Galactic Scale SW vs ST

[Drooling Iguana]

I was going to say that Klingon first contact was in the early 23rd century, while Romulan first contact would have been at some point in the 22nd. Then I remembered 2 things:

• 1. The 23rd century date for Klingon first contact was from the Star Trek Chronology, and thus not neccesarily canon.
  2. Enterprise :roll:

Like it or not, as far as Paramount is concerned, that's how things happened.

Just out of curiosity, where do the figured for the size of the GFFA come from?

[Darth Servo]

Like it or not, as far as Paramount is concerned, that's how things happened.

That is until the NEXT prequel series comes out where they contradict everything in Enterprise and we meet the Klingons, Romulans, etc right after first contact with teh Vulcans in the 21st century.

[silent-light]

Eeek I have to go now, but i'll be back to hopefully discuss and justify my saying that warp is plausible and acheivable (im quite well read in this field of real science etc, and into the feasibiltiy of the trek method of warp- though its massively exotic, and probably unachieveable in the next millenia anyway, its not close to impossible.

i cant say the same for hyperdrive, but then i dont know enough at all about how it is supposed to work

I need to say something here...

NEITHER is acheivable, not in the sense that they have been described. First of all, to be acheivable we would have to know that the principles they operate on are true, or nearly true.

When writing the initial stories of Star Trek and Star Wars no author would care if what they were writing was true, faster than light travel was simply a neccessary plot device to allow fantastic journeys and adventures in space.

"Hyperdrive" involves entering an "alternate dimension" called hyperspace which was simply invented for the purpose of explaining "hyperdrive". No one except possibly some overly-optimistic sci fi fans would ever advance this as being "technologically feasible" in any meaningful way.

"Warp Drive" involves entering or "warping" an "alternate dimension" called subspace, which was simply invented for the purpose of explaining "warp drive". No one except possibly some overly-optimistic sci fi fans would ever advance this as being "technologically feasible" in any meaningful way. In fact, articles I have read pertaining to the posibillity of warp drive never invoke the magic word "subspace" Instead Scientific American published an article Link that could only explain it through the use of the ill understood "negative energy" and concentrating MORE ENERGY THAN IS CONTAINED IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE just to move a 30 metre long ship through space at FTL speeds. Needless to say, even if it were possible to concentrate such energy, one would a) create a supermassive black hole b) having sucked all the energy (and mass?) out of the universe, wouldnt have much to visit.

So much for technological feasibillity.

[Ender]

Eeek I have to go now, but i'll be back to hopefully discuss and justify my saying that warp is plausible and acheivable (im quite well read in this field of real science etc, and into the feasibiltiy of the trek method of warp- though its massively exotic, and probably unachieveable in the next millenia anyway, its not close to impossible.

i cant say the same for hyperdrive, but then i dont know enough at all about how it is supposed to work

I need to say something here...

NEITHER is acheivable, not in the sense that they have been described. First of all, to be acheivable we would have to know that the principles they operate on are true, or nearly true.

Actually, SW Hyperdrive should work out mathmatically, you just need to get around casualty (and I guess you could do that by staying within your own light cone, but how you'd do that I have no idea)

When writing the initial stories of Star Trek and Star Wars no author would care if what they were writing was true, faster than light travel was simply a neccessary plot device to allow fantastic journeys and adventures in space.

Except in the years proceeding TPM and since then there has been a bit of a revolution on the SW side. There has been a growing pushy for technical accuracy and plausible explanations. Things such as the AOTC ICS are a result of this.

"Hyperdrive" involves entering an "alternate dimension" called hyperspace which was simply invented for the purpose of explaining "hyperdrive". No one except possibly some overly-optimistic sci fi fans would ever advance this as being "technologically feasible" in any meaningful way.

Actually, that is no the case. It involves using complex mass to alter the ship to give it negative mass and thus make it tachyonic (is that a word?). This violates casualty, but other then that works. Dr. Saxton has an excellent writeup on the matter.

[silent-light]

Actually, SW Hyperdrive should work out mathmatically, you just need to get around casualty (and I guess you could do that by staying within your own light cone, but how you'd do that I have no idea)

Mathematics assuming WHAT to be true? One could "work things out" mathematically for all sorts of things that can't happen, making some assumptions. For example: assuming that you can bypass/violate causality. You might be able to do such and such...

Except in the years proceeding TPM and since then there has been a bit of a revolution on the SW side. There has been a growing pushy for technical accuracy and plausible explanations. Things such as the AOTC ICS are a result of this.

