Federation Law of restricting cloaking device

[Crazy Eddie]

blssdwlf wrote:

---

It's part of Data's plan to use the tractor beam (not phasers) against the Stargazer. Important for the plan then not moot at all.

As far as we know, the use of the tractor beam is only important to Picard's not-being-killed in the process. The extent to which the interception ITSELF depends on the tractor beam is unknown.

As far as TNG goes, they've been pretty consistent on data points to have warp the same speed regardless where they were unless there was something grabbing them.

Only because there are so few actual datapoints. Plus, I'm not totally prepared to separate TNG from the rest of Trek canon for this specific purpose since even the "recalibrated" warp scale isn't necessarily canon; for all we know, Federation races have been using the same scale since humans were still dabbling in chemical rocketry.

If it was TOS Warp 9 near a star, it could be as slow as 5c which is about 33s for light to travel one way from Ferengi to Stargazer so 1 minute for a active pulse and 30 seconds for only passive data. Still way too long for Picard's sensor bearing request as he got it almost instantly.

And yet if Stargazer were passively reading the Ferengi's sensor beam, jumping into warp nine would have meant arriving at the Ferengi's position before the scanner beam would have returned tot hem.

Whoa there. Yes you can see the end but at FTL you won't have a clue as to where it goes until you actually run into it.

Yes you do. In this case the trail is like a giant cosmic arrow pointing the direction that the other ship went, trailing behind it by a short distance (a distance you can calculate if you know what his warp factor is, and you probably can). All that means is you cannot SEE the target ahead of you, but with the telltales in his warp trail you can calculate his position and zero in on that until he becomes visible.

For an experiment, in an open area with very loud music or noise, put a blindfold on and wear sound-blocking earplugs and have a friend stand in front of you with a small battery powered fan. Have friend move around the room while aiming the fan at you while you try and catch them. Even though you can feel the air from the fan, you can't tell how far away it is.

False analogy. It's really like trying to find a ship at sea by following its wake. You don't have to physically encounter the wake in order to follow it (although that would work too) you can whip out a pair of binoculars and look ahead to a point where you can no longer see the wake; even if you can't see the ship itself, you can figure out where it is based on that.

If it was delayed by 4 seconds, Riker's orders would've been too late...

I didn't say it was "delayed" by 4 seconds. I've said that that the maneuver took about 4 seconds but that Enterprise's viewscreen only animated the last three-quarters of a second as the Stargazer dropped out of warp. That means that Enterprise saw the warp streaks as Stargazer decelerated, by which time the ship had already been at warp for several seconds; Riker's orders would be just in time to coincide with Stargazer's actual stoppage.

Which points to not LS sensors in order to see those warp streaks.

The warp streaks that indicate a starship that is dropping OUT of warp. Those are seen using conventional sensors (e.g. cameras).

For locking on tractor beams. Data's plan did not include phasers or other weapons.

Irrelevant; he doesn't actively rule them out either.

We're frequently shown ships warping by at FTL...

Irrelevant; the camera's position is usually moving with respect to the ship in question (star streaks in the background). The few times it isn't, it can be INFERRED to be since the moving starship isn't moving anywhere NEAR lightspeed relative to the camera.

We're talking about scenes where a relatively stationary target witnesses a starship make the sudden transition from FTL to sublight speed and vice-versa. In every single case, we see the distinct warp flash -- indicative of a ship crossing the light barrier -- following by the streaky image of a hugely accelerated but still sublight vessel.

Warp streaks exist to indicate they are at warp, even while still at warp.

Perfect image to illustrate my point. Whatever the perspective of the camera in this shot, it is NOT being overflown at FTL speeds; the Enterprise AND the camera are both at FTL; the camera is simply moving towards Khitomer slightly slower than Enterprise is.

Just because they have a warp streak doesn't mean they are accelerating in or out of warp.

99% of the time, it DOES. What's more interesting is that the very few times that it doesn't involves a starship that is positively HAULING ASS to get some place before a plot-driven deadline.

The way you described it: "He had already taken a sensor bearing on the Ferengi ship and fed a targeting solution ahead of time."

That lock-on prior to the sudden Warp 9 move would've broken the lock.

Not if Vigo let the locking mechanism float, the way Riker advised Sito, in which case Stargazer's sensors would have simply remained fixed on the acceleration-distorted image of the Ferengi vessel until it again resolved itself into a clear target at the stopping point.

You don't mention a need to re-acquire the target as "Lower Decks" indicates.

That's because such a need does not exist. Stargazer had already worked out the Ferengi ship's exact position before going to warp, and I imagine was pleasantly surprised to find it still IN that position when it stopped.

Which neither one disputes their interpretations. The only likely things that happened as supported by the dialogue is that the Ferengi saw both ships and fired at the wrong target.

But WHEN and WHY is never specified. The variables here:
1 - Did they fire before or AFTER Stargazer did?
2 - Was it confusion of the second target reappearing, or the confusion caused by the dozens of consoles exploding all over their bridge?

Why didn't Tuvok fire phasers? We've seen many times the brave helmsman or some other guy run up to the helm to get the ship "out of there". But when have we seen someone firing weapons without authorization to save the ship?

You're suggesting that the weapons officer of a Ferengi pirate vessel would not have had authorization to fire on the Stargazer? In the middle of a firefight? After they had ALREADY fired on them three different times?

If they were trained like "The Lower Decks"...

Do you honestly think the weapons officers on Ferengi pirate vessels are trained to the same standards and rules of engagement as Starfleet junior officers?

That's just being silly. You have LS sensors and you're traveling FTL chasing an FTL ship. You cannot see "where it ends".

Special relativity, dude: a photon always travels at light speed in all reference frames. No matter how fast you're moving relative to the other ship, if you're a light second away, his image ALWAYS reaches you after one second.

The light trail exists as a form of extreme motion blur; the ship appears to be "stretched" along its direction of travel because it travels a much greater distance between the emission of any two photons; if it travels at the speed of light, it appears to occupy those two positions simultaneously, and if it's much faster than light it appears to occupy MANY positions at once (those positions are so close together that they appear to be a single elongated image, hence it is a "trail" and not a Picard-maneuver double image).

Warp drive allows the SHIP to travel faster than light, but it doesn't affect the speed of light itself. So in this case it's not a question of whether or not the lightspeed delay still applies over relative distances or relative speeds, it's literally a question of which thing -- the photon or the ship that emitted it -- will arrive at its destination first.

More like collide with the ship you're chasing. Again, you're flying so fast that you can't see what is in front of your nose

Yes you can. Photons from those objects in front of you are still reaching you at the speed of light. It's simply a question of whether or not the object that emitted them will hit you before the photons do. If you're chasing a ship moving at FTL speed, the answer is a categorical no.

If Picard gave them no breathing room, they would've been dead and unable to respond.

Yes. Just not INSTANTLY, as in Star Trek it always takes a few seconds for the doomed ship to roll over and ripple out its big dramatic "Death rattle" of explosions.

Having a 10 foot hole in the bridge as you're getting destroyed is as you'd say, "a distinction without a difference".

I'd say it makes a pretty huge difference to the weapons officer who is trying to accurately direct a volley of photon torpedoes with all this shit going on around him.

As pointed out earlier, if they have enough time to respond, they'd target the correct ship and the Stargazer would've been destroyed.

Which is hugely begging the question. It takes half a second to press a button on a console to fire a spread of torpedoes; it takes quite a bit longer to switch your scanner beam onto a second target, lock your weapons onto it and THEN fire a spread of torpedoes.

Just because you have enough time to press a button does NOT mean you have enough time to run to your tactical officer and have a serious discussion about which of those two targets you should fire your torpedoes at.

Controlling Picard to kill other Starfleet officers isn't equivalent to the same hurt.

It is if you count Wesley and Beverly aboard the crew, but I doubt Bok would have been aware of this. I think he merely assumed Picard would be as attached to his crew as Bok was to his son and acted accordingly. He would have been wrong, but it wouldn't be the first time (or the last).

Oh that's simple. The LS sensors on the ship being chased wouldn't be able to get a passive reflection from the chasing ships

Incorrect.

The answer is: their relative velocity is ZERO, thus the time delay is the same in both directions and both ships have clear images of one another, despite the fact that both of them are going at warp speed.

This is because in SR there's no such thing as a "universal reference frame" and the speed of light is always the same from all possible perspectives (that's what causes time dilation: the moving observer has his clock accelerated with respect to the stationary one so that his measurement of C remains unchanged).

As I said above, the only weird part is that a ship can arrive at a destination before the photons it emitted arrives there (which is what happens in the Picard Maneuver). That same trick doesn't really work in reverse; if you go to warp AWAY from someone, they'll see you leaving, they'll see where you're going, and they'll see your streaky image flying off all the way to your destination. They will, of course, not see you arrive until a long time after you get there, which leaves open the possibility that you can warp over to a distant location and them warp back without them realizing you went anywhere at all. (This is basically what Hathaway did in "Peak Performance"; I'm beginning to think that maybe those Constellation-types are abnormally fast for starships).

[blssdwlf]

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

Only because there are so few actual datapoints. Plus, I'm not totally prepared to separate TNG from the rest of Trek canon for this specific purpose since even the "recalibrated" warp scale isn't necessarily canon; for all we know, Federation races have been using the same scale since humans were still dabbling in chemical rocketry.

I tend to lump TNG and Voyager data points together. DS9 didn't really give any that I recall. I don't even consider it as a "recalibrated scale" just merely different continuities with different internal physics.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

And yet if Stargazer were passively reading the Ferengi's sensor beam, jumping into warp nine would have meant arriving at the Ferengi's position before the scanner beam would have returned tot hem.

If the Ferengi's sensor beam was operating at LS, a simple Warp 1.1 jump would suffice. For the speeds and distances involved, even the Ferengi's sensor beam would need to be FTL. Otherwise, the Stargazer and the Ferengi could be dealing with several minutes to an hour old data...

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

Yes you do. In this case the trail is like a giant cosmic arrow pointing the direction that the other ship went, trailing behind it by a short distance (a distance you can calculate if you know what his warp factor is, and you probably can). All that means is you cannot SEE the target ahead of you, but with the telltales in his warp trail you can calculate his position and zero in on that until he becomes visible.

If you're going FTL with LS sensors you're picking up the trail of light as it hits your sensors. You will not be able to determine which way that trail is going by simply looking ahead (LS Sensors) although you could make a guess at the direction if the "collected" trail stays very straight for a duration of time. You'd still wouldn't know the range because of the LS sensors.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

False analogy. It's really like trying to find a ship at sea by following its wake. You don't have to physically encounter the wake in order to follow it (although that would work too) you can whip out a pair of binoculars and look ahead to a point where you can no longer see the wake; even if you can't see the ship itself, you can figure out where it is based on that.

Are you still on about using LS sensors in an FTL ship to follow another FTL ship? Because if you are, your analogy is way off. You are going FTL, faster than your LS sensors can look forward. Whipping out a pair of binoculars to look ahead is the equivalent of using FTL optics to look at the wake ahead.

LS Sensors on an FTL ship chasing another FTL ship is analogous to following a trail by scent while running blindfolded.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

I didn't say it was "delayed" by 4 seconds. I've said that that the maneuver took about 4 seconds but that Enterprise's viewscreen only animated the last three-quarters of a second as the Stargazer dropped out of warp. That means that Enterprise saw the warp streaks as Stargazer decelerated, by which time the ship had already been at warp for several seconds; Riker's orders would be just in time to coincide with Stargazer's actual stoppage.

Yet that could not explain for the Stargazer's warp engine flash that preceded the warp streaks. What the viewer animated was the entire flight and duration of the Stargazer's jump.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

The warp streaks that indicate a starship that is dropping OUT of warp. Those are seen using conventional sensors (e.g. cameras).

As seen in the "The Undiscovered Country" screencap, warp streaks are also visible while a ship is still AT warp. The moment 2nd Stargazer appeared is likely the moment it was no longer FTL.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

Irrelevant; he doesn't actively rule them out either.

Relevant; Data's plan focused on using the tractor beam to seize the Stargazer and restrict it's weapons fire which did not include use of weapons.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

Irrelevant; the camera's position is usually moving with respect to the ship in question (star streaks in the background). The few times it isn't, it can be INFERRED to be since the moving starship isn't moving anywhere NEAR lightspeed relative to the camera.

The camera wouldn't be able to see the ship if it couldn't capture it with FTL capabilities.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

We're talking about scenes where a relatively stationary target witnesses a starship make the sudden transition from FTL to sublight speed and vice-versa. In every single case, we see the distinct warp flash -- indicative of a ship crossing the light barrier -- following by the streaky image of a hugely accelerated but still sublight vessel.

And yet we have the screencap from "The Undiscovered Country" showing us a ship with warp streaks traveling at warp speed. Also, arguably, the extended warp streak of the Enterprise in "The Wrath of Khan" as it warps away from the explosion of the Genesis device. Or the warp streak of the Enterprise at warp in "The Search for Spock".

The existence of the warp streak tells us it is at warp. It doesn't tell us it is about to accelerate or decelerate from/to sublight.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

Perfect image to illustrate my point. Whatever the perspective of the camera in this shot, it is NOT being overflown at FTL speeds; the Enterprise AND the camera are both at FTL; the camera is simply moving towards Khitomer slightly slower than Enterprise is.

And the Enterprise is at Warp speed. Not slowing to sublight.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

Not if Vigo let the locking mechanism float, the way Riker advised Sito, in which case Stargazer's sensors would have simply remained fixed on the acceleration-distorted image of the Ferengi vessel until it again resolved itself into a clear target at the stopping point.

If the lock is floating, then it is tracking the target. The way you originally described it sounded like the firing solution was already set where it would have been impossible since Picard hadn't ordered the ship to move. Only after he called stop did he give the order to fire, requiring a new solution aka letting the lock float to reacquire the target.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

That's because such a need does not exist. Stargazer had already worked out the Ferengi ship's exact position before going to warp, and I imagine was pleasantly surprised to find it still IN that position when it stopped.

And the "Lower Decks" example showed that they also "worked out the target ship's exact position" but after the E-D turned the firing solution was no longer valid. In the Stargazer's case the solution would've been even more invalid given the 6 second, Warp 9 flight time.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

But WHEN and WHY is never specified. The variables here:
1 - Did they fire before or AFTER Stargazer did?
2 - Was it confusion of the second target reappearing, or the confusion caused by the dozens of consoles exploding all over their bridge?

PICARD: Well, I did what any good helmsman would have done. I dropped into high warp, stopped right off the enemy vessel's bow and fired with everything I had.
RIKER: And blowing into maximum warp speed, you appeared for an instant to be in two places at once.
PICARD: And our attacker fired on the wrong one.

From the sequence in the dialogue, the attacker fired on the wrong one after the Stargazer appeared to be in two places at once. Picard doesn't say it was his weapons fire that caused the attacker to fire on the wrong target. Picard added to Riker's "two places at once" as the cause of firing at the "wrong one."

3. You left out did they fire at each other at the same time and the Ferengi just chose the wrong target?

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

You're suggesting that the weapons officer of a Ferengi pirate vessel would not have had authorization to fire on the Stargazer? In the middle of a firefight? After they had ALREADY fired on them three different times?

As far as the Ferengi were concerned, it was not the middle of a firefight and they were making specific, planned attack passes. There would have been little reason to believe that the Ferengi Captain would've told his weapons officer to "fire at will" when they've made two very specific attack runs and getting ready for the third, final attack.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

Do you honestly think the weapons officers on Ferengi pirate vessels are trained to the same standards and rules of engagement as Starfleet junior officers?

The rules of engagement is irrelevant. However, chain of command seems to be still there in the Ferengi navy.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

Special relativity, dude: a photon always travels at light speed in all reference frames. No matter how fast you're moving relative to the other ship, if you're a light second away, his image ALWAYS reaches you after one second.

Special relativity talks about light is always light speed in the case of two objects that are traveling near the speed of light. It doesn't really talk about FTL issues, AFAIK.

In any case, I don't think you really believe Special Relativity and FTL. The last paragraph you write: "As I said above, the only weird part is that a ship can arrive at a destination before the photons it emitted arrives there"

You are already in agreement that a ship at FTL will outrun it's own emitted photons. There would be no way for an FTL ship with LS sensors to be able to see what is in front of it as it is blind. And it will not be able to see what it is behind it as no photon would hope to catch up to it until the ship goes STL again.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

Yes. Just not INSTANTLY, as in Star Trek it always takes a few seconds for the doomed ship to roll over and ripple out its big dramatic "Death rattle" of explosions.

Not "always". In Star Trek, ships can blow up instantly just as well - see "Way of the Warrior"'s DS9 battle or the time Defiant vs BOP combat.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

I'd say it makes a pretty huge difference to the weapons officer who is trying to accurately direct a volley of photon torpedoes with all this shit going on around him.

That's assuming they had time to do so. From Picard's flashback, it didn't sound like he gave them time at all. And we've seen ships in Star Trek go kaboom immediately.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

Which is hugely begging the question. It takes half a second to press a button on a console to fire a spread of torpedoes; it takes quite a bit longer to switch your scanner beam onto a second target, lock your weapons onto it and THEN fire a spread of torpedoes.

