quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: That's mostly gibberish to me. It sounds like taking averages or something, but my last math class was in 2002.
I took economics- I'll just buy warp-drive like a good Ferengi.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, I guess the "original" formula ("original" as in "shown on the first page of this thread") was arrived at by applying interpolation/extrapolation methods based on the available dataset (a certain number of pairs of values (W,v) ). So, I guess it can be done in pretty much the same way just by switching the axes around.
Taking a closer look, it seems they started with the general approach v=W^(10/3) and looked for a function that would modify it in such a way that the results wouldn't be affected for W less than or equal to 9 but would give the asymptotic curve for 9 less than W less than 10, with v tending towards infinite as W tends towards 10... so basically, for W less than or equal to 9, you have a bunch of zeroes for, say, Y (where Y equates the product a(W)*b(W)*c(W) in that formula) and some more non-zero values for 9 less than W less than 10. I can see how this would be practical for calculating v as f(W), but for finding W as g(v) (where actually v=h(Y) and thus W=g(h(Y)) ) with several values of W for the same value of Y (that is, 0) it certainly wouldn't...
So, let's just do it the other way around (compared to how it may have been originally done): start with W=v^(3/10) and find a function (or set of functions, if you like) such that W can be expressed as v^((3/10)*(1+F(v))) that passes through the known set of value pairs for (v,W)... the resulting values of W should approach 10 as v approaches infinity.
Let me try to express it in simpler terms... the "original" formula is an approximation based on available data and the approach v=W^(10/3*(1+f(W))), solving f(W) based on data pairs not of (W,v) but rather (W,y) where y=(3/10)*ln(v)/ln(W)-1. So, the inverse formula should also be an approximation, based on the same available data and the approach W=v^(3/10*(1-g(v))), solving g(v) based on pairs not of (v,W) but rather (v,z) where z=1-(10/3)*ln(W)/ln(v).
(The problem with that, as I mentioned earlier, is that you'll end up with several instances of z=0 for different values of W, so maybe it's a better idea to choose a generic W=g(v) instead, or maybe, W=v^(3/10)*g(v) at most.)
You decide what kind of function you want g(v) to be: logarithmic, exponential, polynomial, sinusoidal, etc. (or even a combination thereof) and use the available data to find the proper coefficients (keep in mind that whatever function you choose to try to adjust the data to, it will have to have fewer coefficients than the amount of data pairs available). You can try different functions and see which one gives the best approximation.
[ October 15, 2005, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: machf ]
Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
that works well while reading the newspapers too- try it!
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Or you can try brute-force iteration and, y'know, not lose your mind.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The problem with iteration is, you have to do it every time. Finding an approximation formula is something you only need to do once. And I believe the original idea was to find an inverse formula...
And finding an approximation isn't difficult at all, I was doing that kind of stuff 15+ years ago in BASIC on my Atari 800XL... I bet I could do it in JavaScript nowadays.
Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
This is related, yet a bit sidetracked. I made a revised warp scale- perhaps more like what was used in TNG - All Good things. Basically I did away with warp 10 being set at infinity- the idea being that advanced ships that are going faster and faster are always traveling at warp 9.something, and because of that, it became rather clunky to say: "Ensign, set course and engage, warp 9.95!" Thus I set warp 20 at infinity, and all numbers between warp 1-19 fall upon the same curve as the old TNG warp scale. This was only the numbers between warp 19 and 20 fall in that exponential curve toward infinity- and those speeds won't be attainable for some time.
In another forum I got spat upon for this concept *L* Cause they were under the understanding that Warp 10 must always be "infinite speed/existing at all points" and I disagree- it is just that way because that's where the arbitrary number was placed- and in the future, when ships go warp 13- they are really not traversing infinity... as warp 10 is really now the old warp 9.5. Please look at this page and tell me what you think: http://www.craigdannenberg.com/bajor/warp.html
Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
Not disagreeing that there needs to be higher warp factor numbers without redefining the current numbers again, but I don't think they would arbitrarily assign warp factor numbers to certain speeds. I'm in the camp that agrees with what Sternbach put in the TNG tech manual, that warp factor numbers correspond to energy output minimums, which is why you usually don't hear fractional warp numbers. Maybe at some point they discover new minimums past warp 9 that would be called warp 10, 11, etc. due to some better calibration of the warp field or whatever, but it wouldn't be a random pick just to allow for growth.
posted
I certainly agree, I'm not saying that all the warp factors were arbitrarily tossed out there- just warp 10 set at infinity was. All the other numbers fall on a nice curve until you hit warp 9- and then things become different- as all those decimals of warp 9 fall between 1,516 times the speed of light, and infinite speed- and all other decimals of warp factors fall between two actual numbers. So I stick with all of that, but just for the arbitrary Warp 10, I continue the warp curve on-
Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
Quite a nice idea. However I think your graphic suggests that TOS warpspeeds are slower. You have to use the third root of every y value to go back to TOS warpfactor.
