Can Federation destroy Death Stars

[Darth Tedious]

<snip>

As arguments go that's a bit shaky, since to my knowledge there are few indications of Star Trek and Star Wars subspace being the same phenomenon.

Few indications that it's the same thing, yes. But is there any indication whatsoever that it's not? That would be more important.

Either way, the fact that the DS creates a distortion in space/time around itself suggests it would show up on ST scanners as... ...a distortion in space/time.

[Sela]

Without digging myself too deep, do we ever see a SW weapon that interacts with hyperspace? Because we see plenty of "subspace interference", "subspace jamming", and the like in Star Trek. Further, Soliton weapons that react quite terribly with subspace are seen in Generations. And though I'm not 100% certain, I could swear there's a separate reference to "Warp Space" in ST TOS rather than the more typically utilized subspace.

EDIT: Just to emphasize, I'm not referring to the rampant "sensor" and "subspace sensor" jamming we see, but actual incongruities and interference within subspace itself.

[Batman]

Without digging myself too deep, do we ever see a SW weapon that interacts with hyperspace?

Yes. Interdictors, Centerpoint Station, empion mines. It's kinda hard to force ships out of hyperspace if the weapon supposed to do so doesn't interact with it I'd wager.

Further, Soliton weapons that react quite terribly with subspace are seen in Generations.

Um-no? The only mention of 'soliton' I recall is the soliton wave of the TNG episode 'New Ground'. The big badass weapon in Generations was a trilithium torpedo IIRC, and the evil subspace weapons from Insurrection were isolytic charges.

[Sela]

Um-no? The only mention of 'soliton' I recall is the soliton wave of the TNG episode 'New Ground'. The big badass weapon in Generations was a trilithium torpedo IIRC, and the evil subspace weapons from Insurrection were isolytic charges.

Isolytics! That's what I was thinking of, my bad. Youch, wrong movie, wrong weapon name - strikeout for me . Well if SW has the tools to interact directly with hyperspace, then this argument all falls apart and subspace may still equal hyperspace.

Now to quickly un-dig myself from this shallow grave ...

[Darth Tedious]

Ummm... no. If subspace and hyperspace were the same thing, they wouldn't be called two different things. There are subspace jamming, sensors and comms in Star Wars. All evidence suggests that SW subspace and ST subspace are the same thing.

[Eleas]

Ummm... no. If subspace and hyperspace were the same thing, they wouldn't be called two different things. There are subspace jamming, sensors and comms in Star Wars. All evidence suggests that SW subspace and ST subspace are the same thing.

Explain why two vastly different cultures with no previous contact with each other must use the same term to refer to the same thing. I'd really like to know.

[Darth Tedious]

Explain why two vastly different cultures with no previous contact with each other must use the same term to refer to the same thing. I'd really like to know.

Why does everyone the GFFA call space 'space'? Why do they call a moon 'a moon'? Why do they call a tree 'a tree'? Spoiler

Because when they speak in Basic, we get it translated into English (or other Earthly languages, if you have an alternate language translation). Otherwise not a single fucking word would be the same, because they are from a galaxy far, far away.

[Eleas]

Explain why two vastly different cultures with no previous contact with each other must use the same term to refer to the same thing. I'd really like to know.

Why does everyone the GFFA call space 'space'? Why do they call a moon 'a moon'? Why do they call a tree 'a tree'? Spoiler

Because when they speak in Basic, we get it translated into English (or other Earthly languages, if you have an alternate language translation). Otherwise not a single fucking word would be the same, because they are from a galaxy far, far away.

This is true insofar as the concepts 'space' and 'moon' are actually a) words for real phenomena b) in common use today. A mere glance at the word 'hyperspace' is enough to rupture your argument, because Star Wars hyperspace is a space with rules apparently different from our real-world mathematical concept(s) of hyperspace. So already at that point we have divergence.

