Only curiosity, don't hate me

[kilopi505]

I think maybe I understand what he's suggesting; each universe keeps its own physics, and if the other guys try to cross over to the other universe they have to obey the other universe's physics.

To take an example:

We have a vs debate between universes A and B.

Universe A is a hard SF universe. It follows real physics. Its big powers are factions of superintelligent AI.

Universe B is a soft SF universe. It has 10 mile long warships with 10 gigaton beam weapons. For some reason no superintelligence can exist, some magical force prevents anything from being significantly more intelligent than a human.

Presumably, laws of physics are assumed to be the same except where they are shown to be different, so interaction is still possible (i.e. each side's ships don't turn into puffs of monoatomic gas or something when they go through the portal into the other universe).

If a Universe B ship crosses into Universe A it gets whacked with the Big Stick of Real Physics.

If a Universe A ship crosses into Universe B its controlling intelligence loses about 10,000 IQ points, becoming no smarter than a smart human (or maybe it becomes like some autistic savant that can crunch numbers really well but is uncreative and inflexible, because Universe B takes that cheesy soft SF approach to AI).

Each side keeps its own abilities and limitations within its own universe: the Universe A superintelligences are still superintelligent in Universe A, the Universe B ships still can accelerate at 10,000 G and shoot 10 gigaton lasers in Universe B. Universe A people can concievably design 10 gigaton lasers that will work in Universe B and Universe B people can concievably design superintelligent AI that can work in Universe A, after they figure out the physics of the other universe, but of course they wouldn't be able to use them in their own universe.

Eh, it makes a vs debate a lot more complicated, because you have to decide what abilities from one universe get to cross into the other universe and what don't and it's often ambiguous, especially when both universes are soft SF so you can't really say for sure what is and isn't possible there, it's a lot simpler to just assume each side gets to keep all its own abilities. It might be a better premise for a fanfic than a vs debate, I think. That said, the OP is kind of too general to answer in that respect, we'd need a specific crossover scenario to really discuss it.

Err, sorry for the confusion. Well...I'm not really good at explaining things even in real life, so I'm sorry for the confusion in my first post.

Umm, what is in the quote is what I'm really thinking about, however I'm not only thinking of applying this one to sci-fi universes. I was also thinking about applying the idea to every universe and strange idea out there. Like, magic from the Harry Potter universe doesn't work the way it is supposed to if it's in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer universe. Or if Q goes to the Stargate universe to meet the ascended, he becomes a little less powerful because it is in another universe where something, anything in the universe works differently from his and he can only follow the way the universe he is in works.

I also noted Vendetta's post:

"Really what he seems to be suggesting is to ignore power level differences and assume that everything is the same power level, and then see who wins.

Which isn't really an interesting test of who would win, because it ignores the things that, for a versus, makes them different."

Well, I just want to see how would people debate if you could not use the canon superiority of one technology or magic over another, and that the subjects of the 2 series compared have some kind of parity in what they have.

[Ghost Rider]

The problem is aligning everything into parity is a completely subjective notion. You have to establish who's parity one chooses and then have an entire other fictional universe meet that rather then assess said universe based upon it's merits and deficits.

[Covenant]

Well, I just want to see how would people debate if you could not use the canon superiority of one technology or magic over another, and that the subjects of the 2 series compared have some kind of parity in what they have.

This is what people do normally here, however. I believe you are confused about what you're trying to say because you don't actually fully understand how a debate like this works. We don't force parity, we compare them against their observable effects. IE, instead of inventing a level playing ground, we compare them and assume they live in reality as much as we can. For example:

So you look at how much effort a Star Trek ship expends to blow up an Asteroid, and how much a Star Wars ship does to do the same, you establish the amount of energy required to achieve such a result, and from that you determine what their level of firepower is. You can therefore work on determining other factors so that if both these forces met on the equal plane of reality, you know kinda what would happen.

It's not "oh hey, this doesn't work in Star Wars land because of quantum," though some inane debaters on other boards might get into that. The reason that Star Wars is said to vastly outweigh Star Trek is because that's what they look like when you compare what both of them look like. We don't pretend that all Star Wars asteroids are made of cotton candy or that every asteroid and cargo container is forged from pure Adamantium, that's just silly, and arbitary. You look at the result and try to deduce what that implies.

