what happened to Tom Paris &
> Capt. Janeway when they went past Warp 10.)
>
Warp 9.99.... was supposed to be the absolute fastest (arbitrary)
warpspeed before you went into some sort of infinite timeloop.
|
|
|
| Re: Which is faster: The Enterprise or the Millenium Falcon [message #267902 ] |
Mo, 22 Mai 2006 02:31 |
|
It might be a case of apples and oranges since the technologies are
different, although ships in the Star Wars Universe seem to cover more
ground than those in Trek.
"Zero" <talltree0 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1148181766.906721.264030 [at] j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Please help me answer this question. A friend at work claims that Star
> Trek ships are more powerful but I am not sure what the answer is.
>
> I don't understand if something flying at warpspeed is moving faster
> than a ship moving at lightspeed. Are Star Wars ships faster than Star
> Trek ships????
>
> Also, I guess Star Trek ships are powerful. They have phasers, photon
> torpedos, and shields. But how does that compare to Star Wars
> vessels?? The Millenium Falcon and Star Destroyers have big lasers
> cannons and also contains hundreds of X Wings.
>
> One more question. If we were to compare Starbases or Starports (like
> Deep Space Nine) versus the Death Star, which is better suited for a
> battle.
>
> Thank you!!!
>
|
|
|
| Re: Which is faster: The Enterprise or the Millenium Falcon [message #267903 ] |
Mo, 22 Mai 2006 02:47 |
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0055_01C67D0F.6972F200
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The Millenium Falcon can only go as fast as .5 past light speed.
The USS Enterprise NCC-1701E can go up to Warp 9 which is 729 times the =
Speed of Light.
------=_NextPart_000_0055_01C67D0F.6972F200
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2873" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD><FONT face=3D"Final Frontier">
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>The Millenium Falcon can only go as fast as .5 past =
light=20
speed.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>The USS Enterprise NCC-1701E can go up to Warp 9 =
which is 729=20
times the Speed of Light.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML></FONT>
------=_NextPart_000_0055_01C67D0F.6972F200--
|
|
|
| Re: Which is faster: The Enterprise or the Millenium Falcon [message #267904 ] |
Mo, 22 Mai 2006 03:18 |
|
Captain Kundalini wrote:
> The Millenium Falcon can only go as fast as .5 past light speed.
> The USS Enterprise NCC-1701E can go up to Warp 9 which is 729 times the
> Speed of Light.
0.5 what? There are no units attached to that. 1.5 times the speed of
light? The Falcon would take YEARS to get anywhere if that were the
case, so it obviously isn't true. 'Past light speed' can only refer to
some factor of speed faster than light, but we don't know exactly what
that is.
The Star Wars galaxy is ~120,000 ly across (roughly) It would take a
Star Trek ship at Warp 9 literally tens of years to go from the Core (
Coruscant ) to the Outer Rim ( Tatooine ) yet Star Wars ships can do the
same run in much less time. Weeks, or even days, but we can't be sure.
Ergo, Star Wars ships travel faster than Star Trek ships.
H.
|
|
|
| Re: Which is faster: The Enterprise or the Millenium Falcon [message #267905 ] |
Mo, 22 Mai 2006 04:43 |
|
"Zero" <talltree0 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1148181766.906721.264030 [at] j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Please help me answer this question. A friend at work claims that Star
> Trek ships are more powerful but I am not sure what the answer is.
>
Star Wars ships can hyperdrive, which is the speed of light. TNG Trek
ships can go warp 9. I always thought that warp nine was 9 times the speed
of light?
--
JK Sinrod
www.sinrodstudios.com
www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com
|
|
|
| Re: Which is faster: The Enterprise or the Millenium Falcon [message #267906 ] |
Mo, 22 Mai 2006 04:48 |
|
"H" <H [at] r.c> wrote in message
news:Zj8cg.8445$S7.8116 [at] news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Captain Kundalini wrote:
>> The Millenium Falcon can only go as fast as .5 past light speed.
>> The USS Enterprise NCC-1701E can go up to Warp 9 which is 729 times the
>> Speed of Light.
>
> 0.5 what? There are no units attached to that. 1.5 times the speed of
> light? The Falcon would take YEARS to get anywhere if that were the case,
> so it obviously isn't true. 'Past light speed' can only refer to some
> factor of speed faster than light, but we don't know exactly what that is.
