View Single Post
Old October 3 2011, 01:46 AM   #27
Re: Mass, volume, and Warpdrive question.

sojourner wrote: View Post
blssdwlf wrote: View Post
sojourner wrote: View Post

Agreed, how do you know?
The speeds that can be derived from those specific camera motions, absent of planet or starbase is any speed from stationary to somewhere less than the stated speed of the ship in dialogue to allow the ship to fly by.

If you pick zero or stationary, then are you ignoring the dialogue if they say they are going at "warp speed"?
Nope, not at all, just not reading anything into it. So, how do you know?

To put it a different way, in the traditional shot of Enterprise zipping past, do you think the VFX people:

A) thought "ok, lets have the ship go by at warp 8 and imagine the camera is pacing at warp 7.999999999 so the ship appears to move by really fast while still being visible".


B) thought " we need a shot of the ship moving past the camera, we can speed up or slow the shot down as necessary to represent different speeds"
Actually I imagine the VFX guys think of the same thing when filming a German fighter buzzing the gunner of a B-17 (camera) during a WW2 movie. If there is nothing but the gunner of the B-17 and the German fighter in view, all we have to work on is the relative speed of the fighter to the gunner. It would be impossible to tell how fast the bomber is going without seeing the ground.

So, if you look back at those TOS external VFX shots that have no planets or starbases as reference points they are remarkably flexible in depicting the ship at any speed.

And if the camera can be at any speed with no reference points, how can you pin down the speed of the Enterprise?

Christopher wrote: View Post
blssdwlf wrote: View Post
So you're basically cherry picking on what supports your argument and discarding the rest on the grounds that it doesn't fit your world view of Star Trek? Okay.
No, I'm pointing out that none of the information offered in VFX shots can be taken literally. That's hardly "cherrypicking."
You're saying on the TV show to ignore the VFX shots. The VFX shots that you claim shouldn't be used because they differ from your world view. How is that not cherrypicking?

Christopher wrote: View Post
As I've pointed out before, in TOS, that's what we get. It's got less to do with the VFX and more to do with the time of dialogue.
I don't know what you're referring to here, but no Trek series has ever been consistent when discussing warp factor vs. travel time. It's "speed of plot," period.
If you watch "The Voyage Home", between the point where the BOP goes to "warp speed" and the time we see the BOP break orbit at "warp speed" two minutes of dialogue take place. That's got nothing to do with time travel. The time travel bit came up on a different part of the discussion about factoring in the mass of the whales and water.

Christopher wrote: View Post
That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about how explosions in space are always depicted as the same kind of explosions we're used to seeing in TV and movies, like the destruction of the Enterprise in ST III or of the E-D in "Cause and Effect," or for that matter the explosions of Alderaan and the Death Star -- explosions which are made by setting off a pyrotechnic charge or liquid-fuel container in a studio and filming the results. Explosions in vacuum don't look the same way. The big poofy orange fireballs that we think of as explosions are the result of the expanding gases mixing with the atmosphere they expand into, creating turbulence, which gives the fireball its roiling, cloudy appearance. Also the oxygen sustains the flame and keeps it bright. In vacuum, neither of those would be the case; you'd just get a quick flash and a spherical expanding cloud with no turbulence. So the way explosions in space are always depicted in TV/movies is imaginary.
The only cheesy explosion I recalled in TOS in space was the Klingon Battlecruiser in "Day of the Dove". The rest of TOS didn't have much going on for external shots other than just flashes of light. Although I would expect some cloudy gas from atmosphere igniting.

Christopher wrote: View Post
If you insist that TOS warp drive works in the way you think it works, can you support your argument with the evidence in the show?
I'm not "insisting" anything. I'm merely describing what real physics says about the questions raised in the thread. Make of it what you will. (But don't take it so seriously, okay?)
I'm with you if you don't take Star Trek's lack of physics so seriously either

And to the OP's question:
Does a ship's total mass affect Warp drive? Let's say I have a freighter and I load the hull full of stuffed teddy bears and my warp drive's maximum speed to Bajor is Warp 5. Let's say I then pack the hull full of Bajoran granite counter tops. Will I need bigger warp engines to go warp 5 to Bolarus? Will it consume more fuel? Do I only loose acceleration? If mass has no effect, what stops someone from warping a proton mass into a planet? Are Warp engines sizes strictly dependant on ship volume? Is the Warping of space and the forward movement of the ship separate functions?
Star Trek's Warp physics has nothing to do with "real physics". You can preface your argument with "Real Physics" says "a theoretical warp drive would have these parameters..." but how Star Trek warp physics works is a whole different ball of wax depending on which series you want to pull the information from and how one interprets it.

Last edited by blssdwlf; October 3 2011 at 02:03 AM.
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote