[Flare]

Maybe this belongs out here, since it's not exactly a reason to hate Star Wars, but more a reason to slap Lucas upside the head.


Here's a general observation about the entire series: Was Albert Einstein wrong? According to the theory of relativity, time moves slower as a body moves faster, to the point where time stops once light speed is reached. Hyperspace is faster than light ("She'll make point five past light speed," said Han in Episode IV) so shouldn't the relative time of people in hyperspace move backwards? Shouldn't they arrive at their destination younger than when they started?

A friend of mine whose aunt works for LucasArts explained that Lucas' official explanation is something along the lines of "Since it takes place in a galaxy far, far away, the laws of physics from our galaxy don't all apply." What a cop-out explanation for failing to take that concept into consideration.

[Richard]

Uhhhhhhh... Yea it does seem like a cop out to me. It seemed a little unnecessary to say that something was travelling faster than the speed of light in the first place. I wish he wouldn't try to make up explanations for stuff that he didn't think through in the first place. I'd respect it if he just said 'Who cares? It doesn't really matter does it'. Instead, he pretends that he has some great plan for it all and that it all makes sense.

[civilian_number_two]

If faster-than-light travel is impossible, then interstellar commerce will be impossible. This renders impossible the sort of sci-fi that w're used to, which basically takes Earth-bound concepts of travel, commerce and warfare and places them in space.

Your complaint refers to a fiction accepted by pretty much all sci-fi authors and readers, and really can't be zeroed in on STAR WARS.

[Flare]

If faster-than-light travel is impossible, then interstellar commerce will be impossible.  This renders impossible the sort of sci-fi that w're used to, which basically takes Earth-bound concepts of travel, commerce and warfare and places them in space.

Your complaint refers to a fiction accepted by pretty much all sci-fi authors and readers, and really can't be zeroed in on STAR WARS.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not necessarily. You may have seen Lost in Space, in which they had invented faster-than-light travel that worked basically on the concept of teleportation, but which needed a device (transported by conventional space travel) at each end to work. This concept could have been adapted into Star Wars.

Of course, Lucas is bending and breaking enough laws of physics, so I suppose I can't focus too much on his unacceptance of the theory of relativity.

[civilian_number_two]

I don't see how faster-than-light travel with teleportation is necessarily more credible than faster-than-light travel without teleportation. They're both just fictional constructions to allow the space story to happen. STAR TREK used both, in fact, with warp drives as well as wormholes for getting folks around the galaxy.

I do think it's funny that as a counterpoint to STAR WARS you used LOST IN SPACE, a movie so bad I got my copy as a throw-in with an order of food from Pizza Hut (I turned down the copy of WEEKEND AT BERNIE'S).

[Chefelf]

I don't really have a problem with this for a few reasons. And, actually, it doesn't really run contradictory to Einstein's theory.

1.) Sci-Fi and Fantasy works when you establish the rules early on and then follow those rules. Hyperspace is a concept used by hundreds of SF authors and sometimes the science is explained, other times it isn't. At any rate it basically works assuming that space is folded and that going into Hyperspace is a way of bypassing those folds and creating a shortcut from point A to point B.

Sub-light engines don't appear to move at anything close to the speed of light so the effects of relativity would not really be seen except on a very small scale (depending on speed). Star Trek on the other hand would have some issues as they are routinely zipping around at ten times the speed of light.

If the SW universe accepts the theory of relativity it cannot be said. However, there's no real way to have any good galaxy-crossing SF without accepting the laws of hyperspace. How hyperspace works? Well, if we knew that we'd be living in that universe right now.

[Richard]

If the SW universe accepts the theory of relativity it cannot be said.  However, there's no real way to have any good galaxy-crossing SF without accepting the laws of hyperspace.  How hyperspace works?  Well, if we knew that we'd be living in that universe right now. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think it's cool to have unexplained / unexplainable stuff in a movie, and to have stuff that literally can't happen. But I think it gets silly when the writer defends it and tries to explain, backpedal and make an idiot out of themself, they try to appear more intelligent or more interesting than they are. They should just say 'I did it because it allows other things to happen, I know it doesn't make sense but it's not meant to'. That is a valid reason.

[jariten]

I bundle rules like Lightspeed Exists with other rules like Queens Are Elected, because they're laid down and enforced through continuity. Its a fantasy universe, and a place that i'd rather leave hard science out of.