>
> The Star Wars galaxy is ~120,000 ly across (roughly) It would take a Star
> Trek ship at Warp 9 literally tens of years to go from the Core (
> Coruscant ) to the Outer Rim ( Tatooine ) yet Star Wars ships can do the
> same run in much less time. Weeks, or even days, but we can't be sure.
>
> Ergo, Star Wars ships travel faster than Star Trek ships.
>
Yup. The Enterprise-D would take about 35 years to travel that far.
The Borg could do it in a matter of days or even hours, though, so I figure
Borg transwarp is as fast, or faster than, Star Wars ships.
Or it might be the same thing. <g>
--
Jack of Hearts in The Eeeeevil Cabal (TINC...)
http://www.evilbill.org.uk - Diablo, Quake & Tomb Raider
There is no spoon.
|
|
|
| Re: Which is faster: The Enterprise or the Millenium Falcon [message #267907 ] |
Mo, 22 Mai 2006 04:48 |
|
_Zero_ spoke thusly on 20/05/2006 11:22 PM:
> Please help me answer this question. A friend at work claims that Star
> Trek ships are more powerful but I am not sure what the answer is.
Try asking in alt.startrek.vs.starwars
--
usenetsolon [at] gmail.com
Firefox 1.5 is out! <http://www.mozilla.com>
|
|
|
| Re: Which is faster: The Enterprise or the Millenium Falcon [message #267908 ] |
Mo, 22 Mai 2006 09:32 |
|
"Glassman" <jksinrod [at] aol.com> wrote in news:Lz9cg.281$Se3.116 [at] fe11.lga:
>
> "Zero" <talltree0 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1148181766.906721.264030 [at] j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Please help me answer this question. A friend at work claims that
>> Star Trek ships are more powerful but I am not sure what the answer
>> is.
>>
>
> Star Wars ships can hyperdrive, which is the speed of light. TNG
> Trek
> ships can go warp 9. I always thought that warp nine was 9 times the
> speed of light?
>
>
Nope, even in TOS the warp number was cubed, times the speed of light.
That was more realistic than what it was changed to in the later Trek
stories.
Warp 2 was 8 times the speed of light in TOS. 2x2x2=8 3x3x3=27 x the
speed of light. I don't know what the factoring is for the "New" warp
speed.
Except that it was supposed to be that warp 10 would theoretically put
you at every location at the same moment. This was Rodenberry's<sp> new
concept which just wasn't a realistic factor(IMHO), but... after all it
was his show. So he could call it whatever he wanted it to be, I guess.
buck
|
|
|
| Re: Which is faster: The Enterprise or the Millenium Falcon [message #267909 ] |
Mo, 22 Mai 2006 12:32 |
|
EvilBill wrote:
> "H" <H [at] r.c> wrote in message
> news:Zj8cg.8445$S7.8116 [at] news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Captain Kundalini wrote:
>>> The Millenium Falcon can only go as fast as .5 past light speed.
>>> The USS Enterprise NCC-1701E can go up to Warp 9 which is 729 times
>>> the Speed of Light.
>>
>> 0.5 what? There are no units attached to that. 1.5 times the speed of
>> light? The Falcon would take YEARS to get anywhere if that were the
>> case, so it obviously isn't true. 'Past light speed' can only refer
>> to some factor of speed faster than light, but we don't know exactly
>> what that is. The Star Wars galaxy is ~120,000 ly across (roughly) It
>> would take a
>> Star Trek ship at Warp 9 literally tens of years to go from the Core
>> ( Coruscant ) to the Outer Rim ( Tatooine ) yet Star Wars ships can
>> do the same run in much less time. Weeks, or even days, but we can't
>> be sure. Ergo, Star Wars ships travel faster than Star Trek ships.
>>
>
> Yup. The Enterprise-D would take about 35 years to travel that far.
> The Borg could do it in a matter of days or even hours, though, so I
> figure Borg transwarp is as fast, or faster than, Star Wars ships.
> Or it might be the same thing. <g>
Otoh The Enterprise-A could travel that distance in less than a day. :D
--
Wouter Valentijn
www.wouter.cc
www.nksf.nl
www.zeppodunsel.nl
liam=mail
"The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank."
