[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Flame on! Byron Macfarlane Flame on!

Written: 1999.04.25

Byron Mcfarlane is an ignorant high school kid with delusions of grandeur. He is apparently a friend of Ted Rogers, who sent me similar E-mail messages around the same time. Both of them employ the same tactic of flame barrages followed by shock and surprise when I choose to fight fire with fire.

You really don't know enough about what you are talking about to make a valid argument and you are an embarrasment to Sci-Fi fans everywhere.

I have a university degree in applied science. You are obviously just another snot-nosed high school kid. Typically arrogant for your age. Grow up.

I'm sorry but you can't compare Star Trek and Star Wars because one is Science Fact and deals with real life issues and ethics and morals and the other is Science Fantasy and is just cowboys in space and is about having fun.

Science fact? ROTFLMAO!!!!! Thank you very much. That was the funniest thing I've heard all week. I'll have to put your idiotic comments on a special "morons of the Net" sub-page.

Almost all things in Star Wars go through Hyperspace (defined as light speed more than once) and do not (considering it is beyond impossible) go a million times the speed of light.

They can cross a galaxy in days or weeks, rather than months or years. This requires velocities of millions of times the speed of light. Do the math (if you know how).

You say "A single Death Star blast releases more energy in 1 second than the Federation homeworld's star produces in over seven thousand years!" My friend's father works for NASA and he proved (not that it was necessary to prove considering it is so ludicrous) that that is impossible, the sun produces more energy that you can imagine.

I know how much energy the sun produces, to a precision of several significant figures. I've performed all of the calculations. Referring to your friend's father doesn't impress me. If he has a problem with my calculations, let him look them over and then talk to me. I have a degree in science, and I would rather discuss this with him since he might actually know what he's talking about (assuming you're telling the truth, and he's a technical person at NASA and not a janitor).

Next, no missile or torpedo or whatever can maneuver a 72,000 g turn. it is impossible.

It is not a violation of the laws of physics. It is not impossible. It is just extremely difficult.

Warp Drive is far superior in every way to hyperspace.

It takes them years to cross a galaxy while SW ships can do it in hours, days, or at most, weeks. Hyperdrive is superior.

And as shown in the second SW movie, they couldn't even track a ship right on top of them! Yeah, they have GREAT sensors!

That's a blind spot, because of the location of the sensor dome. A Federation vessel would be much too large to fit in that blind spot. As for the inference about the quality of their sensors, need I remind you that any starship can hide from a Federation vessel simply by sitting over a planet's north pole? How about the barren Founders' planet, which the Romulans thought was heavily populated?

And you CAN NOT have instantaneous transmission across the galaxy, that is not possible.

Neither are warp drive, subspace sensors, subspace communications, transporters, phasers, quantum torpedoes, shields, etc. We accept them for the purpose of talking about sci-fi. We don't actually pretend that they are real. Why is it that every Trekkie high school kid questions the validity of SW tech but never questions the validity of ST tech? Or are you one of those idiots who actually thinks that Trek-tech is realistic?


It is impossible to destroy a planet with a 1-second blast, without releasing far more power than the sun. Get over it. And while you're at it, get a science degree so we can converse like adults instead of you simply throwing meaningless unsupported, ignorant statements at me.

And just because you've never seen the Federation use massive ground forces doesnt mean that they dont have them. Stormtroopers have terrible aim if you noticed, and they can't see a thing with those helmets.

They actually have quite good aim. Some of the shots in ROTJ (hitting R2D2 and Leia from 30 metres away, with a quick snap shot) are actually very difficult. Talk to someone who actually has experience with real firearms before you make conclusions about how easy it is to hit something the size of R2D2 from 30 yards away without taking time to set up and aim.

The suncrusher is an impossible idea considering an indestructable ship is impossible to make!

It's not indestructible.

Also the Federation could beam Darth Vader into the corona of a star if they wanted to, you greatly underestimate the power of the transporter.

Transporters are useless against a shielded ship.

You should be pitting Star Wars against Star Trek instead of Star Wars vs the Federation which only shows a fraction of the power that Star Trek has.

Why should I? They're not allies. What are you going to do next, include Q?

They also have phase-cloaks which can move through solid objects, they have biogenic weapons capable of exterminating entire populations within hours.