Just because you have enough time to press a button does NOT mean you have enough time to run to your tactical officer and have a serious discussion about which of those two targets you should fire your torpedoes at.

Which begs another question, why would you run to the tactical officer to have a discussion in the middle of combat? Perhaps a bit inexperienced? Or did the young, inexperienced Ferengi Captain just say, "Fire at the Stargazer, ignore the new ship!"

Now from the Ferengi's POV, it might have made sense to fire at the Old Stargazer and ignore the New Stargazer. They knew that they only had to hit the Old Stargazer once to kill it so as a Captain when faced with two targets, he might have thought to even the odds first by killing the weaker opponent first.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

It is if you count Wesley and Beverly aboard the crew, but I doubt Bok would have been aware of this. I think he merely assumed Picard would be as attached to his crew as Bok was to his son and acted accordingly. He would have been wrong, but it wouldn't be the first time (or the last).

Since he didn't know if Picard had any attachments to his crew like a son, it doesn't follow that he wanted Picard to suffer the same way. However, if he got Picard killed by Starfleet, then he would avoid having Starfleet come after him.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

Incorrect.

The answer is: their relative velocity is ZERO, thus the time delay is the same in both directions and both ships have clear images of one another, despite the fact that both of them are going at warp speed.

This is because in SR there's no such thing as a "universal reference frame" and the speed of light is always the same from all possible perspectives (that's what causes time dilation: the moving observer has his clock accelerated with respect to the stationary one so that his measurement of C remains unchanged).

As I said above, the only weird part is that a ship can arrive at a destination before the photons it emitted arrives there (which is what happens in the Picard Maneuver).

It doesn't quite work for FTL situations. As you've pointed out, a FTL ship can outrun its own emitted photons so LS Sensors are useless for looking around when going FTL. The ship being chased at FTL with LS sensors will outrun it's own emitted photons and not be able to see the FTL ships chasing it.

Since we observe in the episode the E-D's main viewer showing the warp engine flash, warp streak and then appearance of the 2nd image of the Stargazer "blowing into Warp 9" and that we know the E-D can detect incoming warp speed ships in other episodes we are left with a sudden Warp 9 jump at a target ship with FTL sensors can temporarily confuse it into seeing two images, IMO.

[Crazy Eddie]

blssdwlf wrote:

---

If the Ferengi's sensor beam was operating at LS, a simple Warp 1.1 jump would suffice.

Too slow. The Ferengi would re-engage and they'd end up in a tail chase again.

If you're going FTL with LS sensors you're picking up the trail of light as it hits your sensors.

To be sure, you're picking up the light FROM the trail as it hits your sensors. That light is being emitted from the entire trail at once, and you can plainly see a point in space (moving with the trail) where no light is being emitted.

It is not necessary to fly THROUGH the trail in order to detect it; you can see the trail from a distance, as long as you're behind it.

Are you still on about using LS sensors in an FTL ship to follow another FTL ship? Because if you are, your analogy is way off. You are going FTL, faster than your LS sensors can look forward.

Special relativity again: even at FTL speed, a beam of light still moves away from you at the speed of light. The other FTL starship one light second ahead of you is perfectly visible, especially if he's moving at the same speed you are (for a relative velocity of exactly zero no matter what's happening outside of your respective warp bubbles).

Yet that could not explain for the Stargazer's warp engine flash that preceded the warp streaks.

It would if the FLASH propagated faster than light, which is a very real possibility considering what it represents.

As seen in the "The Undiscovered Country" screencap, warp streaks are also visible while a ship is still AT warp.

And yet in the TUC screencap, the Enterprise is not moving at FTL speed relative to the camera.

You're also conflating the engine glow from the TMP era with the elongated blur we see from TNG onwards; those are very different phenomena, considering TNG vessels don't have a noticeable glowing trail.

Relevant; Data's plan focused on using the tractor beam to seize the Stargazer and restrict it's weapons fire which did not include use of weapons.

The reason it's not relevant is because we do not know whether or not the use of weapons would have been easier or harder than the use of a tractor beam. Data implies that it is HARDER, because only a very powerful ship like Enterprise could do so, however we do not know for sure, and therefore we cannot definitively say that a tractor beam requires a less precise targeting solution than a phaser beam (although, based on "Conundrum," probably more).