To force "equal power" means you need to ignore what you've seen an invent an entirely made up, arbitrary level of power. Star Wars vessels atomize Star Trek ones not because of some preference or "rule" or something, they are assumed to do so because when you compare their capabilities in their own universes, one is vastly more powerful to the other.

Now, if you presume that each of these universes has their own physics INDEPENDENT FROM REALITY then it becomes impossible to gauge the effects. So a Beam Cannon that is weak as piss couldn't do anything in Star Wars Land, but who is to say that a Star Destroyer doesn't simply have more power and that it's beams would still work in Gundam Land, and still inflict grievous damage? You presume it's some made up rule that Wave Motion Guns can't work in Star Wars when in truth it's just that when you look at their effects you can tell they're not good enough. It has nothing to do with superior canon. Unless you measure the effects of each universe versus our understanding of reality, you see, there is no room for debate. It's simply make-it-up.

[Stark]

If you stop trying to work out how things from different franchises compare and just say 'it's all similar', you can't tell the difference WITHIN a franchise either. After all, Devastator and Bumblebee are just robots, so they're about the same. Blasters and turbolasers are pretty much the same. Anything you'd do to establish THOSE differences (ie measurement) is just as applicable across franchises.

[AndroAsc]

I would like to ask the thread starter. What would be the fucking point of making such a comparison? To debate which faction designs their starships in a more aesthetically pleasing fashion?

Also, doesn't everyone follow the laws of physics (approximately)? Last I checked the speed of light in both SW-verse and ST-verse is 3x10^8 m/s. Nuclear fusion in both universe is the same thing. You get the point...

[Teleros]

I was also thinking about applying the idea to every universe and strange idea out there. Like, magic from the Harry Potter universe doesn't work the way it is supposed to if it's in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer universe. Or if Q goes to the Stargate universe to meet the ascended, he becomes a little less powerful because it is in another universe where something, anything in the universe works differently from his and he can only follow the way the universe he is in works.

Covenant covered most of this fairly well, but whilst such a method may work for a story, it doesn't work so well for a proper versus scenario of the kind we tend to like here. Eg if I want a battle between the Imperium of Man and the Galactic Empire, then (leaving aside Chaos & the Warp for a minute), the rules basically state that "each faction's tech works as it normally does". If you start saying "IoM tech works 10% less well because they're invading the GE galaxy" etc, you're applying wholly arbitrary limits on the scenario. Now, there may be arbitrary limits you have to set - eg if the Warp is calm or not - because such limits will have a huge effect on one or more factions (in this case, IoM communication & travel times, internal dissent, and so on).

Also, doesn't everyone follow the laws of physics (approximately)?

Clearly you've never come across the Skylark series by Doc Smith . I think we've got a few threads about it here, but to sum up: don't go near this series if you hate settings that piss all over physics from about 1900 onwards.

[Ghost Rider]

What would be the fucking point of making such a comparison? To debate which faction designs their starships in a more aesthetically pleasing fashion?

Character actions, tech deconstructions, imaginative solutions to new rules. It'd be a damn lot more interesting than 200 GIGATON LAZERZ.

Really, anytime where you want to say "gigaton", you suck, and this would avoid that.

Which you can do always without powers involved in any case. Only the hard core insane would say otherwise. The reason some like having said numbers is they don't want endless jabbering in said dickwaving contest that relates to which ship can kill who faster, which has fuck all to do with which person do you like better between Paul or Data.

[Simon_Jester]

Clearly you've never come across the Skylark series by Doc Smith . I think we've got a few threads about it here, but to sum up: don't go near this series if you hate settings that piss all over physics from about 1900 onwards.

In Smith's defense, most of physics from 1900 onwards did not yet exist, or was still the exclusive province of a handful of genius mathematicians and early physicists, when he started writing it... in 1919.

If he'd written it today, I'd be sorely tempted to go on a road trip and yell at him in person. As it is, I treasure my copy of Skylark of Space, because it was the first interstellar travel story. Ever.