Going by that, if you continued to use the same factor to increase the number of times the speed of light that you are travelling you can achieve warp 15 (or whatever) and set warp 20 (as a multiple of C) as infinite speed.

------------------
Re: Russia in WWII

"Hey, we butchered Poles! Thats OK."
- DT.

------------------
Here lies a toppled god,
His fall was not a small one.
We did but build his pedestal,
A narrow and a tall one.

BTW, I did reread what you posted. And it still doesn't make sense. For example:

"and yes warp 13 is not faster than warp 10 but it will get you to a further distance quicker."

Soooo, you're saying that warp 13 is slower, or the same speed as warp 10. And yet it allows you to reach your destination quicker? Surely that means it's, well, faster? And if it's faster than warp 10, it's faster than infinity? Or, at the very least, the moment the Enterprise went to warp 13, it should have arrived at it's destination.
Unless you're proposing that some sort of time-dilation effect came into play, but the TNG manual states (I think) than time-dilation doesn't happen at warp speeds.

So, huh?

Regarding the recalibration of the warp scale. Thinking about it, the idea that they've gone back to the TOS scale isn't relaly satisfying either. Didn't the old Enterprise manage warp 13 in That Which Survives? Sure it was a couple of seconds away form breaking apart, but it still hit it. Going by that, Warp 13 wouldn't really be very fast for the Ent-D. Especially the future Ent-D.

------------------
"And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!"
-Bubbles

------------------
"I rather strongly disagree, even if I share the love of Dick. Speaking of which, that would be the most embarrasing .sig quote ever, so never use it."

[sarcasm mode]

Recalibration of the warp scale makes sense. Why? So captains don't have to order "increase to warp 9.99999 Mr. Helmsdude" and name all the decimals. Starships get faster you know, so instead of having to name seven numbers behind the decimal point each time, some incredibly smart person named Bob proposed to the engineers "hey what if instead of warp 9.99999999999999 we call it warp 13 and place warp 999 as infinite speed??????"

[/sarcasm mode]

None of this "faster than infinity" nonsense.

Okay, several points. Who said that they reverted to the TOS scale? The TOS scale, I believe, places warp factors at the cube of the speed of light. What if they recalibrated the scale to make the current warp 10 warp 9 and made the rest fractional increases, such as the new warp 10 equating to the old 9.99, and warp 11 to 9.9999 and so on. I think someone mentioned this idea, above, but in terms of riducule.

This would work, too, since I believe the power use/velocity curve given is a reversed exponential graph. As you approach infinity, you get less bang for your buck, less speed for your power.

also, directly from TNG:TM -

"The propulsive effect is achieved by a number of factors working in concert. First, the field formation is controllable in a fore to aft direction. As the plasma injecros fire sequentially, the warp field layers build according to the pulse frequency in the plasma, and press upon each other as previously discussed. The cumulative field layer forces reduce the apparent mass of the vehicle and impart the required velocities. The critical transition point occurs when the spacecraft appears to an outside observer to be traveling faster than c. As the warp field energy reaches 1000 millicochranes, the ship appears driven across the c boundary in less than Planck time, 1.3times 10 to the negative 43 sec, warp physics insuring that the ship would never be precisely at c. The three forward coils of each nacelle operate with a slight frequency offset to reinforce the field ahead of the Bussard ramscoop and envelop the Saucer Module. This helps create the field asymmetry required to drive the ship forward."

There it is, in a nutshell. Letsalope was canonically correct. The ship does not ever exceed the speed of light. It *appears* to break the c barrier at 1000 millicochranes, but only to an outside observer. It will never reach 300,000 kps.

The TNG warp formula is c=w^10/3 up until Warp 9. From Warp 9 to 10, it approaches infinity.
I would guess that the AGT scale continues the w^10/3 equation past Warp 9. It might asign a new Warp Factor as infinite, but I don't think AGT gave us any indication of this, besides the fact that Warp 10 is no longer infinte speed.

code:

---

AGT? (c=w^10/3)..........TNG (from ST enc)...
Warp 9= 1516c............Warp 9= 1516c.......
Warp 10= 2154c...........Warp 9.2= 1649c.....
Warp 11= 2960c...........Warp 9.6= 1909c.....
Warp 12= 3954c...........Warp 9.9= 3054c.....
Warp 13= 5166c ..........Warp 9.99= 7912c ...

---

Of course, this is all conjecture. AGT could have been using an entirely new Warp formula, like c=w^11/3, or even c=w^4.

Sorry, but I am sorely tempet to go "blah blah blah, blah blah blah, blah, BLAH!"

It doesn't go faster than the speed of light in it's own bubble, but to the rest of the universe, it's going 1000 c? Sorry, but it's going faster than the speed of light.

Look, I know Trek fandom is built around nitpicking, but stopping a tread on warp to say that warp drive is slower than the speed of light, is well, uber-anal.

Whole warp factors are, in the TNG scale, distinct threshholds where the power consumption drops suddenly down. That's the onscreen excuse for why captains order warp 7 all the time instead of warp 6.999. Whole numbers are just more efficient. So I figure at some point in the AGT timeline someone discovered some more threshold levels above warp 9 where power usages drop the samw way. And they simply named them warp 10, 11, 12, 13 etc. Infinite speed was then renamed to warp 14 or 15 or something.

I think that's better than assuming they developed a completely new scale or went back to the TOS scale.

That was why It was deemed a failure.

And no I don't remember the source (scott's guide?) but I heard it many years ago and it could be as good as some of the answers around here!

PsyLiam, Einstein's theory of relativity is based on what you just threw out the window. Relative observations made by observers in positions relative to each other. So, are you saying that you would rather completely ignore the accepted laws of physics and relativity?

If the ship *was* going faster than light, than time dilation and apparent increase in mass would occur as in any object exceeding 300,000 kps. Therefore we must conclude that the vessel itself is in fact not breaking that barrier. If you can explain your way around this minor fact, please feel free to do so.

The explanation of warp drive given in the TNG:TM *fits* even if it doesn't make a whole lot of sense on the surface. To toss it aside rather than try to explain it is more ignorant than anal. I much prefer to be anal.

Meanwhile, I will diligently research Galilean and Einsteinien principles of relativity to see if I can explain this in a more reasonable context and with more detail or, in fact, prove myself wrong.

Everyone please feel free to comment.

BUT...I wasn't saying that their theories were "wrong" even in a Trek-universe sort of way. I was saying that pointing out that a ship going FTL is "tecnically" going slower than light in it's own bubble when it hasn't got anything to do with the conversation is at best anal, and at worst, a huge waste of time. Are we suppossed to put in qualifiers everytime we talk about warp speed?

Paris: "There's a Borg ship approaching. It's travelling slower than the speed of light, and it's 3 light years away."

Janeway: "Oh good. That gives us plenty of time to get away".

*Ship gets shot. Chakotay dies. Janeway is pissed. Everyone else cheers*

Janeway: "What happened?"

Paris: "Oh, it was going at warp 9.99999999billion. But it was "tecnically" travelling slower than the speed of light. So I'm right. BTW, we're about to die."

Janeway: "Duh".