Star Wars vs Star Trek shields

[Picard]

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Neutronium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutronium


Looks like solid neutronium might be possible. But it still can't change fact that there is no way you are going to mine it from surface of small moon... for simple reason that moon would simply break apart and reform again around neutronium chunk. At very least, it would change moon's center of gravity and, therefore, center of rotation. That is supposing there is feasible explanation for neutronium getting to surface of moon in first place.

[User1626]

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Neutronium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutronium


Looks like solid neutronium might be possible. But it still can't change fact that there is no way you are going to mine it from surface of small moon... for simple reason that moon would simply break apart and reform again around neutronium chunk. At very least, it would change moon's center of gravity and, therefore, center of rotation. That is supposing there is feasible explanation for neutronium getting to surface of moon in first place.

That's easy: an advanced civilization, like the one which made the Doomsday Machine or Dyson Sphere.
If the star in the Dyson Sphere went nova, it could have blown the sphere apart, sending chunks of neutronium across the galaxy, which could have wound up in wormholes and ended up in any other galaxy at any other time-period, since it would be attracted into the strongest gravity-wells, and could be ripped apart in black holes and still survive in smaller chunks.

Same with the civilization that created the Doomsday Machine, which clearly had neutronium sitting around when they were destroyed by the machine itself; those chunks could likewise wind up in the SW galaxy, since the Doomsday Machine was 4 billion years old.

As for super-gravity, however, we didn't see it with the Doomsday Machine or the Dyson Sphere (Scotty's ship was right on the surface of it, after all), and it wasn't crushed.
Rather, both used tractor-beams to catch ships and pull them in; they didn't seem to have any especially strong gravity otherwise.


Likewise, the above article expressly states that "There is no universally agreed-upon definition for the term "neutronium". According to the novel of The Doomsday Machine, Sulu says that neutronium was "collapsed matter so dense that a cubic inch would weigh a ton--" though this was likely hyperbolic statement, and a more realistic estimate would be seven metric tons per cubic centimeter (i.e. if the entire electron-shell was composed of neutrons).

Therefore this type of neutronium could technically be found on the surfaces of small moons, and not large moons or planets, because it would punch too deep into a large body's mass into its mantle and eventually sink to its core, hitting at high velocity. A small moon wouldn't have this problem so much.


The problem, naturally, would be that the SW galaxy had no means to work with neutronium and forge it into such perfect surfaces as we see in the ISD's; that's even beyond the most intellectually-insulting wanks; and they definitely didn't have the means to move ships of such mass. Nor does the armor prove very durable; as 2046 pointed out on his website of st-v-sw.net , this "durasteel" is pretty flimsy for being supposedly neutronium-based.

Rather, anything with the word "steel" in it implies some ferrite-based substance, which is naturally less durable than the Tritanium used in starship construction.

[User1632]

Star Trek shields are graviton-based, so they require much less energy to counter the same attack as magnetic shields. ST ships only use magnetic force-fields to absorb energy that manages to get through the graviton-based deflector-fields.

Meanwhile SW shields are not graviton-based; so graviton-based weapons like phasers would pass right through them, just like the way that normal gravity passes through solid objects, and therefore SW shields would be useless against phasers.

So the Enterprise could destroy the DS by just blasting it.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

Star Trek shields are graviton-based, so they require much less energy to counter the same attack as magnetic shields. ST ships only use magnetic force-fields to absorb energy that manages to get through the graviton-based deflector-fields.

Meanwhile SW shields are not graviton-based; so graviton-based weapons like phasers would pass right through them, just like the way that normal gravity passes through solid objects, and therefore SW shields would be useless against phasers.

So the Enterprise could destroy the DS by just blasting it.

...

*technobabble alert*

Magnetism is billlions upon billions of times stronger than gravity. A magnet the size of the palm of your hand can lift a magnetic piece of metal up, countering the gravitational pull of the entire planet.

[User1639]

Star Trek shields are graviton-based, so they require much less energy to counter the same attack as magnetic shields. ST ships only use magnetic force-fields to absorb energy that manages to get through the graviton-based deflector-fields.

Meanwhile SW shields are not graviton-based; so graviton-based weapons like phasers would pass right through them, just like the way that normal gravity passes through solid objects, and therefore SW shields would be useless against phasers.

So the Enterprise could destroy the DS by just blasting it.

...

*technobabble alert*

Magnetism is billlions upon billions of times stronger than gravity. A magnet the size of the palm of your hand can lift a magnetic piece of metal up, countering the gravitational pull of the entire planet.

You're confusing natural gravity with artificial... not to mention ignoring the inverse-square law of propagation.
Here we're talking about gravity-fields that are strong enough to warp space thousands or millions of times, and which thereby deflect matter and energy alike rather than absorbing impact from them: to put that so you can understand, think of Lucy pulling the football out of the way of Charlie Brown kicking it, rather than just holding it in place so he breaks his toe.
The ship still has magnetic shields, but that's for what doesn't get deflected.