Mister Scott, 'A Taste of Armageddon', Star Trek.
|
|
|
| Re: umm... the enterprise... but only cuz there are more people in it to push. [message #267910 ] |
Mo, 22 Mai 2006 16:17 |
|
"whodunit" <whodunit [at] sbcworldly.com> wrote in message
news:Nb_bg.20023$Lm5.5112 [at] newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> No, no, no.
>
> They would have more people to run on the treadmills that turn the giant
> rubber band that makes the engine go faster! ;-)
No no no...
Star Trek ships are *real*. Star Wars ships come from some 'galaxy far far
away' and a 'long time ago'. If that's not an introduction to a fable what
is?
So - logically speaking - Star Trek ships are faster because Star Wars ships
don't even exist.
|
|
|
| Re: umm... the enterprise... but only cuz there are more peoplein it to push. [message #267911 ] |
Mo, 22 Mai 2006 16:33 |
|
Count 1 wrote:
> "whodunit" <whodunit [at] sbcworldly.com> wrote in message
> news:Nb_bg.20023$Lm5.5112 [at] newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>No, no, no.
>>
>>They would have more people to run on the treadmills that turn the giant
>>rubber band that makes the engine go faster! ;-)
>
>
> No no no...
>
> Star Trek ships are *real*. Star Wars ships come from some 'galaxy far far
> away' and a 'long time ago'. If that's not an introduction to a fable what
> is?
Ancient Egypt is also far away and a long time ago, I guess that means
that civilisation is just a fable too...
> So - logically speaking - Star Trek ships are faster because Star Wars ships
> don't even exist.
Can anyone else see the problem with this statement? :)
H.
|
|
|
| Re: umm... the enterprise... but only cuz there are more people in it to push. [message #267912 ] |
Mo, 22 Mai 2006 17:45 |
|
"H" <H [at] r.c> wrote in message
news:jZjcg.8891$S7.5001 [at] news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Count 1 wrote:
> > "whodunit" <whodunit [at] sbcworldly.com> wrote in message
> > news:Nb_bg.20023$Lm5.5112 [at] newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> >>No, no, no.
> >>
> >>They would have more people to run on the treadmills that turn the giant
> >>rubber band that makes the engine go faster! ;-)
> >
> >
> > No no no...
> >
> > Star Trek ships are *real*. Star Wars ships come from some 'galaxy far
far
> > away' and a 'long time ago'. If that's not an introduction to a fable
what
> > is?
>
> Ancient Egypt is also far away
No it wasn't. It was right here on this planet.
and a long time ago, I guess that means
> that civilisation is just a fable too...
Everyone knows Ancient Egypt was brought to us by that transgendered alien
in 'Stargate'.
> > So - logically speaking - Star Trek ships are faster because Star Wars
ships
> > don't even exist.
>
> Can anyone else see the problem with this statement? :)
Personally I like to keep my debates between competing fictions to the
fantasy world. Like "Is Legolas a better archer than Robin Hood?"
|
|
|
| Re: umm... the enterprise... but only cuz there are more people in it to push. [message #267913 ] |
Mo, 22 Mai 2006 17:55 |
|
"Count 1" <omnipitus2002 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:h0lcg.182468$WI1.104380 [at] pd7tw2no...
>
> Everyone knows Ancient Egypt was brought to us by that transgendered alien
> in 'Stargate'.
>
Nah. His kind stole ancient Egypt from us. ;)
--
Jack of Hearts in The Eeeeevil Cabal (TINC...)
http://www.evilbill.org.uk - Diablo, Quake & Tomb Raider
There is no spoon.
|
|
|
| Re: Which is faster: The Enterprise or the Millenium Falcon [message #267914 ] |
Mo, 22 Mai 2006 19:13 |
|
"Aye, and if my Grandmother had wheels, she'd be a waqgon."
"Scotty"
"Wouter Valentijn" <liam [at] valentijn.nu> wrote in message
news:44719358$0$31637$e4fe514c [at] news.xs4all.nl...
> EvilBill wrote:
>> "H" <H [at] r.c> wrote in message
>> news:Zj8cg.8445$S7.8116 [at] news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>> Captain Kundalini wrote:
>>>> The Millenium Falcon can only go as fast as .5 past light speed.
>>>> The USS Enterprise NCC-1701E can go up to Warp 9 which is 729 times
>>>> the Speed of Light.
