I think part of the issue is one that's more of an externally imposed cultural difference.
Which explains the B5 end, but not the Trek end. Why has no-one in Trek heard of jump gates, or hyperspace? Even if they added nothing to Trek tech capabilities, debatable, it's still the kind of discovery that would win a Noble prize. Someone would have to be supressing it, in every one of a myriad worlds, and if that, what else?
The implications could cast the entire Trek universe in a different light. How much of what Q, the Organians, and their like have said and implied is true, how much part of some vast experiment? Could the great barrier round the galaxy just be the wall of a petri dish? And so on.
(I could ask too about Jack the Ripper, in one universe a man recruited by the Vorlons, in the other an energy being, and yet they did the exact same thing. That's too big a coincidence not be planned, but by who?)
You may not want to open those bags of worms..
Makes you wonder if the Organians and Melkots and Q are playing their own game against the Shadows and Vorlons, in A Thin Veneer, doesn't it?
There are names for those who use force to impose their views on those too weak to fight back, some good, some bad; but they apply just as much to godlike powers acting through unwitting proxies. Both Shadows and Vorlons are certainly wrong, but Q doesn't strike me as an embodiment of right either. He's a trickster, never to be trusted.
However, all this is really answering the wrong question.
What really matters is not how the Trek and B5 universe work, but what makes a good story?
The story comes first, always.
When the scenery comes first, you have a travelogue. When the author's philosophy come first, you have propaganda. (Plot and character I'm counting as two halves of a whole; a great story needs both, working well together.)
Both canons are loosely enough defined that an author can easily bend them to fit almost any story, a simple matter of flexible interpretation. With a good author, and a good story, the reader will neither notice nor care.
If the Enterprise crew vastly outgun their antagonists they can easily come across as smug bullies, a trap which takes a skilled author to avoid. Inventing a small incompatability in the laws of physics (and it would be pure authorial invention) is just one way of levelling the playing field, and avoiding that problem, for the sake of a better story.
Which explains the B5 end, but not the Trek end. Why has no-one in Trek heard of jump gates, or hyperspace? Even if they added nothing to Trek tech capabilities, debatable, it's still the kind of discovery that would win a Noble prize. Someone would have to be supressing it, in every one of a myriad worlds, and if that, what else?
The implications could cast the entire Trek universe in a different light. How much of what Q, the Organians, and their like have said and implied is true, how much part of some vast experiment? Could the great barrier round the galaxy just be the wall of a petri dish? And so on.
(I could ask too about Jack the Ripper, in one universe a man recruited by the Vorlons, in the other an energy being, and yet they did the exact same thing. That's too big a coincidence not be planned, but by who?)
You may not want to open those bags of worms..
Makes you wonder if the Organians and Melkots and Q are playing their own game against the Shadows and Vorlons, in A Thin Veneer, doesn't it?
There are names for those who use force to impose their views on those too weak to fight back, some good, some bad; but they apply just as much to godlike powers acting through unwitting proxies. Both Shadows and Vorlons are certainly wrong, but Q doesn't strike me as an embodiment of right either. He's a trickster, never to be trusted.
However, all this is really answering the wrong question.
What really matters is not how the Trek and B5 universe work, but what makes a good story?
The story comes first, always.
When the scenery comes first, you have a travelogue. When the author's philosophy come first, you have propaganda. (Plot and character I'm counting as two halves of a whole; a great story needs both, working well together.)
Both canons are loosely enough defined that an author can easily bend them to fit almost any story, a simple matter of flexible interpretation. With a good author, and a good story, the reader will neither notice nor care.
If the Enterprise crew vastly outgun their antagonists they can easily come across as smug bullies, a trap which takes a skilled author to avoid. Inventing a small incompatability in the laws of physics (and it would be pure authorial invention) is just one way of levelling the playing field, and avoiding that problem, for the sake of a better story.