Nature of Empire vs. Federation technology

[User1446]

I'll say: inertia is created by universal gravity,

Is it? Are you sure?

Absolutely, it's what creates 3-D space in the first place, i.e. a warping of 2-D flat space.

We "know" at least the simpler fact that inertial mass and gravitational mass are intrinsically linked in the ST universe, thanks to - oh - "Deja Q."
We strongly suspect they're intrinsically linked in reality, too. But does this hold in the funsics of SW?

Actually it bears out that they're based on E-M rather than graviton-based. This would mean that EM-based pulses are applied against the surface of the planet, similar to EM-based ship-gravity.

We can't be quite sure without checking to see if there's an exception buried somewhere in whatever we consider canon.

It's fairly obvious, if they use repulsor anti-gravs for take-off and land, but depend on ion-engines for thrust in outer space. Likewise other SW tech seems EM-based, other than hyperdrive which seems hyperdimensional; Star Trek knew of this type of transport, but it had negative health-effects over prolonged use.

therefore one could repulsor-move in any direction, just by repulsing against inertia in the opposite one. The fact that it only works against the local gravity of a planet, indicates that they don't know much.

Not necessarily. There can be all manner of reasons why the antigravity "lenses" or "mirrors" might only be able to effectively focus/reflect the gravitational fields of easily perceived objects, or for an antigravity "field" to only be sensitive to the differences locally visible within it.

All gravity is local to the object it affects, via local gravitons. However again if repulsors were EM-based, then it would need a local object to repulse against.

We know, in other words, that antigravity drive has these limitations in SW; we don't know if it's intrinsic to the type of technology, or if they simply haven't figured out how to use it properly as you seem to be suggesting

But the simplest explanation is that it's EM-based: meanwhile the only alternative seems to be that it's some type of unknown physics which we don't see elsewhere and can't explain.

[Jedi Master Spock]

Absolutely, it's what creates 3-D space in the first place, i.e. a warping of 2-D flat space.

According to a model of physics consistent with transporter beams and fusion-powered FTL drives? Think about that carefully for a minute.

Also, is inertia a vectored quantity, to be redirected or pushed against? Think about that carefully, too.

Actually it bears out that they're based on E-M rather than graviton-based. This would mean that EM-based pulses are applied against the surface of the planet, similar to EM-based ship-gravity.

Do you have anything more recent than early script ANH script drafts to base this on?

It's fairly obvious, if they use repulsor anti-gravs for take-off and land, but depend on ion-engines for thrust in outer space. Likewise other SW tech seems EM-based, other than hyperdrive which seems hyperdimensional; Star Trek knew of this type of transport, but it had negative health-effects over prolonged use.

99% of technology is "EM-based." That doesn't really say much.

All gravity is local to the object it affects, via local gravitons. However again if repulsors were EM-based, then it would need a local object to repulse against.

Then why talk about pushing against the gravity well at all?

But the simplest explanation is that it's EM-based: meanwhile the only alternative seems to be that it's some type of unknown physics which we don't see elsewhere and can't explain.

Saying that it's EM-based isn't really a simple explanation, IMO.

We know magnetic levitation. It's a pain in the butt to shoehorn with a ship that lifts off to several planetary diameters away. It's a pain in the butt to use EM fields to simulate gravity - you have a mix of paramagnetic and ferromagnetic materials with diamagnetic materials, and they tend not to move the same ways in EM fields. Then there's the trouble of having to shield devices from interference.

"Unknown physics"? Yes. That we don't see elsewhere and can't explain? No. We have three to five different technologies in this grouping in Star Wars alone: Shipboard artificial gravity, tractor beams, antigravity drive, shields, and repulsorlifts. Adding in Star Trek, of course, adds the warp field and impulse technologies to the list, along with perhaps a handful of miscellaneous rarely-seen technologies.

ST explicitly uses graviton-manipulation technologies; if the two universes share a physics, as is more or less necessary to have a crossover scenario, then we are already forced to invent the precise same "unknown physics" that SW antigravity technology entails.

Which is the simpler explanation: That the Federation has mastered graviton manipulation and uses it for artificial gravity and also the Star Wars galaxy uses an unknown highly sophisticated electromagnetic technique for mimicking the manipulation of gravitons, or that scientists of both universes have mastered the essentially similar arts of generating fields in which the direction and efficiency of interactions with gravity can be tightly controlled?