Your contention seems to be that if we hear about the Korean Bong (a weapon) and then about the American Bong (...not a weapon), we should -- even if the cultures have never met, ever -- naturally assume they are one and the same.

[Darth Tedious]

This is true insofar as the concepts 'space' and 'moon' are actually a) words for real phenomena b) in common use today. A mere glance at the word 'hyperspace' is enough to rupture your argument, because Star Wars hyperspace is a space with rules apparently different from our real-world mathematical concept(s) of hyperspace. So already at that point we have divergence.

And? Subspace (which is the word in contention) is not the same in RL as it is in ST or SW. Fuck, in RL, both hyper- and subspace are concepts of Euclidian geometry. What is the point you are trying to make?

Your contention seems to be that if we hear about the Korean Bong (a weapon) and then about the American Bong (...not a weapon), we should -- even if the cultures have never met, ever -- naturally assume they are one and the same.

Did you eat a big bowl of stupid for breakfast? Or are you trying out a strawman?
Americans speak English, Koreans speak Korean.
We hear Star Wars and Star Trek in the same fucking language. It isn't two homophonic words from different languages that have nothing to do with one another.

In universe (because that's where the action is), subspace is used by both cultures for sensors, communications, and jamming of the same. Both appear from all the evidence I've ever seen (which admittedly, is vague, because subspace is never thoroughly explained in either franchise) to be the same thing. Is there a single scrap of evidence (no matter how vague) to suggest that they are not the exact same thing, beyond you not wanting them to be?

[Darth Tedious]

By the way, the earliest reference to subspace in Star Wars was in 1995, in Children of the Jedi, by Barbara Hambly- who was previously a Star Trek writer. So if you really want to argue literary bullshit over whether or not they're the same thing, I'm going to say yes, they are. Because it was a Star Trek author who introduced subspace into Star Wars.

[Eleas]

This is true insofar as the concepts 'space' and 'moon' are actually a) words for real phenomena b) in common use today. A mere glance at the word 'hyperspace' is enough to rupture your argument, because Star Wars hyperspace is a space with rules apparently different from our real-world mathematical concept(s) of hyperspace. So already at that point we have divergence.

And? Subspace (which is the word in contention) is not the same in RL as it is in ST or SW. Fuck, in RL, both hyper- and subspace are concepts of Euclidian geometry. What is the point you are trying to make?

That your argument boils down to "equal name, equal phenomenon", sans evidence.

Did you eat a big bowl of stupid for breakfast? Or are you trying out a strawman?
Americans speak English, Koreans speak Korean.
We hear Star Wars and Star Trek in the same fucking language. It isn't two homophonic words from different languages that have nothing to do with one another.

My point, o petulant one, is that we have no evidence these words mean the same thing. What we have is a corresponding sound, just as in my above example. However I will amend my analogy: your contention is similar to stating that since the Empire uses 'blasters', then as soon as something is called 'blaster' in a Trek publication and has superficially similar usage that must mean the technologies are identical. Your hand-waving about languages is irrelevant, seeing as how humans in Star Wars speak Basic, which could very well be considered translated for our benefit.

In universe (because that's where the action is), subspace is used by both cultures for sensors, communications, and jamming of the same. Both appear from all the evidence I've ever seen (which admittedly, is vague, because subspace is never thoroughly explained in either franchise) to be the same thing.

Except that subspace in Trek enables physical travel, mass-lightening, incredibly destructive weaponry, and time-travel. Other than that, of course, they could very well be the same.

Is there a single scrap of evidence (no matter how vague) to suggest that they are not the exact same thing, beyond you not wanting them to be?

It's nice to see you living up to your name, but please try adhere to the rules of debate while doing so. That equal name means equal phenomenon is an extraordinary claim. The onus is on you to prove it with something more than "it's the same because both lets you transmit at FTL speeds!1!1!!"

[Eleas]

By the way, the earliest reference to subspace in Star Wars was in 1995, in Children of the Jedi, by Barbara Hambly- who was previously a Star Trek writer. So if you really want to argue literary bullshit over whether or not they're the same thing, I'm going to say yes, they are. Because it was a Star Trek author who introduced subspace into Star Wars.

Argument out of divining author's intent. Please revisit previous threads to find out exactly how stupid this makes you sound.

[Darth Tedious]

Your hand-waving about languages is irrelevant, seeing as how humans in Star Wars speak Basic, which could very well be considered translated for our benefit.

I just told you that in two of my last three posts, you stupid fucking twat! Don't act like it's news to me.
I'm not going to bother debating against a wall of ignorance, nor a broken record.

[Connor MacLeod]

By the way, the earliest reference to subspace in Star Wars was in 1995, in Children of the Jedi, by Barbara Hambly- who was previously a Star Trek writer. So if you really want to argue literary bullshit over whether or not they're the same thing, I'm going to say yes, they are. Because it was a Star Trek author who introduced subspace into Star Wars.

Actually the subspace crap predated the SW novels. The WEG materials (which many SW novels, especially the early ones, were based on) involved frequent mentions of subspace technology (such as the subspace radio.) Timothy Zahn's Heir to the Empire novel had Luke messing with his X-wing's subspace radio as well.

WEG seemed to borrow alot from TNG era Trek. When you browse their materials you always find tons of stuff that you can see as a reference to TNG ("Marauder corvette" "Preybird Fighter, etc. Both of which look like their namesakes.) Not that this proves anything, unless you want to tell me that SW and ST had a secret intra-galactic trade treaty with the Klingons and Ferengi.

[Connor MacLeod]

Ummm... no. If subspace and hyperspace were the same thing, they wouldn't be called two different things. There are subspace jamming, sensors and comms in Star Wars. All evidence suggests that SW subspace and ST subspace are the same thing.

Care to list this evidence? I'd love to see it, since form what I know of SW subspace (And what I can recall of ST subspace and read on Memory Alpha) they aren't the same.

[Agent Sorchus]

No, I do believe that it is older than WEG, but need someone to double check. In the Han Solo trilogy I think there is a earlier reference to subspace and is far before the WEG era.

[Eleas]

Your hand-waving about languages is irrelevant, seeing as how humans in Star Wars speak Basic, which could very well be considered translated for our benefit.

I just told you that in two of my last three posts, you stupid fucking twat! Don't act like it's news to me.

Sit back down, you little shit. You may have spoken about that earlier, but that doesn't invalidate my point. You see, contrary to yourself, I like these "points". I advance them. I use them to pursue an actual argument. All of this entails something you apparently don't understand. Meaning you attempt to wriggle out of answering by personal attack; in a word, an ad hominem.

I'm not going to bother debating against a wall of ignorance, nor a broken record.

Translation: "I have no case, no proof of wrongdoing in my opponent, nor indeed the ability to craft arguments. Therefore I will slink off while pretending victory, fooling no-one but myself."

Buh-bye, kiddo. Next time, why not learn the meaning of the terms you use before applying them. I did not, in this thread, display either a wall of ignorance nor argumentation by broken record. Had I done this, you would have been able to show where I did. You're welcome to show me where I did, of course, but I suspect crediting you with honesty is a fool's game.

[Connor MacLeod]

No, I do believe that it is older than WEG, but need someone to double check. In the Han Solo trilogy I think there is a earlier reference to subspace and is far before the WEG era.

Yep you're right. Han Solo and the Lost Legacy, forgot that one. That's where they find Xim the Despot's lost treasure had "old subspace" components.

[Azron_Stoma]

I am curious as to what differences exist between SW Subspace and ST Subspace, as I am not aware of any differences though, like Darth Tedious I always felt that the references made between the two are left somewhat vague.

Also I was always under the impression that in the debate we treat similar terms, even fictional ones, as the same thing unless there is evidence that says otherwise.

[Eleas]

I am curious as to what differences exist between SW Subspace and ST Subspace, as I am not aware of any differences though, like Darth Tedious I always felt that the references made between the two are left somewhat vague.

Star Trek subspace allows -- even for very young civilization -- FTL travel, mass-lightening, and time travel. None of these things are true in Star Wars, despite their subspace communications having been used throughout the galaxy for millennia.

It could be the same thing. I'm arguing against the blithe assumption of them being so, that's all.

Also I was always under the impression that in the debate we treat similar terms, even fictional ones, as the same thing unless there is evidence that says otherwise.

If one is careful, one can do that. The problem is when similarity of names is itself considered an argument in favour. It's not. At best, it's an assumption.

[Connor MacLeod]

SW subspace seems to be primarily realspace based. It can be used as an active sensing mechanism (Star by Star) even against inert materials, and it can likewise be blocked by realspace phenomena (like shielding, as per HTTE) It's more akin to tachyonic matter or hypermatter (just a different kind of magic) than some inter-dimensional stuff.

[Batman]

Isn't Trek subspace too, more or less? AFAIK their FTL sensors rely on subspace and yet they can detect inert objects, ships at Warp need a navigational deflector to protect them against realspace obstacles, they can manipulate the mass of realspace objects (pretty hard to do if stuff enclosed in a subspace field just vanishes into another dimension) and in turn, ships at Warp can be affected by realspace gravity.
Looks too me Trek subspace does a lot of the same stuff Wars subspace (or hyperspace)do-let them do FTL in realspace-somehow.
None of which, of course, means it needs to be the same 'somehow'.

[BlackAdder]

Maybe SW used to use subspace to travel until they developed hyperspace? And the names still carry on or something. We know that the SW subspace radios are superior to the ST ones, so either they're different or one is vastly more advanced.

[Batman]

Are they? ISD subspace comms have a range of 100ly, the Falcon's 40, and an X-Wing's a whopping 25. The big E wasn't out of communications range all that often. Out of realtime communications range, yes, occasionally, but even that was rare, at least for the E-D and as long as they were in the Alpha Quadrant (and IIRC even during TOS the problem usually wasn't that they couldn't reach Starfleet Command, they just couldn't get an answer in time to matter, but that's from very vague memory). Also, somewhere in TTT Han comments that ISDs can't boost long range communications through shields and battle debris (I need to get an electronic copy of those books) while in Trek, that seems to work reasonably well (ref Admiral Hanson having realtime visual communications with the E-D during the battle of Wolf 359).

And I can't recall any mention of Star Wars ever using subspace based FTL. We have the everyday hyperdrive, the Aing-Tii jump drive, the Oswaft jumpdrive-ish ability to simply 'skip' large distances of realspace, and probably a dozen others I forgot or never read about to begin with, but I don't think I've ever seen subspace mentioned in connection with FTL travel.

On both issues, however, my knowledge is far from complete (if it were, I would've had that quote I mentioned handy) so feel free to correct me.

[Azron_Stoma]

Are they? ISD subspace comms have a range of 100ly, the Falcon's 40, and an X-Wing's a whopping 25. The big E wasn't out of communications range all that often. Out of realtime communications range, yes, occasionally, but even that was rare, at least for the E-D and as long as they were in the Alpha Quadrant (and IIRC even during TOS the problem usually wasn't that they couldn't reach Starfleet Command, they just couldn't get an answer in time to matter, but that's from very vague memory). Also, somewhere in TTT Han comments that ISDs can't boost long range communications through shields and battle debris (I need to get an electronic copy of those books) while in Trek, that seems to work reasonably well (ref Admiral Hanson having realtime visual communications with the E-D during the battle of Wolf 359).

To be fair It's my understanding that the Federation has a rather vast Subspace relay network to facilitate that sort of thing, I'm not sure what the range of subspace coms are without using the relay is though. But I'm starting to see what you mean about the potential differences and how they may very well be different things.

I guess we can write it off as being "Inconclusive" and flip a coin?