>>>
>>> 0.5 what? There are no units attached to that. 1.5 times the speed of
>>> light? The Falcon would take YEARS to get anywhere if that were the
>>> case, so it obviously isn't true. 'Past light speed' can only refer
>>> to some factor of speed faster than light, but we don't know exactly
>>> what that is. The Star Wars galaxy is ~120,000 ly across (roughly) It
>>> would take a
>>> Star Trek ship at Warp 9 literally tens of years to go from the Core
>>> ( Coruscant ) to the Outer Rim ( Tatooine ) yet Star Wars ships can
>>> do the same run in much less time. Weeks, or even days, but we can't
>>> be sure. Ergo, Star Wars ships travel faster than Star Trek ships.
>>>
>>
>> Yup. The Enterprise-D would take about 35 years to travel that far.
>> The Borg could do it in a matter of days or even hours, though, so I
>> figure Borg transwarp is as fast, or faster than, Star Wars ships.
>> Or it might be the same thing. <g>
>
> Otoh The Enterprise-A could travel that distance in less than a day. :D
>
> --
> Wouter Valentijn
>
> www.wouter.cc
> www.nksf.nl
> www.zeppodunsel.nl
> liam=mail
>
> "The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank."
>
> Mister Scott, 'A Taste of Armageddon', Star Trek.
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Which is faster: The Enterprise or the Millenium Falcon [message #267916 ] |
Mo, 22 Mai 2006 19:25 |
|
"Skytech" <skytech [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:eXYbg.4957$x4.2980 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>> I don't understand if something flying at warpspeed is moving faster
>>> than a ship moving at lightspeed. Are Star Wars ships faster than Star
>>> Trek ships????
>>
>> Impossible to answer, but "lightspeed", "hyperdrive" and "warp speed"
>> are basically the same thing - faster than light travel to enable ships
>> to travel between planets in a sensible timeframe (ie. hours / days /
>> weeks instead of decades and centuries).
>>
>
> Hyperdrives enter an otherspace that has different time/space
> characteristics allowing ships to cover large distances in shorter time, a
> short cut. Warp drive, as its name implies, warps realspace to create FTL
> movement but you're still in and able to interact with the real world.
> Star War ship do take much less time to cross interstellar distances but
> can't observe or react to to outside world without preplanning.
>
>>
>>
>>> Also, I guess Star Trek ships are powerful. They have phasers, photon
>>> torpedos, and shields. But how does that compare to Star Wars
>>> vessels?? The Millenium Falcon and Star Destroyers have big lasers
>>> cannons and also contains hundreds of X Wings.
>>
>> Another one that's impossible to answer and again the two franchises
>> are basically the same. Star Wars ships do also have torpedoes,
>> missiles and bombs, as well as shields (TIE Fighters are one of the few
>> ship types that don't have shields).
>>
>
> Concussion missles and proton torpedoes are high explosives probably on a
> scale we now can only imagine. Photon torpedoes are anti-matter that pack
> quite a wallop for its size. The space opera nature of Star Wars make the
> power of their weapons highly speculative but it still has the feel of wet
> navy-air force on a bigger scale. Missles and torpedoes impacting heavily
> armored battleships and dreadnaughts. Phasers' main nesessity is to
> harmonize with enemy shield phasing so they can slip through to deliver
> their damage thus don't need to be as brutally destructive as the torpedo.
> Consitering the weaknesses and advantages of both sides they could be
> consitered close to equal in weapons and defense but Star Trek might have
> an advantage in speed and manueverability of large vessels at tactical
> sublight speeds.
>
>>
>>
>>> One more question. If we were to compare Starbases or Starports (like
>>> Deep Space Nine) versus the Death Star, which is better suited for a
>>> battle.
>>
>> An irrelevant question really. Space stations are stationary objects
>> and aren't really designed to take part in battles, although they can
>> be used to defend particular places. Besides which, the Death Star can
>> move anyway it wants to since it has hyperdrive engines, unlike Deep
>> Space 9.
>
> A better comparison is the Death Star to a large borg ship. How would DS9
> fare then? On it's own though, the Death Star has a huge compliment of
> ships and fighters for any long range engagement. The Star itself needs to
> be very close to a target to use its main weapon plus it takes forever to
> charge and fire that thing. That and the fact it's so bloody slow makes it
> far too vulnerable unless it's going to try blowing away DS9 with
> turbolasers while taking massive damage from base size phasers and many,
> many photon torpedo launchers. Last, DS9 is not a big starbase. I think
> the Death Star might win.
