What if the technologies didn't transfer over?

[Firefox]

You misunderstand--you claimed the use of "warp" in various ST drives wasn't significant--that's what I'm questioning.

You mean the fact that nearly every FTL drive in Trek has the word "warp" tacked to it, even though they seem to operate on different principles (quantum slipstream being an example)?

Come up with some plausible sounding reasons, then.

I already did, numbnuts. Read my previous post.

[Darth Garden Gnome]

Source?

EGWT.

Allow me to clarify this, for the uninitiated: This stands for the Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology. The object in question is Magwit's Mystifying Hoop.

[SPOOFE]

I think the OP is saying, "In a universe where phasers are physically possible, technological societies will inevitably develop phasers".

While I disagree with that, I think it's his starting point.

So he's asking, "What is different about the SW universe that led them to develop turbolasers instead of phasers?"

To which the answer is, "We don't fucking know, and stop fucking asking, because no, there ISN'T a story here."

[18-Till-I-Die]

If you wanted to go vastly out of your way just to write a story...one could say that, being tens of thousands of years older than Star Trek, the races in Star Wars did develop subspace and warptechnology but over the passage of time it simply became obsolete. Who needs to travel across a galaxy in decades when you can do it in a few hours or days? Who needs subspace technology when you have hypermatter energy sources. Sir Nitram already hit on this. He also mentioned the 'hoop' device from the story, showing that while rare and mystifying, transporter technology ot it's anologue exists in SW.

So one could say, perhaps these technologies existed but have fallen out of use in the same way that telegraph once existed but has fallen out of use because we have more advanced forms of communication.

Of course this is pointless speculation, for reasons stated many times n the thread by other folks. The tech just carries over, it's board rules and thats enough for me. There is no reason to think that hard about something so trivial as why SW never showed they may have once developed subspace technology. And no evidence, i should mention of course i'm just making this up as a theoretical situation. The easier answer is that it just carries over. Besides, humans exist in both universes, it takes very specific conditions for humans to exist at all so i would speculate that the laws of physics arent extremely different between universes then.

[Ford Prefect]

[Klingon] It would be a glorious battle, worthy of song [/Klingon]

Let's stop for a moment and realise that Madurai is a thinker. He and/or she contemplates, and it seems has missed the point - Everything has to work, otherwise we get nothing, as has been stated. But let's not blame Madurai for this, he and/or she will learn, but has raised valid points in terms of technological advancement (Perhaps SW did develop phasers, but they were discarded because of their extreme weirdness), however, this is still irrelevant in the broad scheme of things.

So, Madurai, I would suggest you move on before we just all start repeating ourselves and each other.

[kaikatsu]

If I might be allowed to ramble for a bit...

I read this great story called Celestial Matters once. It was based on the idea that there really were only four elements, and that the earth was the centre of the universe. So a ship flew off into space, carved out of a chunk of moon rock, to retrieve some of the fire of the sun (which would burn forever, unlike normal fire.)

Good read. Good idea of what space travel would have been like if the old paradigm of matter/energy existed. Trying to do a crossover with it would be impossible -- different assumptions -- but it maintained suspension of disbelief rather nicely.

Suspending Disbelief CAN, and sometimes SHOULD allow us to assume additional laws of physics. Star Trek doesn't need hyperspace to be a physical possibility for the entire universe to work. We assume both sets of laws are possible because that's the -only- way we get a meaningful crossover.

I think it's a good question, but it leads nowhere in terms of a technological versus argument. On the other hand a world where the Empire is forced to use rickety and dangerous matter/antimatter or singularity drives to get around this "strange new world" would be one I'd read, assuming it could be set up right.

[Firefox]

Suspending Disbelief CAN, and sometimes SHOULD allow us to assume additional laws of physics.

Only if it's required for the story. Show us evidence that such occurs in the Trek or Wars universe.

[Darth Wong]

I think the OP is saying, "In a universe where phasers are physically possible, technological societies will inevitably develop phasers".

While I disagree with that, I think it's his starting point.

So he's asking, "What is different about the SW universe that led them to develop turbolasers instead of phasers?"

To which the answer is, "We don't fucking know, and stop fucking asking, because no, there ISN'T a story here."

Allow me to translate: "in a university where propeller-driven aircraft are physically possible, technological societies will inevitably develop propeller-driven fighter planes. So why doesn't the US Air Force use propeller-driven fighter planes?"

As an aside, they do appear to have a funky chain-reaction style weapon: the Galaxy Gun. A missile the size of a blockade runner will wipe out an entire planet via some kind of funky chain-reaction. So it's rather premature to assume that the SW galaxy has nothing like phasers; it seems more likely that they realized a long time ago that it's unwise to use a weapon which only works under optimum conditions.

[Darth Wong]

Suspending Disbelief CAN, and sometimes SHOULD allow us to assume additional laws of physics.

The problem is that these additional laws of physics should not contradict what we already know. They can add to what we already know, but what they add must be crafted in such a manner to avoid contradicting known fact. After all, if human beings can survive in this universe, then its laws of physics cannot significantly differ from our own.

[kaikatsu]

Firefox: Subspace. It doesn't exist, as far as I know, in our understanding of the universe. It involves infinite dimensions not really required by our 10+1d or 22+1d models. But it's a definite reality in Trek.

The problem is that these additional laws of physics should not contradict what we already know. They can add to what we already know, but what they add must be crafted in such a manner to avoid contradicting known fact. After all, if human beings can survive in this universe, then its laws of physics cannot significantly differ from our own.

You're right. But let's say in my sci fi universe I add on some idea that allows a thermodynamic miracle to be caused by using energy from the ZPE. And in another sci fi universe it is explicitly stated this is impossible. Which one is "right"?

My idea doesn't necessarily contradict with what we know -- there's enough reason to talk about zero point energy extraction to write a good story about it. The other notion -- that it's impossible -- could also be quite valid given the skepticism around the universe.

You could do this again with, say, Quantum Gravity vs Superstrings, or even the not-quite-dead arguement about the speed of gravitational propegation. (Not everyone is 100% convinced either way, at least from what I read.)

Different examples don't break the laws of sci fi. The authors have chosen to speculate differently and fill in the gaps differently with their own plot devices. Both explanations are consistant with our own universe and, by default, explain why we came about to be, but they are not consistant with one another.

I'll grant that if someone wrote a universe where, oh say, carbon didn't exist -- or where the EM constant was different so that chemical bonding didn't happen the way it should -- it would be fair to say, "but then HOW do humans exist, they shouldn't." But I don't think the "humans exist in Star Wars and Star Trek, therefore both of them should have the same physical laws," necessarily follows. It's sort of a requirement for a decent vs argument, of course, but that by nature has already required a good dose of assumption.

[Darth Wong]

You're right. But let's say in my sci fi universe I add on some idea that allows a thermodynamic miracle to be caused by using energy from the ZPE. And in another sci fi universe it is explicitly stated this is impossible. Which one is "right"?

Who "explicitly stated this is impossible?" Some kind of omniscient, infallible observer in the second sci-fi universe? It's trivially easy to reconcile such a situation; whoever said it was impossible was obviously wrong. You are simply not trying hard enough to make things work.

[kaikatsu]

I can see where you are coming from, but what about something like the propagation of gravity? (Not real gravity waves.) If a ship "jumps" into a system and the mass change is detected immediately throughout the system -- you have definitive proof that, oh hey, the author clearly has stated that his universe doesn't follow the full rammifications of relativity for whatever reasons / beliefs he holds. I don't think -every- situation can be explained by "the people who said so were on crack." Especially since, if one is reading a novel instead of watching a TV series, the narrator often -IS- an omniscient, infallible observer.

If you have another universe where a similar situation shows a definite time delay, you can say, "Oh hey, I guess these two universes don't follow the same laws of physics." Now maybe one day one of these universes will be absolutely shown to be -wrong-, it happens to sci fi every now and then since there is guesswork involved. But the universes are inconsistant.

I think the key phraise was when you said, "Not trying hard enough." Sure, if I DO try, I can invent a universe where both laws hold across Star Trek and Star Wars. That's more or less assumed when during a versus match.

But do the universes HAVE to be the same? Do we HAVE to try hard to make them match? What if, just for the hell of it, we said that hypermatter reactors failed to work inside Federation space and Fed ships couldn't use subspace inside the 'Wars universe. Would that necessarily be less "correct" than the assumption that both universes have the same basis of physics?

