I'm not sure if this is in jest or you're actually serious. If it's in jest, then, I really see no humor in it. If you're serious, then let me explain why that won't work:

1. Transporters do not work through shields. Which ISDs have.

2. Transporters do not work through particularly dense materials. Which ISDs have in abundance in their armor.

3. Transporters do not work in the presence of unusual/exotic radiations. Which is likely to come off of the hypermatter reactor that drives an ISD.

In short, transporters are to tempermental and random to reliably use to turn the course of conflict. There's also the slight problem that there is indeed a secondary bridge within the main hull of an ISD. So even if you could transport an antimatter bomb or whatever onto the bridge of an ISD, it wouldn't matter, because a secondary bridge would shortly thereafter take control, and direct firepower onto the Federation ship, turning it into a rapidly expanding cloud of plasma.

Or perhaps you're an idiot? Obviously, there isn't sound in space. The most likely explanation is that there is a sound simulation of the combat environment, to aid situational awareness. Further, there's no indication that the ships are traveling superluminally in real space. Trek uses a "warp shell" to to move at superluminal velocity, and presumably the ship isn't outrunning light within the warp shell, so it's logical to assume that the warp shell constitutes some sort of shielding system and FTL travel mechanism.

In the case of SW, ships use hyperdrive. There are 2 ways it's explained: either the ship is "shunted" into hyperspace, thus making your example null and void, as hyperspace is described as a dimension of pure energy. The other manner is that the hyperdrive transitions the ship from "tardyonic" (fancy science word meaning 'slower-than-light') matter to "tachyonic" (fancy science word meaning faster-than-light) matter. Since tachyons, a theoretical particle that isn't even known to exist, are considered to never move slower-than-light (or even at lightspeed), they likely do not interact with tarydonic matter. Which means no boom.

In the case of explosions with flames and a visible shockwave, have you considered the following? Fire can exist in space, because whatever is fueling the fire is likely coming from inside the ship. It's like a candle in the dark, only the air and fuel come from inside the ship. It's perfectly plausible that such would happen.

In the case of shockwaves, perhaps the shockwave is visible/propogating due to the massive amounts of debris (a fair portion of which will be very fine)?

Or maybe it's all those exotic-science-fictional elements that compose these ships that causes them to detonate with visible shockwaves.

Of course, there's also the possibility that your only posting this to troll people, because you think the entire concept and discussions posited by this thread are stupid. In which case you're an idiot. Not because the concepts and discussions in this thread have great meaning, but because these discussions and concepts are enjoyable ways to spend one's time.

I dunno, Goa. Humans are very dependent on auditory sensors (i.e. ears) in a combat situation. My own dad, a veteran, has said that they were issued with earplugs but they didn't really use them because they needed to be able to hear the sound of the enemy's gunfire.

transporters have been able to work through solid rock 

an isd's bridge has a windshield 

1) it would still kill the isd's bridge crew and force less skilled officers to take command

2) in rotj, the ssd instantly lost control when the bridge was destroyed. that period of vulnerability could easily be exploited

>sigh< The endless futility of pitting two fictional universes with a different set of rules against one another. It just doesn't work, the classic argument from the trekkies is that Federation shields have been shown to repel lasers with ease, however in Star Wars, lasers are shown to be incredibly powerful weapons. This could be technological disparity or it is more definitely just the two universes being incompatible with one another. Simply put, a weapon or technology that is powerful in one universe is weak in another and no one is ever going to win this debate.

For a videogame analogy, consider the TEC vs the Covenant of Halo. The Humans in Halo use similar weapons to the TEC, and are incapable of penetrating Covenant shields, however the TEC weaponry can disable the shields of the Advent and even the Vasari, who are at least as advanced and possible more advanced than the Covenant respectively, so who wins?

Rock != dense armor plating. And while an ISD might have a windshield, you still have to deal with shields that can take the full broadside of another ISD. Which is high teraton-level. Which, BTW, far outstrips what Trek has.

1. Secondary Bridge Crew != less skilled officers

2. I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you acknowledging the fact that blowing up the bridge would be futile anyway?

And SW ships do not rely on silly shield modulation. Hence, transporters do not work on SW ships that are shielded.

I'm going to set aside the fact that you're analogy is utterly flawed. For now.

1. "Lasers" in Star Wars are most definitely not lasers. Because if they were lasers they would propagate at lightspeed, and be invisible in vacuum. Since neither trait is observed on the "lasers" of SW, they are obviously not lasers. It's the same thing with "cannon". A cannon was originally a smoothbore gun that hurled a large spherical shot at the enemy. It's now a generic term for a large gunnery system.

2. Or it could be that instead of "weapon X in Universe A is weak, but strong in Universe B", it's really "weapon X in Universe A is nothing like weapon Y in Universe B". Further, durr, the universes are "incompatible". They're different settings! That doesn't stop people from deciding to have them duke it out by act of plot/authorial fiat, but hey, that's a fan decision. It's not like Lucas and Paramount are teaming up saying, "we're gonna make the first SW vs ST movie evah!"

3. You're analogy is utterly flawed. We have technical data that is given in real-world units to compare several verses to each other (Halo is one of them, BTW). We have nothing on any faction from Sins. Nothing. There's no way to compare them. Further, even if a Trek shield could block a laser of infinite power (which it can't), then it would still die, because once a laser reaches 700 megatons of output, then the beam has momentum equal to one of this silly Jem'Hadar fighters. Which means dead Trek ship.