Thank you for answering the questions outright and not being snippy or
poking fun like so many people like to do.
|
|
|
| Re: umm... the enterprise... but only cuz there are more people in it to push. [message #267917 ] |
Mo, 22 Mai 2006 19:37 |
|
H wrote:
> Count 1 wrote:
>> "whodunit" <whodunit [at] sbcworldly.com> wrote in message
>> news:Nb_bg.20023$Lm5.5112 [at] newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>> No, no, no.
>>>
>>> They would have more people to run on the treadmills that turn the
>>> giant rubber band that makes the engine go faster! ;-)
>>
>>
>> No no no...
>>
>> Star Trek ships are *real*. Star Wars ships come from some 'galaxy
>> far far away' and a 'long time ago'. If that's not an introduction
>> to a fable what is?
>
> Ancient Egypt is also far away and a long time ago, I guess that means
> that civilisation is just a fable too...
I wanna bet present day Egyptians would want to argue with that far away
point.
Besides fables are about non-human animals.
>
>> So - logically speaking - Star Trek ships are faster because Star
>> Wars ships don't even exist.
>
> Can anyone else see the problem with this statement? :)
>
I think so....
;D
--
Wouter Valentijn
www.wouter.cc
www.nksf.nl
www.zeppodunsel.nl
liam=mail
"The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank."
Mister Scott, 'A Taste of Armageddon', Star Trek.
|
|
|
| Re: Which is faster: The Enterprise or the Millenium Falcon [message #267918 ] |
Mo, 22 Mai 2006 19:45 |
|
Captain Kundalini wrote:
> "Wouter Valentijn" <liam [at] valentijn.nu> wrote in message
> news:44719358$0$31637$e4fe514c [at] news.xs4all.nl...
>> EvilBill wrote:
>>> "H" <H [at] r.c> wrote in message
>>> news:Zj8cg.8445$S7.8116 [at] news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>> Captain Kundalini wrote:
>>>>> The Millenium Falcon can only go as fast as .5 past light speed.
>>>>> The USS Enterprise NCC-1701E can go up to Warp 9 which is 729
>>>>> times the Speed of Light.
>>>>
>>>> 0.5 what? There are no units attached to that. 1.5 times the speed
>>>> of light? The Falcon would take YEARS to get anywhere if that were
>>>> the case, so it obviously isn't true. 'Past light speed' can only
>>>> refer to some factor of speed faster than light, but we don't know
>>>> exactly what that is. The Star Wars galaxy is ~120,000 ly across
>>>> (roughly) It would take a
>>>> Star Trek ship at Warp 9 literally tens of years to go from the
>>>> Core ( Coruscant ) to the Outer Rim ( Tatooine ) yet Star Wars
>>>> ships can do the same run in much less time. Weeks, or even days,
>>>> but we can't be sure. Ergo, Star Wars ships travel faster than
>>>> Star Trek ships.
>>>
>>> Yup. The Enterprise-D would take about 35 years to travel that far.
>>> The Borg could do it in a matter of days or even hours, though, so I
>>> figure Borg transwarp is as fast, or faster than, Star Wars ships.
>>> Or it might be the same thing. <g>
>>
>> Otoh The Enterprise-A could travel that distance in less than a day.
>> :D
> "Aye, and if my Grandmother had wheels, she'd be a waqgon."
>
> "Scotty"
>
Ah, a Star Trek III quote about the transwarp drive of the Excelsior.
--
Wouter Valentijn
www.wouter.cc
www.nksf.nl
www.zeppodunsel.nl
liam=mail
"The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank."
Mister Scott, 'A Taste of Armageddon', Star Trek.
|
|
|
| Re: Which is faster: The Enterprise or the Millenium Falcon [message #267922 ] |
Mo, 22 Mai 2006 23:18 |
|
>
> Thank you for answering the questions outright and not being snippy
> or
> poking fun like so many people like to do.
Thanks. I actually enjoy both series and prefer to discuss rather than
grouse.
|
|
|
| Re: umm... the enterprise... but only cuz there are more people in it to push. [message #267924 ] |
Mo, 22 Mai 2006 23:27 |
|
>
>> So - logically speaking - Star Trek ships are faster because Star
>> Wars ships
>> don't even exist.