The Empire also has bio-weapons, and the phase-cloak wouldn't stop Imperial warships from pounding planetary populations into dust. The Federation would have to surrender.

and they also could simply pull an Executor on the Empire and fly small shuttles into their bridges after they have destroyed their shield generators even though the shields should protect the shield generators.

The Executor lost its bridge shields after a sustained bombardment from the fleet, as ordered by Ackbar. The fighters only moved in to strike soft targets after the shields were knocked down. I've heard this argument a million times before. It gets dumber with each repetition.

The Federation has Peregrine fighters and they have been very effective against the Dominion.

The Empire has TIE fighters. Millions of them.

You should keep more up to date and convey the WHOLE story not just the parts that benefit Star Wars. And if you ever saw Star Trek 8 or Star Trek 9 or several of the DS9 episodes including "The Warrior's Way" and "Sacrifice of Angels" you would see that maneuverability are very important and are used constantly.

And if you watched those episodes carefully, you would see that their maneuverability is inferior to that of TIE fighters. Fed ships would be easily hit by turbolasers which barely miss tiny fighters, since they are far larger.

In "Sacrifice of Angels" they used PARTS (not the wholes) of two Federation fleets, totalling over 600 vessels, and they mentioned up to a 9th fleet in one episode.

There is also an 82nd airborne even though there aren't 81 other airborne divisions numbered before it. Fleet numbering schemes are not consecutive.

(Editor's note: this is not the first time I've heard someone mention this. Surely it would occur to most people that if they had to scrounge together pieces of two fleets to build a task force, this probably means that those two fleets were so badly decimated that they had to be consolidated into a single fleet.)

You have a lot of bitterness in your tone, you must've had a bad childhood or something like that.

It's not bitterness. It's contempt. For ignorant children like you who refuse to accept what you are.

(Editor's note: this is pretty funny when you think about it. Boy flames man. Man flames boy back. Boy reacts with shock and outrage, claiming that Man must be very bitter to flame Boy).

Going millions of times the speed of light is impossible just so you know.

Going the speed of light is also impossible just so you know. It is just as impossible to do 1.1c as 1.1 million c.

Well accepting the fact that a device such as the death star would not be able to produce more energy than it would if it was made of solid uranium-238 and was transferred into pure energy, then the death star COULD NOT destroy a planet. My friends father used calculations to figure this so you know.

But it did destroy a planet. So, if we are talking about SW or ST, then it must somehow have this capability. Therefore, it must have a source of energy far more sophisticated than nuclear fission. Nuclear fission is pretty inefficient compared to fusion or M/AM annihilation. I worked in a nuclear power plant once. I know all about fission. You and your friend Ted Rogers are merely making the same ignorant points.

(Editor's note: The original, 160km wide Death Star has a volume of 2.14E15 m³. The density of uranium is roughly 19,050 kg/m³. Therefore, the mass of a solid uranium Death Star would be roughly 4.09E19 kg. We know that if the mass is converted to pure energy, the conversion rate is E=mc², therefore the energy released by total conversion of a solid uranium Death Star would be roughly 3.68E36 joules. This is more than ten thousand times the gravitational binding energy of a planet. But why bother actually performing calculations when you can just invoke the godlike power of "my friends father"?)

They referred to hyperspace as lightspeed, meaning the speed of light dumbass.

Another Trekkie fixated on terms, rather than capabilities. Classic unscientific bullshit.

thats because of gravitational disruptions stupid, and that was because of an array sending out false sensor readings.

Actually, you moron, gravitational disruptions don't make things invisible. I can see something sitting over a planet's magnetic pole with a simple telescope.

(Editor's note: I suppose I could have also pointed out that the north magnetic pole of a planet is a normal magnetic phenomenon rather than a gravitational anomaly, but why bother? This kid wouldn't have the intellectual capacity to understand so many multi-syllable words in a row).

phasers, warp drive, transporters and shields are all possible, read "The Physics of Star Trek" you moron.

I did. The difference between you and I is that I actually understand it.

Click here to return to the main Hate Mail page.

Valid HTML 4.01!Valid CSS!This website is owned and maintained by Michael Wong
This site is not affiliated with Lucasfilm or Paramount
All associated materials are used under "Fair Use" provisions of copyright law.
All original content by Michael Wong is copyrighted © 1998,2004.
Click here to go to the main page