[Lucky]

Electromagnetism can be used to over come gravity in the real world the way repulsor lifts do, and that fits Star Wars tech better then gravity.

Really?
How, praytell, can it be used in such a way?

I thought everyone knew about this sort of stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_levitation_device

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionocraft

It often gets mislabeled as anti-gravity.

And how, again, can a culture create artificial gravity such as seen in the MF with no control over gravity?

We know they have some way to produce artificial gravity, but that does not mean they can just bounce some gravitons off a shield dome any time they want to. They don't even use gravity as part of a standard sensor system.

[Lucky]

I just remembered this passage from the ANH novelization on page 110:

"The mathematics of spacedrive were simple enough even to Luke. Antigrav could operate only when there was a sufficent gravity well to push against---like that of a planet---whereas supralight travel could only take place when a ship was clear of that same gravity. Hence the necessity for the dual-drive system on any extrasystem spacecraft."

So it would seem that replusorlift is an antigravity system, not simply electromagnetic.
-Mike

Sounds like someone mixed up gravity and magnetism.

[Lucky]

Star Wars certainly does use an advanced form of artifical gravity, and if we go by the EU, Interdictor class Star Destroyers can create artifical gravity wells.
-Mike

Just because it is big does not mean advanced. I've never seen anything that makes me think that an Interdictor field is anything more then the standard A.G. with more power running to it.

[Who is like God arbour]

I have a question:

If we assume that the by a ship created artificial gravity is real gravitation and not something that only simulates the effects of it, and this gravity is as strong as the gravity of a planet, why has a ship in orbit of a planet not detrimental effects on this planet?

Shouldn't it be as if there were another planet in the orbit?

The moon has only 0.0123 of Earths mass and is more than 350.000 km away from Earth. But the moon still is responsible for tide on Earth.

Now imagine what would happen if an object, that has the gravity of an earth-like planet, suddenly appears a few hundred kilometers above the surface of Earth.

[User1446]

Absolutely, it's what creates 3-D space in the first place, i.e. a warping of 2-D flat space.

According to a model of physics consistent with transporter beams and fusion-powered FTL drives? Think about that carefully for a minute.

I’m not sure what you mean: it’s essential to FTL (warp) drive., while there’s nothing inconsistent with transporter-beams.

Also, is inertia a vectored quantity, to be redirected or pushed against? Think about that carefully, too.

Of course, though it’s omnirectional like water in the ocean; if you push against it one way, you move in the other, like a submarine’s prop.

Actually it bears out that they're based on E-M rather than graviton-based. This would mean that EM-based pulses are applied against the surface of the planet, similar to EM-based ship-gravity.

Do you have anything more recent than early script ANH script drafts to base this on?

It’s demonstrated everywhere in their tech: Luke’s speeder, the cars on Coruscant, the troop-transports in AotC, Yoda’s hover-disc, the scout-bikes on Endor etc. They can rise a ways above the ground, and move vertically, but any higher requires engaging the ion-thrusters, just like Jango Fett’s jetpack uses A-R thrust.

99% of technology is "EM-based." That doesn't really say much.

So is very atom, which says everything.

All gravity is local to the object it affects, via local gravitons. However again if repulsors were EM-based, then it would need a local object to repulse against.

Then why talk about pushing against the gravity well at all?

I never said anything about a gravity-well: I said the planet itself, i.e. pushing directly against solid ground. The fact that repulsors only operate in the vicinity of a planet, indicates that they are EM-based.

Saying that it's EM-based isn't really a simple explanation, IMO.

Simplicity is relative to the number of independent variables between alternatives: ergo it is the simplest explanation, since it has fewest.

We know magnetic levitation. It's a pain in the butt to shoehorn with a ship that lifts off to several planetary diameters away.

Is there a G-canon example of ships lifting that high with repulsors? Even the AotC troop-transports have their ion-engines visibly engaged at takeoff, when shown transporting the clones at the end.

It's a pain in the butt to use EM fields to simulate gravity - you have a mix of paramagnetic and ferromagnetic materials with diamagnetic materials, and they tend not to move the same ways in EM fields. Then there's the trouble of having to shield devices from interference.

Again, this confuses simple magnetism, with electromagnetism used by atoms to give their solid properties: just like confusing electrons with simple electricity.