>
> Can anyone else see the problem with this statement? :)
>
Well, if we're going to be picky, there was no Edith Keeler in our
1930's, we never tries to launch orbital nuclear platfoms in the 60s,
and we never developed eugenicly superior beings and subsequently
fought a world war against them in the 90s. Didn't happen, doesn't
exist.
The big difference is Star Trek *tries* to use a semblance of possible
technology while Star Wars is space opera and does whatever moves the
story along. Who's to say hyperdrive may actually be real someday and
warp tech is the impossible myth. Who's to say Corsicant(sp?) isn't
Earth 20,000 years from now.
|
|
|
| Re: umm... the enterprise... but only cuz there are more people in it to push. [message #267925 ] |
Mo, 22 Mai 2006 23:33 |
|
>
> Besides fables are about non-human animals.
>
Fables are legendary stories involving supernatural happenings.
Animals acting in human capacity apprear in some, but not all, as a
means to teach a lesson.
|
|
|
| Re: umm... the enterprise... but only cuz there are more people in it to push. [message #267926 ] |
Di, 23 Mai 2006 00:45 |
|
Skytech wrote:
>> Besides fables are about non-human animals.
>>
>
> Fables are legendary stories involving supernatural happenings.
> Animals acting in human capacity apprear in some, but not all, as a
> means to teach a lesson.
Okay... The defination I gave was somewhat limited.
Dictionary.com gives this:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=fable
1.. A usually short narrative making an edifying or cautionary point and
often employing as characters animals that speak and act like humans.
2.. A story about legendary persons and exploits.
3.. A falsehood; a lie.
--
Wouter Valentijn
www.wouter.cc
www.nksf.nl
www.zeppodunsel.nl
liam=mail
"The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank."
Mister Scott, 'A Taste of Armageddon', Star Trek.
|
|
|
| Re: umm... the enterprise... but only cuz there are more people in it to push. [message #267927 ] |
Di, 23 Mai 2006 00:50 |
|
Skytech wrote:
>>> So - logically speaking - Star Trek ships are faster because Star
>>> Wars ships
>>> don't even exist.
>>
>> Can anyone else see the problem with this statement? :)
>>
>
> Well, if we're going to be picky, there was no Edith Keeler in our
> 1930's, we never tries to launch orbital nuclear platfoms in the 60s,
> and we never developed eugenicly superior beings and subsequently
> fought a world war against them in the 90s. Didn't happen, doesn't
> exist.
>
> The big difference is Star Trek *tries* to use a semblance of possible
> technology while Star Wars is space opera and does whatever moves the
> story along. Who's to say hyperdrive may actually be real someday and
> warp tech is the impossible myth. Who's to say Corsicant(sp?) isn't
> Earth 20,000 years from now.
Well, they do say Star Wars is set in a galaxy far far away, and in the
past.
So, another galaxy and not in the future.
Otoh if we were to combine Star Trek and Star Wars one might say that in the
past the Preservers took several people from Earth and transported them to
that far away galaxy. ;-)
If Coriscant once was Earth, Earth would need to be transported at some
point in time across time and space.
--
Wouter Valentijn
www.wouter.cc
www.nksf.nl
www.zeppodunsel.nl
liam=mail
"The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank."
Mister Scott, 'A Taste of Armageddon', Star Trek.
|
|
|
| Re: umm... the enterprise... but only cuz there are more people in it to push. [message #267928 ] |
Di, 23 Mai 2006 00:54 |
|
Wouter Valentijn wrote:
> Skytech wrote:
>>> Besides fables are about non-human animals.
>>>
>>
>> Fables are legendary stories involving supernatural happenings.
>> Animals acting in human capacity apprear in some, but not all, as a
>> means to teach a lesson.
>
> Okay... The defination I gave was somewhat limited.
Definition of course.
The fingers are sometimes faster than the brain.
--
Wouter Valentijn
www.wouter.cc
www.nksf.nl
www.zeppodunsel.nl
liam=mail
"The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank."
