Hyperspace jumps

[KSW]

And a tractor-beam bends space more than a planet's gravity-well, at least for the affected area. It's like having an oil-well vs. the Grand Canyon, i.e. it's not as wide but you fall a helluva lot further if you step in.

And of course, you have evidence of this, right?

No, I'm sure they just use a giant magnet, meanwhile the engines and deflectors and comm-systems are all magic (like in Star Wars) and the term "WARP factor" is just for laughs.

[Picard]

Okay... what the hell does tractor beam have to do with warp drive?

Now, yes, we KNOW that Federation is hard on gravitational technology, we KNOW that tractor beam can pick up almost anything, which is not case with magnets, so we can conclude that tractor beam is gravity-based, as is the warp drive... but I really don't see what is connection between Warp drive and tractor beam?

[KSW]

Okay... what the hell does tractor beam have to do with warp drive?

Now, yes, we KNOW that Federation is hard on gravitational technology,

Oh, let's see your EVIDENCE of that?
And whatever you say, it's not canon!
So I can sit here and deny deny deny all day without presenting a SHRED of my own evidence, and insult your arguments as "demented rambling" while repeating over and over that "you haven't proven anything."

Wow, Praetho seems to have mellowed out from his usual self.

we KNOW that tractor beam can pick up almost anything, which is not case with magnets, so we can conclude that tractor beam is gravity-based, as is the warp drive... but I really don't see what is connection between Warp drive and tractor beam?

They both operate by bend space-- i.e. WARPING it. That's what gravity is, you know: a space-warp.

[Picard]

Yes, I know that. But while we know gravity influences ships in hyperspace, will Federation be able to see them?

[KSW]

Yes, I know that. But while we know gravity influences ships in hyperspace, will Federation be able to see them?

Gravity only influences ships in hyperspace at a high level, like that of a star or black hole. There's no problem flying through a planet or an asteroid-field, for example, since these aren't dense enough to cause a problem in terms of gravity.

Hyperspace therefore appears for all practical purposes to be the same as quantum-slipstream and transwarp jumps, i.e. it involves a wormhole conduit directly through subspace-- as opposed to warping normal space via a manipulation of subspace.

[Khas]

Again, you're assuming hyperspace and subspace are one and the same.

[KSW]

Again, you're assuming hyperspace and subspace are one and the same.

No, you're assuming they're not, simply from your ignorance of whether they are-- pure argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Meanwhile I've already deduced that they are the same thing, from the fact that collision with a star will destroy the ship; since a star's higher mass-density, like that of a black hole, reaches deeper into subspace more than objects of lower mass-density-- not other dimensions. In fact, stars reach less into some dimensions, like superspace, than other things, largely by virtue of the fact that they do reach farther into subspace; so that further establishes that SW hyperspace is subspace.

[Khas]

So, even though we have sources from both ST and SW that say that they're different, you're still saying they're the same? Gotcha.

[KSW]

So, even though we have sources from both ST and SW that say that they're different, you're still saying they're the same? Gotcha.

Yeah you quoted some acontextual semantics which mean different things in different franchises. Still fail.
Hyperspace and subspace OBVIOUSLY mean different things in Star Trek (i.e. superspace and subspace, respectively), since they use both terms in separate contexts; meanwhile they only use the term "hyperspace" in Star Wars because it only means one thing (i.e. subspace).

Also note the difference that Star Trek allows travel between different UNIVERSES, while star Wars doesm't.

[Khas]

Then, if subspace and hyperspace are two different things in ST, WHY WOULD YOU ASSUME THAT THEY'RE ONE AND THE SAME? If hyperspace wasn't mentioned in ST, then you're little pet theory would be an interesting idea. But since we've heard both be mentioned, we know that they're not. Also, YOU'RE STILL ASSUMING ST AND SW ARE THE SAME FRANCHISE!

[Praeothmin]

Hyperspace and subspace OBVIOUSLY mean different things in Star Trek

In other words, your little theory about Phasers being able to hit ships in Hyperspace was just invalidated by your own comments...

Oh, by the way:

Praeothmin wrote:Picard wrote:Okay... what the hell does tractor beam have to do with warp drive?

Now, yes, we KNOW that Federation is hard on gravitational technology,

Oh, let's see your EVIDENCE of that?
And whatever you say, it's not canon!
So I can sit here and deny deny deny all day without presenting a SHRED of my own evidence, and insult your arguments as "demented rambling" while repeating over and over that "you haven't proven anything."


Wow, Praetho seems to have mellowed out from his usual self.

That was reported... :)

[KSW]

Then, if subspace and hyperspace are two different things in ST, WHY WOULD YOU ASSUME THAT THEY'RE ONE AND THE SAME? If hyperspace wasn't mentioned in ST, then you're little pet theory would be an interesting idea. But since we've heard both be mentioned, we know that they're not. Also, YOU'RE STILL ASSUMING ST AND SW ARE THE SAME FRANCHISE!

You really should learn to read, since you're getting everything 100% backwards.
Just to make it simpler for you:

Star TREK: Hyperspace = superspace
Star WARS: Hyperspace = SUB-space

Easy peasy!

Technically they're both correct, since both refer to a PORTION of hyperspace; they simply relate to a different portion of it.
Like in an aircraft, "vertical" would mean altitude, while in a submarine it would mean depth.
So if someone said "we're going to move vertically and then travel to another part of the world, but we have to navigate carrfully or we might run into a reef or some shallows," then obviously they're referring to "vertical" as DEPTH; not altitude, not the astral or ethereal dimensions etc.

[General Donner]

Meanwhile I've already deduced that they are the same thing, from the fact that collision with a star will destroy the ship; since a star's higher mass-density, like that of a black hole, reaches deeper into subspace more than objects of lower mass-density-- not other dimensions. In fact, stars reach less into some dimensions, like superspace, than other things, largely by virtue of the fact that they do reach farther into subspace; so that further establishes that SW hyperspace is subspace.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the density of a star (i.e., G-type main-sequence star like our sun, rather than more exotic ones like white dwarfs) be less than that of a typical planet, being that the star is composed of diffuse gases and plasma, while our planet's mass is made up mostly of solids and liquids? In addition to containing mostly hydrogen and other light materials, as opposed to the metals and silicates of an Earth-like planet.

The total mass is certainly vastly greater, but it's also spread out over a much larger volume.

Also note the difference that Star Trek allows travel between different UNIVERSES, while star Wars doesm't.

I don't really see the point, but hyperdrive can do that as well in the EU, though it doesn't happen often. One example is in the old Otherspace RPG adventure.

[General Donner]

And a tractor-beam bends space more than a planet's gravity-well, at least for the affected area. It's like having an oil-well vs. the Grand Canyon, i.e. it's not as wide but you fall a helluva lot further if you step in.

And of course, you have evidence of this, right?

I think he might be on to something. We know that most SW starships are easily capable of exceeding 1G. Yet they tend to strain against the tractor beams. Logically, then, those would have to exert a greater force on their targets than surface-level planetary gravity. And if they work by a gravitic mechanism, they should logically have similarly space-warping effects.

Of course, the fact that their effects are directional makes them quite magical in any case, even if they are gravity-based, in turn making predictions from known properties of gravity fields ... difficult. So I can see your point as well.

[Khas]

Then, if subspace and hyperspace are two different things in ST, WHY WOULD YOU ASSUME THAT THEY'RE ONE AND THE SAME? If hyperspace wasn't mentioned in ST, then you're little pet theory would be an interesting idea. But since we've heard both be mentioned, we know that they're not. Also, YOU'RE STILL ASSUMING ST AND SW ARE THE SAME FRANCHISE!

You really should learn to read, since you're getting everything 100% backwards.
Just to make it simpler for you:

Star TREK: Hyperspace = superspace
Star WARS: Hyperspace = SUB-space

Easy peasy!

Technically they're both correct, since both refer to a PORTION of hyperspace; they simply relate to a different portion of it.
Like in an aircraft, "vertical" would mean altitude, while in a submarine it would mean depth.
So if someone said "we're going to move vertically and then travel to another part of the world, but we have to navigate carrfully or we might run into a reef or some shallows," then obviously they're referring to "vertical" as DEPTH; not altitude, not the astral or ethereal dimensions etc.

Since you've failed to provide, oh, I don't know, ACTUAL EVIDENCE, I'm just going to write this off as more baseless fan theory.