I think kara's statement is true to a degree - ships follow the energy minimum principle in subspace too - however it doesn't mean that by putting in exessive energy you can't alter the exit point.
However I think generally it is a very good approach - and has a bit of scientific validity to it -, since it can explain a lot of things if we examine :V: n-dimensional techno-babble with the energy minimum as one of our principles.
Subspace is defined as moving among the n-th dimension of normal space - so actually you're moving in space just like ours, except not among x, y, z or any combination of the conventional axis, but in THAT way that's still perindicular to all directions you may come up with.
It is accepted that the presence of a gravitational field makes entering and moving in subspace easier - hence the lower energy treshold on intrasystem jumps.
This is also the reason why you're often relativly close to planets - their gravitic field adds an even greater kick to the relation.Kara's application of the energy minimum principle superbly works with this:
In a gravitic field you have negative potential energy, this energy is the same ammount that the gravitic field's work produced.
By forcing the field to actually output energy - and lower your own - you can reduce the energy nivo of the jump tremendously.
I think that gravity still affects you in subspace and objects in real space also simultaniously exist in subspace too.
The Psamtik's misjump - thanks to the Sath's presence - is good canon evidence.
Therefore it's not like two separate universes that overlap in certain places.
Normal space and subspace are one and the same.
Moving in subspace is actually moving in finer the structure of space-time that normally results in miniscule distortions only detectable on the quantum scale.
So any object in real space will also appear in subspace too. However this doesn't prevent you from seemingly (from real space) going through it. In fact you go by it.
Imagine a ball - we live on its surface that is normal space - however under cetain circumstances its normally solid walls become gasesous and we can burrow through the ball.
An observer in normal space who can monitor our progress (SS-tracking?) may see us go faster that the speed of light, since all he sees is our trace on the surface of the ball and can't measure our direct course inside the ball.
OK, but if that's so there are things inside the ball and on its surface and its pretty much the two-worlds model? Right?
The ball is a good enough representation for the outside observer, however it doesn't properly describe the structure of space time. We don't puch a hole in it even if it appears to be so from elsewhere. We just move along inside it in a different manner.
From the internal observer, each and every single object in real space will be present in subspace too.
How can we achieve that? The moebius came to my mind as the object with similar qualities. Its dual nature provided the inspiration for my explanation:
When I'm moving on a piece of paper I can move 2 diretions.
Imgine that the paper has bump in it.
When I enter and go on the bump I still percieve space as a 2 dimensional thing, however since I actually move in 3D I will realise that although I move as usual my movement won't properly correlate with my progress - distances will grow and I will be freaked out as suddenly my own speed seems to reduce and space itself expand around me.
Subspace works exactly like that except it does the opposite of that effect - space seems to shrink and close in on itself. We live warped piece of paper and when I move in subspace I force the paper to flaten out and shrink.
Why is this explanation any better that the burrowed through ball?
In the ball model I suddenly change my very nature from moving in a semi 2D manner to pure 3D - my whole perception of space changes. Which isn't the case with subspace.
The ball model also forces the universe to have a great concentraion among its "normal dimensions", while IMHO it is much more likely that it has a similar distribution pattern along all dimension.
Finally in the warped paper model even when I'm moving on the wapred or flat paper everything is still on the same piece of paper moving along it in the same manner, all that changes is the distance and thereby their interaction with me when I move on the paper in a different state.
So the warped paper model qualifies the one and the same approach I took to subspace.
What does this translate to in practice?
If I jump in a solar system all the stellar bodies will still be present and their gravity will act on me - a beneficial thing if I move towards the sun or any other body.
OK, but then I can only go in one direction without inputing massive ammounts of energy.
Not necessarly - it's all a matter of how I warp the paper/space. If make it so that a different stellar body appears closer to me with the difference in its matter calculated for I can force the planet (for instance Jupiter in Sol) to work against the sun, and if the space is warped toward the destination more it wil have a greater force pulling me there.
The nice thing about this model also explains why most of the time I don't have to use any prolusion in subspace (though I'm able to since it interacts with me just like normal space) - I simply let gravity take its toll, and it can accelerate me faster and cheaper than any concievable engine.
This also explains why I can't make long jumps anywher - if I made such a long jump in a changing gravitational environment, amplified by the warp the tidal forces could pretty much shred me to tiny bits and pieces.
What's the explanation behind jump nodes?
Compared to planets, stars are very-very far. To achieve a warp of sufficient magnitude toward the destination star to overpower my own I have to input a gargantuan ammount of energy.
In theory with sufficeint energy I could jump to any given star - the problem is that I might as well burn the very star I want to jump from to achieve the effect since the energy nivo can be so high (Capella anyone?).
Therefore I must look for weak spost - stars closest to my own.
Beside those, being at certain Lagrange points could also make my life easier since the planets in the system can add a little boost, and the isotrope gravitational fields of these orbits also makes the calculation and seemless transition easier.
However when I spoke of this warp in our paper space I never took into account a crucial fact beside the warping capacity of gravitation fields:
Who ever said that space itself is homogene, isotrop in all directions on all dimensions.
Our experiences with it so far seemed to appear so, however soon we learnt gravitation practically warps space time (the intial effect used to initiate a jump).
If space was so even, why do we have these irregularities - stars, galaxies?
When the BIG BOOM took place, small irregularities must have arisen. With those similar irregularities may be inherent to the geomerty of space itself.
Between some stars, this legacy of the BOOM may still live a warp in the fabric still existing. In some instances it may even move, or change with time creating unstable nodes, while otherwise the participants have stabilized it with their pull.
(The Knososs can't create a node, it merly stabilizes one).
Therefore beside factors of gravity and inherent warp can exist in space. Areas in a solar system where or in space where we can slip into this pre-created / inherited warps is what we could define as a node.