Mister Scott, 'A Taste of Armageddon', Star Trek.
|
|
|
| Re: umm... the enterprise... but only cuz there are more people in it to push. [message #267929 ] |
Di, 23 Mai 2006 01:30 |
|
"EvilBill" <quake2lives [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4de57uF191dc1U1 [at] individual.net...
> "Count 1" <omnipitus2002 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:h0lcg.182468$WI1.104380 [at] pd7tw2no...
> >
> > Everyone knows Ancient Egypt was brought to us by that transgendered
alien
> > in 'Stargate'.
> >
>
>
> Nah. His kind stole ancient Egypt from us. ;)
I don't even remember that movie, I make a point of forgetting anything
James Spader does.
I do vaguely remember the head alien was played by that creepy man-girl, and
something about a big pyramid.
Its fair to say I never 'got' Stargate. ;-)
|
|
|
| Re: umm... the enterprise... but only cuz there are more people in it to push. [message #267946 ] |
Di, 23 Mai 2006 17:27 |
|
"Count 1" <omnipitus2002 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:NQrcg.182276$P01.147152 [at] pd7tw3no...
>
> "EvilBill" <quake2lives [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> Nah. His kind stole ancient Egypt from us. ;)
>
> I don't even remember that movie, I make a point of forgetting anything
> James Spader does.
>
> I do vaguely remember the head alien was played by that creepy man-girl,
> and
> something about a big pyramid.
>
> Its fair to say I never 'got' Stargate. ;-)
>
Well, basically (and this is clarified more throughout the Stargate SG-1
series <g>) the alien and his kind - the Goa'uld - came to Earth and adopted
the personas of the ancient gods of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Japan and so forth
in order to enslave the human race. The ancient Egyptians rebelled and
kicked them out around 3000 BC. <g>
Which dovetails nicely with the Egyptians' own view of their history in
which around that time a series of divine rulers passed power to the first
human pharaohs. ;)
--
Jack of Hearts in The Eeeeevil Cabal (TINC...)
http://www.evilbill.org.uk - Diablo, Quake & Tomb Raider
There is no spoon.
|
|
|
| Re: umm... the enterprise... but only cuz there are more people in it to push. [message #267947 ] |
Di, 23 Mai 2006 18:33 |
|
EvilBill wrote:
> "Count 1" <omnipitus2002 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:NQrcg.182276$P01.147152 [at] pd7tw3no...
>>
>> "EvilBill" <quake2lives [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> Nah. His kind stole ancient Egypt from us. ;)
>>
>> I don't even remember that movie, I make a point of forgetting
>> anything James Spader does.
>>
>> I do vaguely remember the head alien was played by that creepy
>> man-girl, and
>> something about a big pyramid.
>>
>> Its fair to say I never 'got' Stargate. ;-)
>>
>
>
> Well, basically (and this is clarified more throughout the Stargate
> SG-1 series <g>) the alien and his kind - the Goa'uld - came to Earth
> and adopted the personas of the ancient gods of Egypt, Mesopotamia,
> Japan and so forth in order to enslave the human race. The ancient
> Egyptians rebelled and kicked them out around 3000 BC. <g>
>
And the Goa'uld of course made use of the stargate system build by the so
called Ancient Ones. Which was a humanity from *before* humanity.
Reminiscent of the Perry Rhodan mythology of the Lemurian culture that was
al but destroyed by 'The Beasts' 50,000 years ago and fled to become the
founders of several other cultures throughout the universe.
> Which dovetails nicely with the Egyptians' own view of their history
> in which around that time a series of divine rulers passed power to
> the first human pharaohs. ;)
Who themselves declared to be divine.
--
Wouter Valentijn
www.wouter.cc
www.nksf.nl
www.zeppodunsel.nl
liam=mail
"The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank."
Mister Scott, 'A Taste of Armageddon', Star Trek.
|
|
|
| Re: Which is faster: The Enterprise or the Millenium Falcon [message #267949 ] |
Di, 23 Mai 2006 22:12 |
|
"EvilBill" <quake2lives [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4dcn3uF195t7nU1 [at] individual.net...
> "H" <H [at] r.c> wrote in message
> news:Zj8cg.8445$S7.8116 [at] news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Captain Kundalini wrote:
>>> The Millenium Falcon can only go as fast as .5 past light speed.
>>> The USS Enterprise NCC-1701E can go up to Warp 9 which is 729 times the
>>> Speed of Light.
