The 4th race is going to be Cylon & Borg alliance. The Borg have opened up other temporal rifts into other Universes. It is Sci-fi afterall!
Sounds good; the explanation is technobbable-ey without being too ridiculously contrived.
I will preemptively apologize (to Theo) for semi-derailing the thread again, but I'm loath to let this challenge go unanswered.
Show me proof that trek could not find a work around. Are the shields in sw the exact same type as in st? Most cases transporters were mainly unsafe for people. They even used transporters in the movie to transport over ly of distance. They could use that to destroy isd with there shields down before they even arrived. Consider the fact that the entire federation starfleet are basically all scientists while the empire is pure soldiers.ST is mainly based off of the crew outsmarting their situation with tech where sw is not.
Other prob you have is constantly discrediting all of st numbers and ideas by saying things like nonsensical but all sw is hardcore fact.
If you say a qt could destroy a few fighters and that a sd cannon is whatever times more powerful than that then fighters could not exist in a battle because of all the shockwaves from the cannons.
You say st weapons destroying planets crust is nonsense because you couldnt see it but I dont remember seeing any sd do it in the movies?Yet you believe them?
St tech can have massive leaps and bounds where sw is stagnant.Also st has time travel and can bring back tech or ships from the future.
In anycase I am actually on you side in believing empire would destroy starfleet mainly because its to small but you should reexamine your logic and imagination as this is all scifi and basically anything goes with the addition to made up words,values,numbers,and theories.Finally you need to take a chill pill and not take things so seriously as all is entertainment designed for fun.
1. SW shields aren't the same type as ST, hence they have no vulnerability to transporters. That was my argument.
2. You will provide references for transporters having interstellar range, otherwise I will dismiss that evidence as nonsensical.
3. You will provide proof that transporters could operate through the high-density, exotic-material armor plating of SW warships.
4. You will provide proof that 60%+ of the Federation's population are actively engaged in scientific occupations.
5. You will provide proof that 60%+ of the Empire's population are actively engaged in warfare occupations.
6. I describe things as nonsensincal hen they are. I discredit blown-out fan assumptions of ST firepower because everything in the shows, movies, and the tech manuals (which, at this time, are canon) disprove it.
7. Turbolasers do not produce shockwaves. Your point WRT SW fightercraft is ridiculous.
8. The Death Star blew up a planet. We saw it happen, and it was pretty obvious that it did it by simply shooting a super-powerful gun system at the planet. Scaling down that kind of firepower to the ISDs easily gives them enough firepower to slag a planet.
Further, it's outright stated that the 900-meter long Acclamator troop transport can fire a 200 gigaton shot from each of its heavy turbolasers. It's only logical that a ship nearly twice as long (and, ergo, much greater mass and volume) would produce much more power from its powerplant, and be capable of firing much more powerful (and more) shots.
It doesn't help your case that SW-canon works differently; if anything is directly contradicted by a "higher-level" canon source, then the higher-level source wins. While we don't necessarily "see" 200-gigaton/shot firepower in any of the movies, we also don't see anything to contradict it, so the 200-gigaton/shot figure from the SW2AOTC ICS stands.
9. Provide evidence that the reason for SW technical stagnancy is from no scientists, instead of the possibility that a civilization that traces its roots back several tens of millenia has simply learned all there is to learn about science.
10. Provide evidence that ST technical capability advances in "leaps and bounds", whilst also quantifying "leaps and bounds". Also provide evidence as to why the Federation is still unable to implement transwarp, drive, when they have been working on it since Kirk's time.
11. Provide evidence that ST powers have the capability and the political/military clout to take future technology back to combat a foe from the present.
12. Provide evidence that ST powers actually have technological equipment to provide temporal transit, rather than knowing a few "ways" to time travel.
13. Scifi debating is based on using logic, and if you are to have any rational debate you have to agree on source materials, which then give you the data required for a rational and logical debate. Without such standards, you simply have a dick-waving contests of techwankers saying things to the effect of "nuh-uh, I win!"
14. The Empire would utterly trash the Federation because of sheer disparity in size, economic and industrial output, firepower, and strategic mobility. The Empire can move their ships faster than Federation communications signals, can replace ISDs faster than the Feds could possibly destroy them, and an ISD is functionally invulnerable to ST-level firepower.
128 megaton q-torps aren't going to do much to shields designed to withstand extended bombardment by 200-gigaton PER SHOT weapons (which cycle at anywhere between 1-2 shots/second).
On the upside, because of the Federation's insignificance in the face of the Empire, it's highly unlikely that the Empire would ever bother to invade the Federation, especially as the entirety of the ST-galaxy lacks anything the Empire could possibly want. Resources? Plenty of those in the Outer Rim or Wild Space. Territory? Again, plenty. New markets? There's more than ten million known species, there's bound to be more who'll want all that shiny stuff you have to sell.
15. I was vehement because I have an extreme averseness to excessive stupidity, which is evinced by people who claim the Federation could defeat the Empire (which is the common context of SWvsST), and then provide nothing more than style over substance fallacies and meaningless babble.
16. Of course entertainment is designed to be fun; it also so happens that I derive enjoyment from showing people that they're being stupid and that they should stop being stupid. I don't like stupid, but I do like making people realize "hey, I'm being stupid, so I should stop being stupid". It helps make them a more reasonable person.
Of course, in the case of someone who just refuses to see all reason, it's also fun to mock them. But that doesn't happen all that often.