[Darth Wong]

I can see where you are coming from, but what about something like the propagation of gravity? (Not real gravity waves.) If a ship "jumps" into a system and the mass change is detected immediately throughout the system -- you have definitive proof that, oh hey, the author clearly has stated that his universe doesn't follow the full rammifications of relativity for whatever reasons / beliefs he holds.

Well duh, that's already made clear by the mere fact that they can "jump" in and out of normal spacetime and travel at superluminal speeds.

I don't think -every- situation can be explained by "the people who said so were on crack." Especially since, if one is reading a novel instead of watching a TV series, the narrator often -IS- an omniscient, infallible observer.

Since when is the narrator of a novel automatically an omniscient, infallible observer? All you have to do is fine a single phrase anywhere in the entire book (or whole series of books) which is not perfectly semantically literally inerrant, and boom. No more infallibility.

If you have another universe where a similar situation shows a definite time delay, you can say, "Oh hey, I guess these two universes don't follow the same laws of physics." Now maybe one day one of these universes will be absolutely shown to be -wrong-, it happens to sci fi every now and then since there is guesswork involved. But the universes are inconsistant.

I think the key phraise was when you said, "Not trying hard enough." Sure, if I DO try, I can invent a universe where both laws hold across Star Trek and Star Wars. That's more or less assumed when during a versus match.

But do the universes HAVE to be the same? Do we HAVE to try hard to make them match?

We do if we are going to propose that the two universes can coexist, which is a prerequisite for "vs" battles.

What if, just for the hell of it, we said that hypermatter reactors failed to work inside Federation space and Fed ships couldn't use subspace inside the 'Wars universe. Would that necessarily be less "correct" than the assumption that both universes have the same basis of physics?

Yes. Because in order for them to meet at all, they must occupy the same universe.

[kaikatsu]

Well duh, that's already made clear by the mere fact that they can "jump" in and out of normal spacetime and travel at superluminal speeds.

But more to the point, as I was getting to a bit later, if another universe has a clear statement that speed of gravity is strictly "c" -- the two universes have been rendered inconsistant with one another.

Since when is the narrator of a novel automatically an omniscient, infallible observer? All you have to do is fine a single phrase anywhere in the entire book (or whole series of books) which is not perfectly semantically literally inerrant, and boom. No more infallibility.

So when reading 50's sci fi, do you say, "Well clearly the author was mistaken here and the black hole does NOT lead to another point in the universe. No, they ran across an entirely different phenomina that looks and acted like a black hole, but was most defintely not."

Personally, I tend to say, "Ok, so suppose black holes really WERE that way, even though we know that's not the case. Then what?" I would think that the infalliability of the narrator should be the absolute -last- thing to attack, and it should be something that falls apart because of an internal consistancy.

... in order for them to meet at all, they must occupy the same universe.

That's a defendable statement for any reasonable versus match. However, given the number of versus matches that involve different Earths -- or different armies from parallel timeframes, I'm not sure I see the problem with the idea of two different universes.

Actually, to state this better -- I don't see the problem with an infinite number of universes, two of which are almost identical save for a few minor, and currently unnoticable to your average 20th century scientist, differences, and these two then allowed to meet by some higher up technology that operates outside time and space. Stranger things have happened in sci fi.

Now that requires a bigger assumption than just trying to reconcile the two shows into the same universe, and for the most part, I'm all for the simple solution. But the original post did ask what -IF- the technology didn't carry over, and I still think that's a fair question.

[Firefox]

Subspace. It doesn't exist, as far as I know, in our understanding of the universe. It involves infinite dimensions not really required by our 10+1d or 22+1d models. But it's a definite reality in Trek.

Yet as Mike said, it doesn't involve such an incredible change in physics as to render human life impossible. Also, (a form of) subspace exists in SW.

[Glimmervoid]

Subspace. It doesn't exist, as far as I know, in our understanding of the universe. It involves infinite dimensions not really required by our 10+1d or 22+1d models. But it's a definite reality in Trek.

Yet as Mike said, it doesn't involve such an incredible change in physics as to render human life impossible. Also, (a form of) subspace exists in SW.

That’s right in the novels they refer to “sub space radios” and they are apparently used for short rang (1 light month I think) ship to ship communication.

But I feel I must point out that just because the to technologies share a name dose not mean that they are related to each other in any way, shape or form.

[Darth Wong]

Now that requires a bigger assumption than just trying to reconcile the two shows into the same universe, and for the most part, I'm all for the simple solution. But the original post did ask what -IF- the technology didn't carry over, and I still think that's a fair question.

That's like asking "what IF the laws of physics in our universe abruptly changed in some minor way which did not instantly kill us". First you have to think of what this minor change might be, since virtually any change will kill us. Then you have to ask why the effects of this change should be significant, since the change itself is obviously not significant. Why should a whole technology abruptly stop working unless the change is significant?

And finally, even if you did somehow concoct an implausible scenario where you have some impossible technology which is based on a heretofore unobserved property of the universe that is not necessary for human life and which abruptly changes so that it no longer works, the most likely scenario is still death, because complex technological devices do not tolerate their underlying scientific principles suddenly changing on them. A typical Star Trek ship would most likely explode immediately if it were placed in a universe where its basic subspace principles didn't work, since all of its propulsion, weapons, structural, power generation, and safety systems (such as they are) were designed with those principles in mind.

[kaikatsu]

That's like asking "what IF the laws of physics in our universe abruptly changed in some minor way which did not instantly kill us". First you have to think of what this minor change might be, since virtually any change will kill us. Then you have to ask why the effects of this change should be significant, since the change itself is obviously not significant. Why should a whole technology abruptly stop working unless the change is significant?

I agree it's unlikely. However we're not so much introducing a change as removing one. The tachyon particle exists in one model of spacetime, but not another. As far as anyone can tell, it's existance is utterly meaningless to us -- we don't need it to exist. The math just says it does. But, at some point, a science fiction author may assert that either they DO, or they DON'T. -As far as we know-, neither assumption is invalid.

We don't -need- hyperspace to exist. But in Star Wars, it most definitely does. We've already added something to the known physical laws which has failed to kill us. The removal of this same thing MAY not be catastrophic.

And finally, even if you did somehow concoct an implausible scenario ... the most likely scenario is still death.... A typical Star Trek ship would most likely explode immediately if it were placed in a universe where its basic subspace principles didn't work...

Agreed. Absolutely. A Trek Ship could not survive without subspace. A versus scenario in this situation would end up being a case of tactical adaptability on both sides, as well as how culture and docterine affects their ability to fight.

It's an implausable scenario, but -- at least to me -- the words "plausable" and "crossover battle" don't go together anyway without some heavy suspension of disbelief.

[Junghalli]

If technology didn't transfer over...

Things would go better for Trek generally I imagine. When the Empire tries to invade their hypermatter reactors and hyperdrive engines stop working the instant they cross over, and their mighty conquest fleet is crippled on arrival. Man, I do have to say it'd be sweet to see the look on the Imperial Admiral's face when his engineer tells him the engines have stopped working! Of course, likewise if a Federation ship crosses over into the SW galaxy subspace-based equipment stops working, and since the Federation seems to use subspace for everything the crew winds up choking to death as their life support fails and the oxygen runs out.
The stalemate continues until the Wars side outfits their ship with Treknology or the Trek side outfits their ships with Wars tech, whichever comes first. Come to think of it, if you're writing a fanfic this might be an interesting creative way to deprive Wars of its obscene advantages and force it into something like parity with Trek.

[Aktariel]

I always thought of the SW/ST vs. as being in the same universe, but different galaxies.

Although since SW take place "a long time ago", and ST takes place in the future, the only way for them to meet up at their respective current technology levels would be via a wormhole (which is what the main stardestroyer.net site says anyways). The thing about the wormhole is that it would have to go forward a year in time for every ly of distance it crossed. (Otherwise, if it was just a distance-spanning wormhole, God knows where the SW universe would be today)

The problem with changing the basic assumptions of how the universe works is that it makes it much harder to be internally consistent. For the purpose of the SW/ST vs. arguement, it is much less of a headache to craft logical, consistent arguements if we assume that the physics underlying the universe are essentially the same.

[Xon]

If a ST force found itself in a SW setting, suppose the fundamental physics that made the unique items of Treknology work no longer applied. Assume the reverse also.

If an ST force found itself in SW without its physics working, they would all explode like firecrackers as the anti-matter containment fails.

THE. END.