The Star Destroyer would win simply on the basis that it exists in a 3D space environment whereas Star Trek seems only capable of 2D.
KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!! would disagree with you on that particular point.
The Star Destroyer would win simply on the basis that it exists in a 3D space environment whereas Star Trek seems only capable of 2D.
No he wouldn't. He's the one with the two-dimensional thinking.KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!! would disagree with you on that particular point.
Since we don't really know (there are probably several 'official' answers)
I'm gonna assume that a ship leaving a planet's atmosphere at FTL speeds is going to suck it off as it goes. YMMV.![]()
I'll have to take your word on this. Most of what I 'know' about Trek tech I read in fanzines before second gen.The pseudoscientific gobbledygook on this is actually pretty consistent.
Dude, compared to the entire planet, the ship is tiny. A speck. A dot. You're free to decide for yourself what it does, but when the ship is about half a kilometer long, taking over half a million cubic kilometers of atmosphere with it, doesn't seem reasonable to me, especially when about half that atmosphere is on the other side of the planet (so, 10,000+ km away) at the time.
Taking a small bubble of air with it when it goes, fine. But not the whole atmosphere.
Ah, but the ship is moving Faster Than Light! I'm sure there must be some sort of formula that would allow one to figure out what would happen.
I didn't think the ships were actually "moving faster than light" but rather were encased in a bubble that warped space/time around it.
Bullgrit
*Note: I'm not even mentioning the fact that Star Wars is BILLIONS of years into the future, meaning their tech should be "magical" compaired to the 25th century.