>>
>> 0.5 what? There are no units attached to that. 1.5 times the speed of
>> light? The Falcon would take YEARS to get anywhere if that were the case,
>> so it obviously isn't true. 'Past light speed' can only refer to some
>> factor of speed faster than light, but we don't know exactly what that
>> is.
>>
>> The Star Wars galaxy is ~120,000 ly across (roughly) It would take a Star
>> Trek ship at Warp 9 literally tens of years to go from the Core (
>> Coruscant ) to the Outer Rim ( Tatooine ) yet Star Wars ships can do the
>> same run in much less time. Weeks, or even days, but we can't be sure.
>>
>> Ergo, Star Wars ships travel faster than Star Trek ships.
>>
>
> Yup. The Enterprise-D would take about 35 years to travel that far.
> The Borg could do it in a matter of days or even hours, though, so I
> figure Borg transwarp is as fast, or faster than, Star Wars ships.
> Or it might be the same thing. <g>
>
I seem to remember they had similar graphics BICBW
> --
> Jack of Hearts in The Eeeeevil Cabal (TINC...)
> http://www.evilbill.org.uk - Diablo, Quake & Tomb Raider
> There is no spoon.
>
|
|
|
| Re: umm... the enterprise... but only cuz there are more people in it to push. [message #267950 ] |
Mi, 24 Mai 2006 00:32 |
|
"Wouter Valentijn" <liam [at] valentijn.nu> wrote in message
news:4473396c$0$31638
> EvilBill wrote:
>
> And the Goa'uld of course made use of the stargate system build by the so
> called Ancient Ones. Which was a humanity from *before* humanity.
> Reminiscent of the Perry Rhodan mythology of the Lemurian culture that was
> al but destroyed by 'The Beasts' 50,000 years ago and fled to become the
> founders of several other cultures throughout the universe.
>
A little like my own 'Mythology' (as I've called it for the last 10 years or
so <g>) that deals with a race of humans who had a big interstellar empire
about 100,000 years ago. Ended up getting bombed back into the Stone Age by
an ancient enemy.
>
>> Which dovetails nicely with the Egyptians' own view of their history
>> in which around that time a series of divine rulers passed power to
>> the first human pharaohs. ;)
>
> Who themselves declared to be divine.
>
Semi-divine, at any rate. They only became fully divine after death (with
the exception of Amenhotep III and Ramesses II, who were evidently a little
less patient. LOL).
--
Jack of Hearts in The Eeeeevil Cabal (TINC...)
http://www.evilbill.org.uk - Diablo, Quake & Tomb Raider
There is no spoon.
|
|
|
| Re: umm... the enterprise... but only cuz there are more people in it to push. [message #267956 ] |
Mi, 24 Mai 2006 11:19 |
|
EvilBill wrote:
> "Wouter Valentijn" <liam [at] valentijn.nu> wrote in message
> news:4473396c$0$31638
>> EvilBill wrote:
>>
>> And the Goa'uld of course made use of the stargate system build by
>> the so called Ancient Ones. Which was a humanity from *before*
>> humanity. Reminiscent of the Perry Rhodan mythology of the Lemurian
>> culture that was al but destroyed by 'The Beasts' 50,000 years ago
>> and fled to become the founders of several other cultures throughout
>> the universe.
>
>
> A little like my own 'Mythology' (as I've called it for the last 10
> years or so <g>) that deals with a race of humans who had a big
> interstellar empire about 100,000 years ago. Ended up getting bombed
> back into the Stone Age by an ancient enemy.
>
Okay, that's interesting!
I occasionally think up original stories as well.
Original as opposed to my fanfics that is.
>>
>>> Which dovetails nicely with the Egyptians' own view of their history
>>> in which around that time a series of divine rulers passed power to
>>> the first human pharaohs. ;)
>>
>> Who themselves declared to be divine.
>>
>
>
> Semi-divine, at any rate. They only became fully divine after death
> (with the exception of Amenhotep III and Ramesses II, who were
> evidently a little less patient. LOL).
Well, all that power and being spoiled.
--
Wouter Valentijn
www.wouter.cc
www.nksf.nl
www.zeppodunsel.nl
liam=mail
"The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank."
Mister Scott, 'A Taste of Armageddon', Star Trek.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Mi Mai 23 01:42:30 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,41370 Sekunden |