For example: TOS wf 8 == TNG wf 6.5 (you get my point?)
I have a table that depicts what I mean on my homepage.
quote:Originally posted by Shakaar: I certainly agree, I'm not saying that all the warp factors were arbitrarily tossed out there- just warp 10 set at infinity was.
That statement implies that the (fictional) people that formalized the warp scale were idiots*. "Let's base 1-9 on some physical phenomenon, like energy minima. But then we'll make 10=infinite speed, for no particular reason."
Either there are just 9 energy minima, and hence the TNG warp scale is based on physical phenomena, or there aren't. If there are just 9, then your solution is to make 1-9 based on energy minima and invent 10 more (10-19) which aren't based on anything, and then declare 20 to be infinite, which makes even *less* sense than the TNG scale to begin with!
If there aren't 9 energy minima, then the whole thing is moot anyway since the TNG scale doesn't make any sense. I don't think you can have your cake and eat it, too.
You can actually infer something about what Warp 10 means from the mere fact that they use various fractions between 9 and 10. If the scale simply went "6, 7, 8, 9, ludicrous speed!" then Picard could simply order "let's get there in a jiffy" and they'd pick v=d/jiffy and be done with it. Instead, they pile on the ever more ominous sounding fractions "9.6... 9.7... 9.8.... 9.85... 9.9..." as the ship starts to buckle. Measuring a boundless dimension with a finite scale isn't anything special, but the correlation between the position on the finite scale and the effects are a solid part of the show.
IMHO, either look at the TNG warp scale as an elegant plot device and marvel in its beauty, or dispense with it entirely. Hacking it just makes it really ugly.
* Or, similarly, politicians. I'd buy that argument.
posted
If Picard said "let's get there in a jiffy", data's head would have exploded.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
"If there aren't 9 energy minima, then the whole thing is moot anyway since the TNG scale doesn't make any sense. I don't think you can have your cake and eat it, too."
Well, it should make sense for TNG. It would only be after this era that scientists realize they have been in partial error. Happens all the time in the real world. The lines in the visible part of absorption spectra weren't invalidated when the UV spectrum was added, for example. More code letters were simply systematically added.
Similar things in the field of particle physics in turn show that the "systematically" part isn't necessary. Most scientific designation "systems" are far more arbitrary than the TNG warp scale, even though they accurately describe a well-defined set of phenomena.
It sounds perfectly possible that UFP science in 2360 would know of nine warp minima, and in 2390 of seventeen, with the inkling of an idea of a hypothesis that there would be even more to be discovered in the future. For us ten-fingered folks, it would be aesthetically pleasing to use the designation "warp 10" for something in the 2360s, and infinite speed is as good a candidate as any; in 2390, though, there would be no similar psychological need to assign "warp 18" as infinity.
posted
That logic makes sense, of course. But that doesn't appear to be part of Shakaar's story. If you look at his site (http://www.craigdannenberg.com/bajor/warp.html) it simply resets the point where the curve goes asymptotic from 10 to 20. Also, it posits TNG9.5=new10, 9.99=new11, and so on. If there were an energy minimum at 9.5 one would hope that it was known to 2360 scientists.
And now for the counterarguments:
One fanboy explanation for the TOS vs. TNG scale is that the TOS scale was an approximation dating from times when you couldn't go much past Warp 3, so W^3 and W^(10/3) were "close enough", and even when faster speeds were routine the scale continued to be in use. So you could apply the same thing to the TNG/new scales, and say that in the 2360s it was known that there were energy minima beyond W9, but the old scale was still in use.
Also:
Something I want to plot now is the log of velocity (not Warp factor) vs. energy use per the TNG TM. From what I recall of the graph (i.e. too lazy to look at my own site), the minima are less "minimal" at each step. You could imagine, therefore, that there are energy minima at TNG W=9.5 and 9.99 (etc), but they are so "shallow" that they're not worth quibbling about, or were lost in the noise, so that for a long time it was assumed the energy/velocity curve was smooth from W=9 upwards.
So you could say that the TNG scale came into use in the 2290s or so, where it was assumed that W=9 was "it". Later on, other minima were discovered, but no-one was cruising around above W=9, so it didn't matter.
Then in the 2380s they finally got sick of saying "9.995" and updated the scale.
If I were coming up with a revised scale, though, I'd just let the minima decrease to nothing smoothly, so there would be no "final minima" and hence no integral Warp factor that logically corresponded to infinite velocity. Just let v=W^(10/3) and be done with it.
...
Anyone want to bring up "Threshold" [VOY]? No, didn't think so.
posted
I made the warp chart eons ago, but I did trace the TNG/TOS scales as they appeared, I'll have to try and find where that original is and we can debate the validity of how canon it is. I think the main reason it stops at warp 10 (which is more like warp 8 in the TNG scale)- Perhaps they did the "revised scale" in TNG just to show that ships are faster in TNG time. Since vessels could not go faster than warp 8/10, though their limiting factor was technology, and they based their speeds off that rather than physics.
Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