Further, SW, ST, Halo, and probably half a dozen other franchises have all released supplementary material detailing weapons yield, ship acceleration, dimensions, occasionally tonnage (though tonnage is rather nonsensical for UNSC ships, as if they had the tonnage claimed they'd have a density that is significantly less than air), and usually endurance. Oh, yeah, and sometimes weapons range.

Those are all easily quantifiable figures. I'll use an example: SW ships have megaton-yield point defenses. Don't believe me? Here's the proof: in SW Episode III Incredible Cross Sections, the Invisible Hand is specified as carrying multiple PD ion cannons capable of unleashing heat equal to a 4.8 megaton bomb. And that's per cannon. While on the Trek side, we have the "64.3 megaton photon torpedo". And the "50 isoton" quantum torpedo. Of course, isotons are a rather nonsensical unit; in the real world, that would mean "50 tons". However, photorps are given as "25 isotons", so we can infer that a quantum torpedo can, at maximum, unleash 128.6 megatons of destructive energy.

So it might kill a couple of fighters. And then it will get zapped by the Star Destroyer that launched said fighters.

Or perhaps the "idiot" is the person who calls people an idiot because they disagree with you.  How mature.  I'm going to guess, (and hope) that you are young and that explains your lack of maturity.  Or perhaps its just the anonymous web that gives you this self pretentiousness.  Perhaps shortcomings in the real world?  Hmmm.  One has to wonder.

My point is that the futility of debating the "my science fiction universe is better than your science fiction universe" is well,  futile.  If you argue based on logic, and based on what we know of the laws of physics you can't ignore the holes in the science that Hollywood allows to exist.  Because the advantages to either universe are based on our own understanding, and our own universe.  Simply put.  Neither Star Trek nor Star Wars operate under our own laws of physics, nor each others which means there is zero credibility to either side as we don't know their laws of physics.  How do we know the strength of a shield for example, if we don't know how physics operate in their said universe?  It's mere guesswork.  (Albeit, an amusing anecdotal argument, despite no way to win.)

Regardless, I would very much enjoy playing a mod that allows me to pit the Federation vs. the Empire.  Would be great fun if balanced to be playable as either side.

You're 17.  It makes sense now, so I'll go easy on ya.

The trolling you refer to is sort of a faulty assumption based on your own lack of objectivity.  You attacked because I disagreed, that's not debate, that's a personal attack.  (There is a difference.)

I believe my point holds validity just as you believe yours does.  No crime in either case.  If you wish to hold a debate of any kind, calling people an idiot IS instigating flaming.  I simply replied in kind.  (Sort of petty, granted.)  I understand now, that you probably lack the experience to understand the difference and simply feel strongly about your opinion.  No big deal.  I hope at some point you do though, realize a difference between a personal attack and attacking a view. 

Your age is not a reflection of you as a person, (I apologize if I worded that poorly) it's simply gives me an understanding of why your post attacked.  Probably because you assumed I thought it was "dumb" to debate.  Notice nowhere in my original post did I say it was dumb.  I just stated its a lost cause IMO for the reasons I gave.

You then called me an "idiot."  THIS is where I replied in kind.  I've actually been a member of this forum for quite awhile, I just don't post.  I chose to give my opinion in this thread, and was thus, called an idiot.  (This is why I rarely bother posting in forums, I find it trite to attack someone over the web.)  Again, I do hope you understand the difference at some point between attacking a person vs. attacking a view.  I have hope, as you do obviously see this as a subjective exercise.

I won't bother replying further, as you just feel the need to attack attack attack.  (This IS normal for your age)  NOT a judgement of character.  If you are curious, I'm 30, I joined this site because I like this game, and of course the many great mods for it.  It's a nice distraction from the trials and tribulations of "real life."  Of course you can choose to believe or disbelieve that, as we all know anybody can claim to be anybody on the web.  (Makes no real difference to me, nor does it have any real impact on my life.)

Also, contrary to your assumption, I don't have any issues with this debate, it endlessly fascinates me to read the different opinions.  I just have a different one, and posted that mostly because I found it to be an amusing anecdote, (a scenario borrowed from a friend who works for Boeing that I think is an amusing take on it.)  We all like to tear apart the show/movies and make our case for which is better however, we rarely tear apart the horrible inaccuracies that are apparent in both because it is after all, fiction.

In any case, its been entertaining going back and forth, and wish you the best.

The bridge would probably be the only viable target on a good day.

The crew of the Executor's auxiliary bridge simply couldn't compensate for the loss of the primary bridge fast enough to save the Executor.

apologies, i mistyped

i meant *in rotj, the ssd instantly lost control when the bridge was destroyed. that period of vulnerability could easily be exploited

Except that the Executor lost control due to being trapped in the DS2's gravity well. In any other situation, it would not instantly loose control.

You would have realized this had you read the post #70.

the ds ii was far smaller than an earth-sized planet, which star destroyers are parked above on a regular basis, and would thus have a much weaker gravity well. there is no reason for the engines/repulsorlifts to immediately fail and send the ship plunging into the equivalent of a moon's well, upon losing contact with the main bridge. as i said, imperial ships routinely orbit planets - hell, they're constructed in orbital shipyards -, and it's hilariously inept not to have an autopilot that would maintain orbit if something were to happen to the bridge.

also:

how so? the senior officers would all be on the primary bridge.