posted
So I still want to do a proper charting of every example with error ranges and indications of whether it's a computer-specified value versus someone's head math and all that sort of jazz, then draw out a best-fit to get the most reliable estimate of warp speeds ever.
However, that day's not today.
Because reasons, I really wanted to have a chart laid out, so I decided to make one. This is not a holistic approach . . . just some main examples, feelings, and the desire for a somewhat comprehensible curve that doesn't do warp-highway-loops like the "real" one would have to. It doesn't (and can't) satisfy all examples, but I tried to keep to the most consistent examples, for the most part. Additionally, this tries to keep the 9000c from "Where No Man" as the Enterprise-D 2364 red line, and I tried like hell to keep some of the relative values kinda half-ass right (e.g. 7 being 50 times 2, 9.6 being 4 times 9, et cetera), but that was kind of impossible to do.
Somewhat by accident, I ended up creating an explanation for why warp five was so important, why warp six was the usual cruising speed, and a bit more. Basically, I have a minor slowed-increase after warp six, and warp five is finally near the higher values after the much smaller warp four and below values. So, high warp-four values really make spaceflight worthwhile, thus the import of the warp five engine. Additionally, you can do 7 or 8 if you really need the speed, but it generally isn't enough of an increase to be worth it from an efficiency standpoint.
Thoughts? Complaints? Mockery? Fire at Will. (Duck, Riker!)
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
I think I see what you’re trying to do but you need to split it out a bit, show your working.
- The graph, fine, I understand that. It’s a visual representation of… - The central column of figures (in red). Again, so far so good. But… - What is the column on the left? That’s obviously being used to generate the warp-factor-to-c column (central) and graph (right), but how? Not helped by it obviously continuing down off the bottom of the image. - And, most crucially, what is the data you’re using to generate this scale? Where are the empiric waypoints, the (canon) benchmarks you extrapolate from?
posted
Sorry, the bit on the left is from the Desmos graphing site itself. The red is the full list of inputs.
Basically, the entirety of Trek has suggested a wide array of speeds, from hundreds to millions of times lightspeed. The data is from a rough amalgamation of highlights from my own list and the "Warp Speeds List" thread from StarfleetJedi.Net, with the caveat that I don't care for the "warp highways" junk and try to keep away from it unless there's no other choice.
(For reference, the Memory Alpha warp speeds page has a few nice entries but a lot of trash, so isn't a good resource, and certainly not by comparison to that thread.)
Highlights include the 9000c "maximum warp" to get home from "Where No One Has Gone Before", the various multiple ~1500c references from Enterprise, and "four billion miles per second" from "The 37's" (21500c), as supported by numerous other examples where the TNG TM speeds are obviously ignored.
In the opening post I also referenced:
"Allegiance"[TNG3] (2366) The faux Picard orders a course set to the Lonkar Cluster pulsar, previously stated by Wesley to be 34 minutes away at warp seven. However, faux-Picard orders the Enterprise to proceed at warp two. Wesley notes that this speed will require 31 hours, meaning that warp seven velocity is about 54.7 times faster than warp two, or wf7 = wf2 x 54.7.
Ideally, I'd have come up with a figure for one of those and maintained that relationship, more or less. However, it isn't possible.
I did a little better with "Legacy"[TNG4] (2367). The ship is initially at warp nine, then they calculate 9.3 before going to 9.6. The time estimates involved suggest 9.3 is 150% of 9, and 9.6 is four times 9. I couldn't quite maintain the 9.6 relationship.
In other words, it's heavier toward the 1987-2005 era, but there's a fair bit of wiggle room, by necessity.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
The mis-shapedness of the graph bothers me. Obviously the WF numbers are arbitrarily (well, ish) assigned to multiples of c, but why was it done like that? Presumably there were several corrections along the way as the art of the possible evolved, and rather than change the whole scale they kept some rather untidy WFs…
posted
Well, the usual idea is that warp factors correspond with physical reality, e.g. the TNG TM suggestion of factors as transitions. I can imagine that the graph isn't quite so perfect as suggested . . . maybe there are little quasi-transition curve imperfections that could be mistaken for factors or that appear as factor transitions in earlier calculations.
That kind of dovetails into my thought about "transwarp". Long story short, warp 1-7 or 1-8 didn't change from TOS to TNG, but as the scale was seemingly leveling off and no actual transitions were being found, it seemed that smaller curve hiccups were factors . . . until 14.1 was reached. This "transwarp" transition was later simply called warp nine.
This means Archer, Kirk, and Picard all shared the same warp five, but Kirk's post-Kelvan warp nine orders weren't actually Picard's warp nine.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
