View Single Post
Old June 11 2013, 06:39 PM   #51
Location: NorCal
Re: D'deridex-class Warbird Maneuverability

Timo wrote: View Post
Amusingly, TNG "Nth Degree" suggests that Einstein in the Star Trek universe was an expert of quantum mechanics rather than relativity.
I have heard it said on several documentaries --and had it born out in my own researches-- that Einstein understood quantum mechanics better then the leading quantum physicists of the era, and it's that understanding that made him hate it as much as he did. Einstein can and has be said to have made the quantum revolution possible with his 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect. Further, via his discourse with Bohr, he introduced many of the strange predictions of quantum mechanics in a effort to refute it, implying such a strange universe certainly couldn't be ours.... I would have to say Einstein was a First Rate quantum physicist, if not the best of his era, than certainly among the top 5 or 10, even though he hated quantum mechanics with a passion.

...the very universe of the show is fundamentally different from ours, not merely in terms of pseudohistory but also in terms of laws of nature...
Yes. Somewhere in Voyager, I remember someone quoting an age for the universe quite different from our current measurements: ~13.8 GY.... Looking it up in Memory Alpha, Voyager's crew thinks it's 16 GY. Without some major fudge-factor to our cosmological understanding, this is a HUGE difference between universes. And there are probably many, many more differences.

I'm game for that - but if the move in the game ignores the implications of established Star Trek phenomena and achievements, it shouldn't be considered a legal one.
This is not to say that one couldn't build a machine obeying the laws of nature pertaining to our universe even when the Trek universe clearly allows one to take a shortcut.
It just sounds silly to do that...
Agreed.... But sometimes such things are FUN!! As proof, I submit your example.

Perhaps the AQS is merely a source of extreme gravitic pull, and a subspace field creates an asymmetry in this pull, so that objects fall in from one side and gain energy that they do not lose when climbing up from the side that has the mass-negating field in place. When they finally emerge from the subspace field at "wrong" velocity and regain their mass, they have gained considerable "illegal" kinetic energy.
In this case, I would stipulate such a field would take more energy than you get from the particles.

...and that warp drive can coexist with Newtonian physics and absolute frames of reference for that reason. "Future science" has not really broken any known laws of science - it has evolved in an environment where those laws never had any validity.
Perhaps there was no relativity to discover in that universe?
It is hard to see how anything about Einstein's work (and, evidently following from this, Maxwell's) could hold true if mass can exceed lightspeed.

But if Maxwell was wrong, this basically means that a lot of symmetry disappears from the universe, and one can get something from nothing by a dozen dirty tricks.
Say, by purely classical terms, allowing mass to enter a black hole beyond the event horizon gives it exceptional kinetic energy - but extracting it from there again with a warp engine and/or with a mass-reducing field should take less energy than extracting it from there by conventional means (finite << infinite)... You don't need a black hole for this, cheating with any freefall will do, but the black hole case establishes with lamentable finality that warp engines do achieve infinite things with finite resources, and should be able to exploit the difference.
I'm going to have to chew on these statements for a time before I can address them. They're outside my POV.... The "box" I tend to think about trek in, if you will.

Perhaps you could expand on your notion that Trek cannon allows for an absolute reference frame? This is a possible side-effect of warp I've never considered or encountered.


I think I'm going to like you, Timo.
I hope I don't piss you off somewhere down the line.
...Just as a general rule, if it sounds like I'm being a troll --or an ass-- it's very likely I'm just failing to be funny. Probably failing very badly. In which case a simple, "not funny and kinda insulting" will get a sincere apology from me right quick.
zDarby is offline   Reply With Quote