That doesn't mean that such things are "technologically feasible" in any meaningful way. Sci-fi tech manuals, encyclopaedia and guidebooks are meant to lend increased depth to a pre-existing state of "suspension of disbelief" by rationalising imaginary phenomenon. They make the assumption that, in an imaginary world, the phenomena observed are real and can be explained in a superficial manner, to satisfy an interested fan base. That's not science. It can be applied to any imaginary universe, but that doesn't mean that Tolkein's RING OF POWER(tm), Warp Drives, Hyperspace Engines, the Batmobile or any other artifact of the imagination is technologically feasible or even remotely realistic. They are imaginary. They are devices for entertaining the imaginations of others. They are well suited for this, but it is unfortunate when people seriously confuse an entertaining fantasy for a real possibility, and for some reason soft sci-fi seems to lend itself to this above other genres.

Actually, that is no the case.

Assuming, for a moment, that every time a star wars character uses "entered/entering/will enter hyperspace" they were using a euphemism, that WEG was completely inaccurate in their portrayal of hyperdrive working by "hurl[ing] ships into hyperspace, a dimension of space-time that can be entered only at faster-than-light speeds" and that the OFFICIAL STAR WARS WEBSITE is totally wrong in it's description of hyperdrive as "interrelated systems that propel a starship through the alternate dimension of hyperspace. In hyperspace, there is no limit to how fast a starship can travel, and thus interstellar distances can be traversed in mere minutes" then I guess that I must have been wrong when I thought that "hyperdrive" assumes the existence of an alternate dimension called "hyperspace"

I guess Dr. Saxton's opinion overrides Lucasfilms?

It involves using complex mass to alter the ship to give it negative mass and thus make it tachyonic (is that a word?). This violates casualty, but other then that works.

If I wrote up mathematical formula to describe what would happen if I designed a perpetual motion machine out of an anti-gravity disk and a self-feeding watermill, then using that reasoning I could say that it violates the law of conservation of energy, but other than that, it works...

???

Does that make it technologically feasible???

Dr. Saxton has an excellent writeup on the matter.

Dr. Saxton doesn't go to any length to describe ANY Star Wars technology as being feasible. His web page is devoted to RATIONALISATION of IMAGINARY technologies in an imaginary universe and to "explore a self-consistent reality for that universe"

Perhaps you missed the part where he said "The reader should not attempt to apply my conclusions outside STAR WARS fiction. What you are reading is the best available rationalisation of an important aspect of the most popular science-fiction series. It does not pretend to be a comprehensive or definitive treatise on real physics. Also, please do not send me real-world crackpot theories about miracle cures and home-made theories of the universe; there is enough "pseudo" in my pseudophysics as it is." (emphasis mine)

His RATIONALISATION assumes the existence of tachyons, which most particle physicists now believe is impossible. It requires changing from sub-luminal to super-luminal speeds in "less than Planck time", which is... literally incredible. It requires acceleration to the brink of light speed in a matter of seconds, which is, in and of itself, not feasible of its own accord. It also requires an arbitrary "inertial damping device" of completely undisclosed nature. He makes rather vague statements about "transient space time distortions" and "the twisting of space time" that occur for no known reason. The ability to rapidly decelerate from the brink of light speed (just as problematic as accelerating)

The problems of relative time passage between shipboard travellers and the rest of the galaxy require Saxton to arbitrarily invent a non-canon device "for generating a locally-acting time-retardation field" or "stasis field" which, of its own, isn't a feasible device IRL. In order to avoid causality violation he simply states "it turns out causality violations cannot arise" in other words, that still has to be figured out. But considering the obstacles in the way of actually reaching hyperspace so far, it doesn't look like that's even an issue! I could go on like this, but I'm getting tired of picking apart a "theory" that isn't intended to be taken seriously. But for the record, I didn't see ANY mathematical-working-out of "hyperdrive" just a few expressions used in specific context. Saxton never claims to have worked out any such mathematics.

In conclusion, if you expect me to believe that hyperdrive

a) doesn't involve being in an alternate dimension called hyperspace because Curtis Saxton's rationalisation says that being "in hyperspace" is synonymous with being "tachyonic" overrides the opinion of Lucasfilm.

b) hyperdrive is within the reach of our species because Curtis Saxton has invented a self-admitted pseudoscientific rationalisation of this imaginary technology

you are SADLY mistaken as to the extent of my gullibility.
[/b]

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Just out of curiosity, where do the figured for the size of the GFFA come from?

Lando specifically states in one of the Black Fleet Crisis books that the Galaxy is 120 thousand light years in diameter.

And since those are in SW light years, that means it's just slightly bigger than it sounds.

[Elheru Aran]

you are SADLY mistaken as to the extent of my gullibility.

Nobody's trying to diss you, okay? The discussion here is not about the scientific feasibility of hyperdrives and the like; it is about the size of the Star Wars galaxy versus Star Trek. The hyperdrive thing is a side discussion, and only pertains to the topic inasmuch as it allows us to ascertain the width of the SW and ST galaxies.

A bit of advice, young one... don't mess about with complicated stuff like this at first. Establish some credibility in the boards first. Don't just sail in firing away at everybody in sight-- you're going to just attach a big stink to your name.

Otherwise, you seem a smart enough person... don't screw up, and you'll be a welcome addition! Sannu!

[Darth Wong]

That doesn't mean that such things are "technologically feasible" in any meaningful way.

No one seriously argues that they are technologically feasible; that is an extremely rigorous standard for which 99.9% of sci-fi fails utterly. In sci-fi, the litmus test is rather more generous; something like "not strictly impossible".

In short, please refrain from use of the strawman fallacy.

[silent-light]

Elheru Aran I didn't think anyone was trying to diss me. Nor did I mean to be offensive. I'm not really trying to "fire away" at anyone. Sorry if this means I'm overstepping my bounds, but I think its well within the purpose of joining a bulletin board to reply to posts on it.

Darth Wong didn't intentionally set up a straw man,

Jon wrote "What I mean, is that Star Trek warp, is 'technologically' plausible at least," and "Is Star Wars propulsion technology plausible? This crossing the galaxy in days with hyperdrive?"

and "but i'll be back to hopefully discuss and justify my saying that warp is plausible and acheivable (im quite well read in this field of real science etc, and into the feasibiltiy of the trek method of warp- though its massively exotic, and probably unachieveable in the next millenia anyway, its not close to impossible."

Isolder74 wrote "Niether Method is truely technically feasable from our point of veiw." (which I agree with)

SirNitram wrote "Hyperdrive and Warp are both plausible in that the math works." (whatever that's supposed to mean)

These posts are what I was responding to, and I interpreted them to mean that it was a reasonable idea that the methods of FTL travel depicted in SW/ST were realistic, or plausible, or what we could expect to see in the relative near future of humanity (though probably not in our lifetimes) when someone says "Star Trek warp, is 'technologically' plausible at least", "warp is plausible and acheivable" or "are both plausible in that the math works." It sounds an awful lot like they are being advanced as scientifically likely or even possible IRL. That's really hard for me to swallow personally

To further have Ender respond to my post saying that they are neither acheivable or realistic by saying (in summary)

me) NEITHER is acheivable, not in the sense that they have been described... to be acheivable we would have to know that the principles they operate on are true, or nearly true.

ender) Actually, SW Hyperdrive should work out mathmatically, you just need to get around casualty (and I guess you could do that by staying within your own light cone, but how you'd do that I have no idea)

{indicating to me that he believes I am wrong that they aren't achievable)

me) no author would care if what they were writing was true, faster than light travel was simply a neccessary plot device

ender) in the years proceeding TPM and since then there has been a bit of a revolution on the SW side. There has been a growing pushy for technical accuracy and plausible explanations.

{leading me to believe that he thinks I am incorrect in saying that there is no scientific basis to believe hyperdrive is impossible}


me) "Hyperdrive" involves entering an "alternate dimension" called hyperspace which was simply invented for the purpose of explaining "hyperdrive". No one except possibly some overly-optimistic sci fi fans would ever advance this as being "technologically feasible" in any meaningful way.

ender) Actually, that is no the case. It involves using complex mass to alter the ship to give it negative mass and thus make it tachyonic (is that a word?). This violates casualty, but other then that works. Dr. Saxton has an excellent writeup on the matter.

{thus trying to tell me that the canon description of hyperdrive is WRONG, Dr. Saxton explains how it all works! People other than overly-optimistic sci-fi fans can advance hyperdrive as being technologically feasible!, Even if Saxton's write up WAS a realistic explanation of possible FTL travel he would kind of be making my point for me since I quallified that these things weren't realistic IN THE WAY THEY HAVE BEEN DESCRIBED OR PORTRAYED in these sci fi series)

As such, I didn't feel i was setting up a straw man, because since people were using terms like "technilogically feasible" I assumed that's actually what they meant. This is, however, my first time in a science fiction based forum so I could have been misinterpreting things.

Are you sure they didn't mean what I thought they meant?

[Darth Wong]

Are you sure they didn't mean what I thought they meant?

I cannot, of course, speak for every single person on your list. Jon, in particular, is a newbie and as such, is something of an unknown quantity as yet. However, when someone says "the math works", all he means is that you can make the numbers work on paper, just as they do for wormholes and tachyons and other such mathematical abstractions. It is a far cry from that to "technologically feasible".

[silent-light]

ooo.

Well, since it was brought into a conversation where the idea of "feasible" was being bandied around, I interpreted it as having a harder meaning. Perhaps I overreacted, and if so. ooops/sorry!!

[Elheru Aran]

Elheru Aran I didn't think anyone was trying to diss me. Nor did I mean to be offensive. I'm not really trying to "fire away" at anyone. Sorry if this means I'm overstepping my bounds, but I think its well within the purpose of joining a bulletin board to reply to posts on it.

No problem. It just seemed to me that you were going a bit far and taking other peoples' replies somewhat personally, was all. You do that enough, you're prime flamebait; you have to cultivate a thick skin on this BBS!

By all means feel free to post; just don't feel yourself restricted to any particular forums. It pays to have a broad mind, and you wouldn't believe the stuff that goes on here... let's just say, you'll discover that the barrel does NOT have a bottom!

[silent-light]

you wouldn't believe the stuff that goes on here... let's just say, you'll discover that the barrel does NOT have a bottom!

*eyebrow raising.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

That doesn't mean that such things are "technologically feasible" in any meaningful way.

No one seriously argues that they are technologically feasible; that is an extremely rigorous standard for which 99.9% of sci-fi fails utterly. In sci-fi, the litmus test is rather more generous; something like "not strictly impossible".

Given Clarke's Axiom, that's a rather huge category. I suppose it all rests on the assumptions native to each SF universe, considering we don't even know very much about our own universe (at least in terms of any plausible FTL).

This just begs the question: which star-drive can MacGuyver build faster and from the cheapest ingredients?

[Luzifer's right hand]

Given Clarke's Axiom, that's a rather huge category. I suppose it all rests on the assumptions native to each SF universe, considering we don't even know very much about our own universe (at least in terms of any plausible FTL).

This just begs the question: which star-drive can MacGuyver build faster and from the cheapest ingredients?

A stargate?

[silent-light]

a REALLY BIG slingshot

[Darth Wong]

Given Clarke's Axiom, that's a rather huge category.

Not necessarily. We may not have the slightest idea how one would technologically accomplish something, but we can tell if a particular idea does not even work mathematically. Take the infamous "Soliton Wave" from TNG for example; the crew's interpretation (that it magically became exponentially more powerful, amplifying itself as it moved until it could theoretically achieve infinite energy) is clearly absurd. Even by the standards of sci-fi, it's incredibly stupid.

[silent-light]

Well, if it were a magical universe, you could justify anything. One of the things I didn't like about star trek is the tendency to try to self rationalise, or make things sound like they scientifically make sense, especially considering how often they didn't do a good job!

Clearing out of the baryon particles anyone? heheh

[Jon]

I should really clear up what I meant, feasible really was the wrong way to describe warp drive, please recall that I know nothing about 'hyperdrive' - so I wasn't trying to elevate warp above it.

My point was, that after extensive reading on the subject, Warp is not 'impossible'- but of course, it would require so much energy- that it is unattainable- but not outlawed in science. The sun, for instance, warps space to the extent of 1/1000 of a degree- warp would require considerably higher 'angles' than that- the production of that kind of energy, is not feasable I can accept. When I said "warp drive is technologically feasible", I was simply taking for granted we could obtain and produce exotic materials to make it work (which, aren't imaginary, just by far not abundant enough) - and I just wanted to understand if hyperdrive was a 'practical' theory of displacement in our own universe.

My reading, btw, isn't in 'sci fi tech manuals'- but in serious scientific studies, by Authours such as Briane Greene and Lawrence Krauss, as well as vaarious educational documents.

I don't know if I can phrase my query any better- but I can ascertain a good answer from the responses this thread has produced.

No one except possibly some overly-optimistic sci fi fans would ever advance this as being "technologically feasible" in any meaningful way

No, I'm just a slightly over-optimistic (astro)physics student

By Warp I am referring to the decreasing of space time in one location and the increasing in another therefore propelling spacetime around a vessel, as the inner workings of warp have never been explained to any reasluistic extent in canon Star Trek,- that's my opinion of it. I hope I didn't come across as thinking that Physicists invented warp dtrive for Paramount - I know it was nothing more than a plot device- but in recent years more effort has been put into Trek at least, to add 'real science'.

So, Warp 'would' be possible- science doesn't outlaw it- it could work (even without the magical 'subspace'). My mentioning that only arose when trying to understand if such a technology as Hyperdrive could really work in our universe to propel a starship across such vast distances in such a short time.

Clearing out of the baryon particles anyone? heheh

Indeed

[His Divine Shadow]

Hyperdrive jumps you into a parallel dimention that serve as a shortcut. The faster you can travel inside that dimension the faster you get to where you are going.

No.
*hits Isolder with a rolled up newspaper*
No.