posted
In Insurrection, we learn that subspace weapons are banned in the Federation. However, in the thread just next door to this one, we're analyzing the subspace effects of the common phaser. I've got a refined definition of what a subspace weapon is, and I'm looking for comments.
A subspace weapon is any device that utilizes subspace in a primary role. That is, like the warp drive, it generates a subspace field to produce whatever the effects of the weapon are. A phaser, on the otherhand, only has secondary subspace effects. While it shunts matter into subspace, and possibly pulls energy out of it, it doesn't utilize subspace itself to do this.
In other words, a subspace weapon "pulls" subspace into normal space, while a phaser only utilizes energies present in normal space to produce subspace effects. That is, a phaser manipulates an object to push it into subspace, while a subspace weapon manipulates subspace itself. (For more on how I'm picturing subspace, I'd direct you to Paul Cargile's theories regarding the subject, but they don't appear to be online quite yet.)
Subspace weapons are banned because, unlike phasers, they have the ability to change the nature of subspace in the area they are used, and therefore may cause damage to the very fabric of spacetime.
I guess that's a little less clear then I'd like it to be.
------------------ "I'll turn everything around and confuse you. I'll fix it so you can't remember what was true." -- They Might Be Giants
posted
I thought that the reference to banned subspace weapons were specifically those that caused damage to the subspace continuum (effectively making it useless as a means of spaceflight). I think we're saying the same thing here which is that phasers don't actually do harm where as a 'subspace destruction' device obviously does.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
------------------ "The record of my unspeakable crimes, in previous lives, in previous times, indelibly stains the pages of history." -- They Might Be Giants