View Single Post
Old September 14 2009, 05:26 AM   #73
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: TOS' U.S.S. Valiant and Farragut....

JuanBolio wrote: View Post
TOS Purist wrote: View Post
JuanBolio wrote: View Post
I don't think so. Even in the 60's they knew it was impossible to go faster than light under Newtonian thrust. Even the name "warp drive" implies its a field drive, not a rocket.
Well, there are theories to either effect to whether or not it's impossible to go faster than light under Newtonian thrust...although the time dilation effect due to speed under Einstein's relativity has proved itself true in some cases, it's still open to debate (a debate I hope to avoid in this thread...).

Warp drive doesn't really imply a field...Matt Jefferies famously said "What the hell is warp drive?" when Roddenberry told him how the Enterprise went faster than light, and I'm sure he had "warp drive" in mind when he developed the nacelles. Even so, they're obviously not field emitters and have a distinct front and back.

Maybe if you want to stick with the "field" idea, you could say that the field is created behind the ship by the ends of the nacelles, like the engines in Star Trek 2009 seem to do.
Just because the nacelles vaguely resemble rockets doesn't mean they have to function like them. They are linear in design and have a front and back because they warp the fabric of space from front to back - compressing it ahead of the ship and expanding it behind. They were never seen emitting any kind of thrust propellant whatsoever. Hell, even one of the screens on the bridge was a gauge for measuring the "warp field".

I'm glad you want to avoid a scientific debate on the possibility of FTL speeds and lack of time dilation under rocket propulsion. Respectfully... you'd lose.
Juan, that's not really a very good attitude, especially since "warp drive" is NEITHER OF THE ABOVE, as it's established in the show.

It's not a "field drive." There are hypothetical "field drive" concepts out there... electromagnetic drives, for instance, or even "gravity drives." These are engines which produce a field which then interacts with some other (naturally-occurring) field to create an acceleration. THAT is a "field drive."

Oh, and such a drive is still Newtonian, and subject to all the pitfalls therein.

TOS Purist is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT when he says that "Warp drive doesn't really imply a field...Matt Jefferies famously said "What the hell is warp drive?" when Roddenberry told him how the Enterprise went faster than light, and I'm sure he had "warp drive" in mind when he developed the nacelles."

And he's also ABSOLUTELY RIGHT when he states that "they're obviously not field emitters and have a distinct front and back."

It seems you don't "get" that because you don't understand what a "field" is. You seem to think, as many sci-fi fans who confuse technobabblish terms with real science do, that "field" is just a term for "pseudo-magic sci-fi stuff." But, of course, it's not so. There are really two types of fields.

Fields can be "directional fields" such as the magnetic field lines between adjacent north and south poles, but that can only exist when there's a "return path" for the field. All fields of this nature are inherently "circular" in nature.

Or they can be "static" fields, indicating some localized potential energy difference between the region where the "field" is defined and the "outside of the field" region.

But any "static field" generated by a ship... non-directional as it would be... would provide no propulsive energy of any kind. And any "directional field" in a closed system (and a ship which is in deep space is, by itself, effectively a closed system, not interacting with, for instance, the field of a nearby star or planet) must have a circulating "flow" (such as what you see in the electromagnetic field around a transformer).

No, "warp drive" is by no stretch of the imagination a "field drive." It's something else entirely.

You could have a sublight "field drive" but... and this will just piss you off, I'm sure... a "field drive" will be every bit as much subject to Newtonian effects as a "rocket drive" will be. ANYTHING in normal space/time will be.

So, if you're going to act like you're smarter than someone else, brag and belittle and all that horseshit, you really ought to make sure that you're not just talking out of your ass.

We can talk about "warp drive" all we want... but it doesn't exist. It's FICTIONAL. It's a storytelling conceit, and that's ALL it is. We don't know if such a thing is remotely possible in reality. And EVERYTHING in the world we know is subject to the laws of physics as we know them, without exception.

It doesn't matter if you accelerate due to a field interaction, or due to expulsion of mass. You're still accelerating, and you're still subject to relativistic effects. Anything else, no matter how convenient for storytelling, is nothing more or less than "make-believe."

And TOS Purist's quote from MJ - "What the hell is warp drive?" - has only one answer. It's storytelling magic.
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote