StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I just want to know what subspace is, and if it's comparable to things in other universes, e.g hyperspace in b5 more specifically.

Wasn't sure what forum to put this on, but i only really want to know how the star trek one works, then parity issues later.

Subspace is pure and utter stupid, thats what. Theres never been any rational explanation of subspace. Ever.

kojikun wrote:Subspace is pure and utter stupid, thats what. Theres never been any rational explanation of subspace. Ever.

For that matter, there's never been a rational explanation for hyperspace, warp, phasers, anti-grav boosters, ect. 'Tis the magic of sci-fi, you know.

Yes but they don't try to explain turbolasers and hyperspace with "quantum liquid space fields" or some shit which is all subspace is.

Uh... I don't remember ever hearing them explain how subspace worked in ST.

Subspace is just some weird-ass thing they use for FTL. Do they really need to give explanations for every piece of tech they use on the show?

That's what Tech Manuals should be for, keeping technobabble out of the show itself.

Uraniun235 wrote:Uh... I don't remember ever hearing them explain how subspace worked in ST.

Subspace is just some weird-ass thing they use for FTL. Do they really need to give explanations for every piece of tech they use on the show?

That's what Tech Manuals should be for, keeping technobabble out of the show itself.

I thought they used space dilation for warp?
I thought subspace was for communication and ftl scanners and shit?

Only thing that comes to mind for subspace are the words "it's beneath normal space" whatever the hell that means i don't know, they could mean it in a b5 hyperspace sort of way or i dunno...

Rye: They use subspace for everything. Excess energy? Dump it in subspace! Need FTL comms? Transmit in subspace! FTL? Enclose the ship in a subspace bubble!

Need a rational explanation? Look elsewhere!

Atleast hyperspace is rationalisable. Subspace makes no sense.

I've always imagined subspace to be some sort of .... oh well, I just feel stupid trying to think up whatever subspace is.

Also, let's not forget that subspace (that is, static warp bubbles and tertiary subspace manifolds or something like that) can contain entire customizable pocket universes.

I have an explanation.

First, we need a foundation of real physics.
Einstein formulated a theory of gravity using four dimensions...length, width, depth, time...to describe a a field which is distorted in the presence of mass.
The Kaluza-Klein theory came about to give gravity AND electromagnetism, by simply adding a fifth dimension to General relativity.
Going up to seven dimensions describes the weak nuclear force, and eleven dimensions describe the strong nuclear force.

(note: this is just an extension of relativity...no quantum effects)

Instead of going to higher dimensions, why not go down into the NEGATIVE dimensions BELOW space-time...literally, "sub-space"?

A ship surrounded in a bubble of this subspace field would be effectively separated from the rest of the universe, including such relativistic effects as foreshortening, mass accrual, and time dialation (so i sez )

What?

Nobody gonna rip into this and tear it to shreds?

I don't think that negative dimensions would work really, as if you have 3 dimensions, they come from the origin, on the other side of that origins would be -x, -y and - z. They would be equal to the other dimensions, just in a different direction.

I think.

negative dimensions, like -3 dimensions, do not exist. its logically impossible.

kojikun wrote:Atleast hyperspace is rationalisable. Subspace makes no sense.

Don't be fucking stupid. They're both impossible, and thats all that matters.

Bullshit.

Hyperspace can be described. The universe as viewed from the perspective of a tachyon. Saxton even came up with a way at least for hyperdrive to work, at least mathematically.

Subspace is just a magic term to sound technical. Its the lynchpin of all stupidass technobabble.

No, technobabble is the use of excessive wordiness to pretend to explain pseudoscientific phenomina. "Subspace" in and of itself is just some unexplained different realm, as was hyperspace.

kojikun wrote:negative dimensions, like -3 dimensions, do not exist. its logically impossible.

Why not?

Higher dimensions exist; the extended/universal theory or relativity in 11 dimensions does yield results which match that which is observed.

Imaginary dimensions exist; just look at Quarternions, and Mandelbrot and Julia sets.

Enola Straight wrote:

kojikun wrote:negative dimensions, like -3 dimensions, do not exist. its logically impossible.

Why not?

Higher dimensions exist; the extended/universal theory or relativity in 11 dimensions does yield results which match that which is observed.

Imaginary dimensions exist; just look at Quarternions, and Mandelbrot and Julia sets.

I'm not familiar with those examples. Anything that explains them in, you know, simple person terms?

As for it literally being 'sub'-space, there's nothing preventing that. After all, I don't recall our dimensions automatically being 0 and everything below being negative..(Unless we're treating N space as a coordinate plane, and assuming our little reality is the center. Then I need only point out you can have a region occupying the negative section of a coordinate plane with no ill effects because 0 is just a marker).

Why not?

Higher dimensions exist; the extended/universal theory or relativity in 11 dimensions does yield results which match that which is observed.

It's impossible to have less then nothing in the real world. Its possible to have an OPPOSITE, but not less then nothing. It's possible thatin , for instance, a 4 dimensional sphere, there are 3-dimensional regions "below" its surface towards it's center, but those aren't negative.

Negative dimensions would be "less then nothing" and theres no way you can have "less then nothing" in the real world, only "opposite" which is completely different.

Imaginary dimensions exist; just look at Quarternions, and Mandelbrot and Julia sets.

No, Fractals do not possess imaginary dimensions, they're said to, as a way to visualise their complexity. They have "imaginary dimensions" in the sense that they have infinitely large perimeter despite the fact that they occupy a limited 2 dimensional area. The only other object that has an ifinite "perimeter" is a 3 dimensional object, so its said that a fractal is said to be somewhere in between.

Theres no escaping the integer nature of dimensions, because a dimension is the directional axis perpendicular to another. There is no directional axis perpendicular to all the rest but that is negatively oriented. It simply doesn't exist because there is no rational explanation of what it can be.

I could've sworn that Mandelbrot and Julia sets are plotted on a Complex Plane; that is all real numbers as the X coordinate, and all Imaginary numbers on the Y coordinate.

Quarternions are a short-cut method of rotating an object on its respective axes... instead of (x,y,z,t), the coordinate system is (i,j,k,l).

Arrrrrrrrrggghhhhhhh Subspace does not make any sense. Period
Niether doee Hyperspace for that matter but at least it isn't used every other word.

Crazedwraith wrote:

Arrrrrrrrrggghhhhhhh Subspace does not make any sense. Period
Niether doee Hyperspace for that matter but at least it isn't used every other word.

hyperspace does make sense,(to me at least) but i've never heard of a hyperspacial sensors defeatign an enemy vessel....

Howedar wrote:No, technobabble is the use of excessive wordiness to pretend to explain pseudoscientific phenomina. "Subspace" in and of itself is just some unexplained different realm, as was hyperspace.

But subspace is a catch-all piss-poor excuse to justify everything sci-fi and technobabbling in Star Trek.

Hyperspace is definitely explained: the universe observed from the perspective of an object with mass moving above c.

hyperspace, on a purely scientific level, is the dimensions that are higher then the 3 we live in.

In wars, however, it seems like hyperspace is another realm of the universe where C isnt 300,000km/s.

kojikun wrote:hyperspace, on a purely scientific level, is the dimensions that are higher then the 3 we live in.

This definition is also used in Wars in certain circumstances. One of them being Centerpoint's ability to "drag planets through hyperspace" which is probably refering to a wormhole through higher dimensional space.

kojikun wrote:In wars, however, it seems like hyperspace is another realm of the universe where C isnt 300,000km/s.

C = 300,000 km/s in Wars. Special Relativity allows objects with mass to travel below or ABOVE the speed of light, but never AT the speed of light.

The hyperdrive pulls some trick to "jump" the ship from a sublight to supralight velocity without accelerating through c.

This definition of hyperspace in Wars simply refers to the universe observed from the perspective of a tachyon.