"Unknown physics"? Yes. That we don't see elsewhere and can't explain? No. We have three to five different technologies in this grouping in Star Wars alone: Shipboard artificial gravity, tractor beams, antigravity drive, shields, and repulsorlifts. Adding in Star Trek, of course, adds the warp field and impulse technologies to the list, along with perhaps a handful of miscellaneous rarely-seen technologies.

Again, it all comes down to the type of energy used, i.e. EM vs. gravitational. Of the two, gravitational is the higher tech, and would determine the winner in any encounter, just like flight.
Consider the following: you’re facing 1,000 Sherman tanks: and you’ve got one F-16 with an infinite number of armor-piercing bullets, while they have no anti-aircraft ability. Obviously you’re going to win, it’s just a matter of time.

ST explicitly uses graviton-manipulation technologies; if the two universes share a physics, as is more or less necessary to have a crossover scenario, then we are already forced to invent the precise same "unknown physics" that SW antigravity technology entails.

Every place in the universe shares the same physics. SW says that it takes place in a faraway galaxy: that implies that it’s in the same universe. Ergo, it has the same physics.

Which is the simpler explanation: That the Federation has mastered graviton manipulation and uses it for artificial gravity and also the Star Wars galaxy uses an unknown highly sophisticated electromagnetic technique for mimicking the manipulation of gravitons, or that scientists of both universes have mastered the essentially similar arts of generating fields in which the direction and efficiency of interactions with gravity can be tightly controlled?

Neither. The simplest explanation is that while ST has mastered the use of gravitational energy, while SW is still stuck with EM-based, despite having advanced applications thereof.
Likewise, SW has tractor-beams, but no deflectors: in TESB, for example, the ISD is shown shooting the the asteroids to keep them from hitting the ship.
This fits well with EM-based tech, since it’s like attaching a cable to something: i.e. they can pull it, but not push it (though they can push against something the solid ground of a planet at close distance). In contrast, ST has both tractors and deflectors, indicative of gravitational tech.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Well according to non-mainstream physics, some would say that EM and gravity are not exclusive. So who knows. These civilizations are supposedly much more advanced than ours.

[Praeothmin]

I thought everyone knew about this sort of stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_levitation_device

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionocraft

It often gets mislabeled as anti-gravity.

We know they have some way to produce artificial gravity, but that does not mean they can just bounce some gravitons off a shield dome any time they want to. They don't even use gravity as part of a standard sensor system.

I knew about the Maglev, but not the Ionocraft.
Nice.
But the Maglev needs something magnetic to push from, it cannot do it simply in the air.
And the Ionocraft is nothing more then a rocket using Ionized air, it doesn't act like a true SW antigrav unit...

Likewise, SW has tractor-beams, but no deflectors: in TESB, for example, the ISD is shown shooting the the asteroids to keep them from hitting the ship.
This fits well with EM-based tech, since it’s like attaching a cable to something: i.e. they can pull it, but not push it (though they can push against something the solid ground of a planet at close distance). In contrast, ST has both tractors and deflectors, indicative of gravitational tech.

SW do have deflectors, as stated in the G-Canon movies.
And the ISD's may have been firing at asteroids to keep them from hitting the ship and damaging the deflectors, because one of the ships that entered the asteroid fields was destroyed by one such asteroid.
And Picard, while commanding the E-D, even with deflectors, did not want to venture in an asteroid field, because they feared damaging the ship...

[User1446]

Likewise, SW has tractor-beams, but no deflectors: in TESB, for example, the ISD is shown shooting the the asteroids to keep them from hitting the ship.
This fits well with EM-based tech, since it’s like attaching a cable to something: i.e. they can pull it, but not push it (though they can push against something the solid ground of a planet at close distance). In contrast, ST has both tractors and deflectors, indicative of gravitational tech.

SW do have deflectors, as stated in the G-Canon movies.

Defliector shields I've heard stated, but where do the mention deflctor-beams?

And the ISD's may have been firing at asteroids to keep them from hitting the ship and damaging the deflectors, because one of the ships that entered the asteroid fields was destroyed by one such asteroid.

A deflector-beam would make more sense than a turbolaser-shot: which indicates even more that the ISD doesn't have any defletor-beams.
The only times that an ST ship fired on an asteroid to protect the ship was in TMP, and this was because it was trapped in a wormhole with them on a collision-course, so deflectors wouldn't help.
In This Side of Paradise, the Spock has Enterprise fires on the asteroid after the deflector-beam doesn't have enough power, and that's just to split it in half: this not only fails, but burns out the engines as well. Here, the deflector-beam was visible due to the intensity and power: but none is visible in SW.

And Picard, while commanding the E-D, even with deflectors, did not want to venture in an asteroid field, because they feared damaging the ship...

But he didn't shoot them either, I assume. Which episode ws this please?

[Lucky]

I thought everyone knew about this sort of stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_levitation_device

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionocraft

It often gets mislabeled as anti-gravity.

We know they have some way to produce artificial gravity, but that does not mean they can just bounce some gravitons off a shield dome any time they want to. They don't even use gravity as part of a standard sensor system.

I knew about the Maglev, but not the Ionocraft.

Nice.

Lifter Anti-Gravity Myth has been BUSTED 1 of 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jk2GGoMJ7NU

Lifter Anti-Gravity Myth has been BUSTED 2 of 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0FusVb4Gp4

But the Maglev needs something magnetic to push from, it cannot do it simply in the air.

Like a planet perhaps? I've heard theoretical stuff about using the Earth's own magnetic field to fly using maglev tech.

And the Ionocraft is nothing more then a rocket using Ionized air, it doesn't act like a true SW antigrav unit...

How would Ion Lifter would appear different from a Star Wars Repulsor lift?

[Praeothmin]

Defliector shields I've heard stated, but where do the mention deflctor-beams?

Perhaps they don't feel they need them.
But they do have Deflector Technology...

A deflector-beam would make more sense than a turbolaser-shot: which indicates even more that the ISD doesn't have any defletor-beams.

How would it make more sense?
With a TL shot, you get rid of the asteroid, and don't risk deflecting it on your fighters, or other ships.
You don't risk deflecting it on another asteroid which can be fragmented and thus add to the navigational hazards of the area...

But he didn't shoot them either, I assume. Which episode ws this please?

TNG, Genesis...

How would Ion Lifter would appear different from a Star Wars Repulsor lift?

In the case of Yoda's chair, there doesn't seem to be any gaz coming out from under it, and it can move slowly sideways as well as stay at the same height, so clearly any type of "traditional" propulsion seems out of the question...

[User1446]

[quote="SarahStar]Defliector shields I've heard stated, but where do the mention deflctor-beams?

Perhaps they don't feel they need them.
But they do have Deflector Technology...
.[/quote][/quote]

You can't just say "deflector technology," which thus automatically gives them everything that Star Trek deflectors have. If you can't cite a spefic SW example of a deflector-beam being used, then you have to assume they don't have it.

[KirkSkyWalker]

[quote="SarahStar]Defliector shields I've heard stated, but where do the mention deflctor-beams?

Perhaps they don't feel they need them.
But they do have Deflector Technology...
.

[/quote]

You can't just say "deflector technology," which thus automatically gives them everything that Star Trek deflectors have. If you can't cite a spefic SW example of a deflector-beam being used, then you have to assume they don't have it.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

Those "deflector-shields" also seem to be electromagnetic in nature, not subspace-based like ST's. For example when the falcon departs Tatooine, Han says "angle the deflector shields," which implies that they require "angling" when gravity-based ones wouldn't.

[Praeothmin]

You can't just say "deflector technology," which thus automatically gives them everything that Star Trek deflectors have. If you can't cite a spefic SW example of a deflector-beam being used, then you have to assume they don't have it.

I'm not giving them anything they don't have.
They have Deflector Shields, which from the name implies deflector technology.
They probably don't have the beam, because as you said we never have a specific example of a Deflector Beam, but the reasons why they don't have them could just as well be because they never felt it was necessary to devellop the concept...

Those "deflector-shields" also seem to be electromagnetic in nature, not subspace-based like ST's. For example when the falcon departs Tatooine, Han says "angle the deflector shields," which implies that they require "angling" when gravity-based ones wouldn't.

And because thay can be angled, they cannot be graviton based?
ST Deflectors also need to be angled, by the way.
They are angled in front of the craft to deflect things out of the path of the ships.
SW has the capacity to change the angle of their Deflectors, which shows them having a capacity ST hasn't.
Oh, of course, KirkSkywalker, you will now provide evidence that because the Deflectors in SW can be angled, they must be electromagnetic in nature, and why this obligatory electromagnetism isn't applicable to Deflector "Beams"...