SW shields, meanwhile, don't have that type of shields, so they just have to sit there and take it (or, as Han says in ANH, they can "angle" their shields); or they have to blast it with their TL's, as with the asteroid in EP.5., where it was also shown that even a single ion-cannon burst can overwhelm an ISD's magnetic shields and knock out its electrical systems.
Meanwhile a starship's deflectors would have simply averted it even with their navigational deflectors, like any other object approaching the ship; and anyway federation starships don't even have electrical systems, just plasma-conduits.

[Lucky]

Star Trek shields are graviton-based, so they require much less energy to counter the same attack as magnetic shields. ST ships only use magnetic force-fields to absorb energy that manages to get through the graviton-based deflector-fields.

Meanwhile SW shields are not graviton-based; so graviton-based weapons like phasers would pass right through them, just like the way that normal gravity passes through solid objects, and therefore SW shields would be useless against phasers.

So the Enterprise could destroy the DS by just blasting it.

...

*technobabble alert*

Magnetism is billlions upon billions of times stronger than gravity. A magnet the size of the palm of your hand can lift a magnetic piece of metal up, countering the gravitational pull of the entire planet.

Except that gravity beats magnetism, or black holes which trek powers easily create would not form. Those pesky Vong with their Gravity tech kicked GFFA ass.

[Picard]

M. SWST.

Gravitational force depends on number / density of gravitons being exchanged between two objects. If shields are composed of gravitons, then number of gravitons has to be enormous in otder to stop particle weapons. So no, magnetism is not billions of times stronger than gravity when it comes to shield tech.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

M. SWST.

Gravitational force depends on number / density of gravitons being exchanged between two objects. If shields are composed of gravitons, then number of gravitons has to be enormous in otder to stop particle weapons. So no, magnetism is not billions of times stronger than gravity when it comes to shield tech.

...

You have been watching too much Star Trek, haven't you?

[Admiral Breetai]

...

You have been watching too much Star Trek, haven't you?

I admit I LOL'd but maybe you could share your Hawking-esque vision of whats what with us? or do you have to go ask your masters over yonder for the proper argument first before posting it here

I can wait

[Picard]

He seems to be getting his "facts" and "info" from SDN, be it site or forum, so... I doubt he would be able to get such amount of bullshit on his own.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

He seems to be getting his "facts" and "info" from SDN, be it site or forum, so... I doubt he would be able to get such amount of bullshit on his own.

Picard, explain and back up your assertion that gravity, the weakest of the four fundamental forces, is stronger than magnetism, when I can easily disprove this with basic experimentation. A magnet the size of my hand and attract up a lump of iron, counteracting the gravitational pull of the Earth.

[Admiral Breetai]

He seems to be getting his "facts" and "info" from SDN, be it site or forum, so... I doubt he would be able to get such amount of bullshit on his own.

Picard, explain and back up your assertion that gravity, the weakest of the four fundamental forces, is stronger than magnetism, when I can easily disprove this with basic experimentation. A magnet the size of my hand and attract up a lump of iron, counteracting the gravitational pull of the Earth.

instead of harping on this how about you respond to all the other arguments you ignored and got banned for running from

[Lucky]

He seems to be getting his "facts" and "info" from SDN, be it site or forum, so... I doubt he would be able to get such amount of bullshit on his own.

Picard, explain and back up your assertion that gravity, the weakest of the four fundamental forces, is stronger than magnetism, when I can easily disprove this with basic experimentation. A magnet the size of my hand and attract up a lump of iron, counteracting the gravitational pull of the Earth.

TOS "Tomorrow is Yesterday"

SPOCK: We've achieved a stable orbit out of Earth's atmosphere. Our deflectors are operative, enough to prevent our being picked up again as a UFO. And Mister Scott wishes to speak to you about the engines.

Isn't it cool what you can do with gravity. Being able to bend light and other stuff so it just goes around you. Star Trek shields are cloaking devices by Star Wars standards.^_^

[StarWarsStarTrek]

You accuse me of using SDN for info (when half of your links refer directly to darkstar, who does not seem to have a science degree), only to use Star Trek; yes, Star Trek as evidence for your scientific claim?

Why not use a real physics textbook? Obviously in Star Trek gravity is stronger, because ST science is superficial and focuses on whatever sounds cooler.

You actually just used ST to back up a real life science claim, which is also a blatant example of circular reasoning; using ST science to support ST theories.

[Khas]

A) ST never claimed that gravity was stronger then electromagnetism.

B) IRL, gravity does bend light. Ever here of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity?