-3

Which ship can go faster, the Millennium Falcon or the USS Enterprise?

I am quoting my argument here:

@Valorum You aren't getting my point. It's the standards I am talking about. Star Trek presumably uses standard Earth year (in the light year definition) which has 365 days, each day containing 24 hours, each hour containing 60 minutes or so. There are many ways in which distance denoted by light year in one universe can be different from that in another universe. Maybe, Star Wars uses 100 days year or second, minute definition is entirely different.

So, the Millennium Falcon travelling 70000 light years in a few hours could be equivalent to travelling 700 light years by Star Trek standards.

I am aware of this question: Star Wars Time Measurement and Dating Systems

But it doesn't address a thing. If there's no official statement saying standards are the same and all unit definitions aren't given in the canon, we just don't have enough details.

Also, from one of my answers:

There are other issues, too. We don't know for sure if physics and fundamental constants of both universes are same. And, I've a lead here. In Star Wars universe, there's this thing called "The Force" exists. What if midichlorians interact with photons to reduce speed of light in vacuum significantly?

How exactly is the community finding the common ground between both Star Trek and Star Wars universes to see the possibility of an objective answer?

||||||
  • 7
    None of such questions can be answered with 100% percent accuracy unless we make some assumptions. In this particular case it is reasonable to assume that the Starfleet and the Galaxy Far Far Away use the same measure for the speed of light. As one of the persons who voted to leave the question open when it came up in the close queue, I fully support the decision to reopen it. Your argument sounds a bit like nitpicking, and apart from it the question fits nicely under "Elephant vs. Terminator" and "Good Subjective, Almost Objective". – Gallifreyan Mar 23 '17 at 8:45
  • 2
    Is it a reasonable assumption? I now have this image of the Star Wars galaxy as being exceedingly tiny. Although it's hard to imagine a scale where the Enterprise is faster. – Z. Cochrane Mar 23 '17 at 10:11
  • 7
    'Keep reopening'? It was closed once, and reopened once. – Mithical Mar 23 '17 at 11:01
  • 3
    This question isn't asking about the Force or Midi-Chlorians. It's asking about the mundane aspects of interstellar travel. – Valorum Mar 23 '17 at 15:30
  • 2
    Required reading: Gorilla vs. Shark - a Longer Explanation – Valorum Mar 23 '17 at 15:34
  • 17
    If you think it's such a bad question, then you shouldn't have answered it... twice. – Molag Bal Mar 23 '17 at 16:50
15

I can't speak for those who voted to reopen, but my personal opinion is that your argument is fundamentally flawed. What you seem to be saying is that there's simply no objective way to determine that what counts as a light-year in the Star Wars fictional universe is the same as a light-year in the Star Trek fictional universe. I'd argue that this approach is hypercritical.


In short, if you've found good reason to assume that they aren't the same then that would form the basis for an excellent answer of your own and you could encourage other users (via comment) to weigh your evidence when deciding to up or downvote other answers.

If you've found no reason to assume that they aren't the same, then your argument has no merit. It's not down to the questioner to prove every crackpot hypothesis that comes along before they're allowed to ask a question that compares fictional universes. They're entitled to assume that there are fundamental constants (time, date, distance, measure, etc) until you can show otherwise.


Purely for the record, it's worth noting that both Star Wars and Star Trek take place within a fictionalised version of our own universe which means that we can reasonably compare like-with-like as long as we're asking questions which are essentially objective (fastest, tallest, oldest, etc).

||||||
  • 4
    My understanding (and personal rule of thumb) when reading questions for being on-topic or not is, we generally assume that Earth-like things that appear in the universe work like they do on Earth (units with the same name; laws of physics; human body; animals, etc) unless and until there's some reason to think otherwise. – KutuluMike Apr 5 '17 at 21:05
0

The question linked by OP should be closed.

First, neither universe is our own. Both feature FTL travel which is impossible, and in Star Wars there's the Force (which clearly doesn't exist here). Both are fundamentally different, thus, we can't assume what should work in ours, would work for either.

Second, warp speed in Star Trek is too variable. It was supposed to take Voyager 75 years to go 75,000 ish light years. Once in TOS, Kirk's ship was stated to be able to go 1,000 ly in 8 hours. The math makes Kirk's older ship absurdly faster. There are other examples.

Third, the question really doesn't specify which Enterprise, and as I've noted with the inconsistencies, the choice of ship will impact the answer greatly.

Fourth, trying to come up with a standard rule will, by point 2, exclude some of Star Trek canon. Which parts to exclude is an opinion based judgement call.

Lastly, the premise of the question is asking us to compare the impossible to reach top speed of two imaginary ships travelling between imaginary places from two different imaginary universes. I'm at a loss to see how anyone could think that's objectively answerable.

Ultimately, I think this question remains open because it's fun to pit Star Wars vs Star Trek and it's less fun to close the question because it's off topic.

||||||
  • 3
    Although I'll happily admit that there are some "early episode inconsistencies" in both Star Wars and Star Trek, both eventually settled down and regularised their universes re: travel speeds and the size and composition of the galaxy in which their stories take place. There's no good reason you can't compare like with like. – Valorum Mar 6 at 15:20
  • 1
    @Valorum, we've had this conversation on the original question already. We fundamentally disagree that these universes are anything alike. – GridAlien Mar 6 at 15:23
  • 5
    @GridAlien - The problem here is that you've fundamentally misunderstood how gorilla vs. shark works. If the question is "who'd win in a fight", that's off-topic. If the question is "which has the most fins", that's answerable. – Valorum Mar 6 at 15:25
  • 1
    @Valorum, my problem with this question isn't so much Wars V Trek, it's that I'd argue this isn't even objectively answerable within Trek. Ergo, it can't be expanded outside of it. – GridAlien Mar 6 at 15:30
  • Although I'll admit that accuracy may be an issue, you can't possibly argue that the fact that Star Wars ships can cross their galaxy in hours where it would take a Star Wars vessel a hundred years suggests anything other than one being faster than the other. – Valorum Mar 6 at 15:37
  • @Valorum, or if you're Kirk's ship, it takes 100 days. Perhaps the time difference has something to do with the fact that they're two completely different universes. Or maybe the galaxies are different sizes. Either way, I really can't objectively answer. – GridAlien Mar 6 at 15:43
  • 2
    You've just answered it though. One takes 100 days, the other takes decades. Do you not see the irony? – Valorum Mar 6 at 15:54
  • @Valorum I answered nothing. Kirk's ship can travel the Milkyway in 100 days. How fast can it cross Skyriver? I don't know. Skyriver isn't even in the same universe. There's no way for me to objectively answer. – GridAlien Mar 6 at 16:01
  • Skyriver is in our universe. It's just set in a Galaxy that's far, far away. – Valorum Mar 6 at 16:16
  • @Valorum we've been over this, the Force does not exist in our universe (ergo, Star Wars doesn't either). Please read (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychokinesis) the physics section to see why. NB: Star Trek also doesn't exist in our universe, as we've avoided the Eugenics Wars. – GridAlien Mar 6 at 16:19
  • 2
    @GridAlien You understand how science fiction and fantasy work, right? Even when set in our universe, the stories still introduce fictional elements. Although ST and SW exist in different fictional versions of our universe, they are still both explicitly based off our universe; so using it as a comparison point is entirely appropriate, given that both stories also use it as their basis. – JMac Mar 7 at 13:38

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .