posted
I picked up a copy of the Nov issue of ST: The Magazine. The Star Trek Science column by Andre Bormanis is titled "The Road To Warp 5," and boy, does it open a can of worms!
He starts describing the warp speed table as being geometric, and then he drops this bombshell:
"This speed scale was established during the first season of Star Trek: The Next Generation and doesn't exactly conform to the warp factors referenced in the original series, but we plan to follow it on Enterprise."
So now we have a ship in 2151 cruising at 214c, when Kirk's ship in 2266 cruised at 216c! As my grandmother used to say, oy, gevalt!
-------------------- The difference between genius and idiocy? Genius has its limits.
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
They're preserving continuity by consistently screwing up the warptables and -speeds. Warp 5 is roughly 125c (TOS).
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
It's funny, though, that they clearly used the old scale in "Broken Bow". Bormanis could yet be overridden by Berman and Braga. It's something to ask you-know-who, but I really don't want to bother him about this.
Still, in "Broken Bow", the speeds corresponding to warp factors were definitely faster in practice. You just can't have Kronos within four days at TOS Warp 4.x. Likewise, you can't travel fifteen light-years to Rigel within the time span they're talking about. Maybe this is one way of partially fixing those problems -- use the faster TNG scale instead.
I'd prefer them, however, to stick to the TOS scale and use the characteristic huge speeds of that series to travel wherever they wanna go -- because really, if they stick to our neighborhood of stars, they'll have to mention a real star name once or twice, which would draw them into discussions of whether this or that star has habitable planets. Best to go as far as possible, where the chances of running into unknown or unnamed stars are greater.
posted
Hmm... new issue of The Magazine out. Need to go to Books-a-Million today.
-------------------- I'm slightly annoyed at Hobbes' rather rude decision to be much more attractive than me though. That's just rude. - PsyLiam, Oct 27, 2005.
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
MIB
Ex-Member
posted
OY! Looks like I have to drop by Barnes and Noble today. The Nov issue is already out? I thought it won't be released untill Oct. 2. Whatever. As long as it's here.
This is Berman trying to blow away the fans as if his screw you fanboy desk plate wasn't enough.
Has it occured to anyone that this all takes place before the "time barrier" mentioned in The Cage was broken? Maybe they mean it'll take four days ON THE SHIP, but it may well take two months to the outside world. We have no clue about the relativistic effects of early warp drives.
[ September 30, 2001: Message edited by: Omega ]
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Yipe! That may be an excellent way to explain a lot of the travel time inconsistencies that're bound to happen in "Enterprise". Unfortunately, TPTB may deem that too complicated for their audiences to handle...
posted
no. According to how warp drive is supposed to work, the ship itself is a sitting duck. The space around the ship is moving toward a certian destination taking the ship with it. Even though your going say 10,000 times the speed of light, 5 minutes that pass on the ship is still equal to 5 minutes on earth.
IP: Logged
posted
Yes, but that's 24th century warp drive. Some time in the early to mid 23rd century, a new technological breakthrough broke the "time barrier". There could easily be relativistic effects in early-model warp drives.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I think, by definition, "warp drive" is non-relativistic. You don't have relativistic effects if you aren't moving. And, in a warp drive, the term "warp" itself is a direct reference to the fact that, instead of moving, you're warping space.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
You don't have relativistic effects if you aren't moving. And, in a warp drive, the term "warp" itself is a direct reference to the fact that, instead of moving, you're warping space.
Where'd you get "instead"? In the 24th century, yeah, but perhaps in early drives, you have to be going a particular speed BEFORE you enter warp. This seems to be suported by Cochrane in First Contact, when they had to reach a critical velocity before they entered warp. So you could easily be traveling at warp, AND have some somrt of normal spatial speed that would lead to relativistic dilation.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: Yipe! That may be an excellent way to explain a lot of the travel time inconsistencies that're bound to happen in "Enterprise". Unfortunately, TPTB may deem that too complicated for their audiences to handle...
Mark
TPTB think that simple math is too complicated for their audience to handle--- or long term memory that's one none of us here have.... I forgot the rest of my rant. Go back to normal posting
-------------------- Later, J _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ The Last Person to post in the late Voyager Forum. Bashing both Voyager, Enterprise, and "The Bun" in one glorious post.
posted
If the rest of the audience is busily computing warp factors in their heads, I don't know if I want to be part of it.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
seeing as all that relativistic stuff made me dizzy, i just thought id help by adding that Archer said that, as they were approaching warp 5 around 4.5 or so, they were going 30,000,000 kilometers per second.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