The camera wouldn't be able to see the ship if it couldn't capture it with FTL capabilities.

Special relativity: light always travels at the speed of light in all reference frames. The point I was making is that the perception would have to be FASTER than light for the streaky "drop out of warp" images to be representative of "FTL until we stop." In those cases, you wouldn't be able to visibly trace the movement of the ship; there'd be a flash of light and it suddenly appears out of nowhere.

The existence of the warp streak tells us it is at warp.

At most, it tells us the warp engines are active. As it stands, we have at least one solid datapoint from TVH that suggests "traveling at warp" and "traveling at FTL" are not necessarily the same thing.

And the "Lower Decks" example showed that they also "worked out the target ship's exact position" but after the E-D turned the firing solution was no longer valid.

I can see where you're confused.

A "firing solution" is a term derived from the mathematical equations used to direct artillery batteries; literally, a solution to an equation that involves the speed and direction and distance of the target, the speed and direction of the shooter, the arc and velocity of the shell, wind direction and coriolis effect, all to work out a determination of which way the gun must be pointed to score a hit. It is used by analogy to refer to weapons guidance in, for example, sonar-guided torpedoes and guided missiles involving the calculations needed for a guided weapon to properly intercept its target given its own constraints. The commonality here is that a firing solution is a calculation based on the spotter's best estimate of those values; in artillery, the solution becomes more accurate after the first couple of shots as you can see where your shells actually landed and compare that with your calculations to adjust accordingly. Guided missiles, on the other hand, do this in real time, by constantly adjusting their course based on the radar signal they're getting back from their target and recomputing the optimal trajectory they need to take thousands of times a second. IOW, for a guided missile or a torpedo, a "firing solution" consists of a computer asking itself "Am I going to hit it? Am I going to hit it? Am I going to hit it?" over and over again.

A "phaser lock" apparently works the same way, considering it is possible to maintain a phaser lock against a maneuvering target. The "float" means the FCS is constantly re-runnning this calculation all the time so that the solution remains current and you're not firing on where the target was expected to be a couple of seconds ago.

From the sequence in the dialogue, the attacker fired on the wrong one after the Stargazer appeared to be in two places at once.

Which, again, does not specify whether that is before or after Stargazer fired its weapons. Recall again that Picard immediately opened fire after reversing his engines; Stargazer being in two places at once is apparently concurrent with its opening fire.

And Picard doesn't speculate on WHY the Ferengi fired on the wrong target. He merely states that they did, because that's literally all the information he had available.

As far as the Ferengi were concerned, it was not the middle of a firefight

In the scenario where the Stargazer suddenly appeared and opened fire, IT WAS.

Special relativity talks about light is always light speed in the case of two objects that are traveling near the speed of light. It doesn't really talk about FTL issues, AFAIK.

Mathematically, it doesn't make any difference: even if you're going FTL relative to some other observer (which we ARE over cosmic distances), you're still stationary in your OWN reference frame, and that is the context to which special relativity actually applies.

Warp drive makes it weird because you no longer have to be in another galaxy on the other side of the universe to be moving away from someone at FTL speeds. But SR still applies in exactly the same way.

You are already in agreement that a ship at FTL will outrun it's own emitted photons.

From the perspective of the OBSERVER, yes. From your OWN perspective, your photons are still ahead of you, moving away at the speed of light (which is, as I said, the point where the scenario gets weird).

Classically, this would be explained by relativistic time dilation. Warp drive is described as precluding time dilation of any kind, but I'm reminded that in special relativity, time dilation is an observation difference and doesn't actually occur (it literally does in general relativity, usually due to gravitationally distorted spacetime). That is, if you're moving at relativistic speeds, an observer looks at you and sees that time appears to have slowed down tremendously for you, and that distorted time explains why you don't realize the photons' relative velocity is reduced (you think it's C, he thinks it's <C). You look at the observer and record the same thing: HIS time is slowed down, which is why he doesn't realize that his photons are moving towards you slower than they should be (he thinks it's C, you think it's <C). At FTL velocity, the distortion effect is so great that the FTL starship appears to be moving BACKWARDS in time; you appear to arrive in a place before you actually left, you appear to finish sentences you haven't started yet, etc. This is because the observer may track a photon leaving your ship and calculate a NEGATIVE velocity while you still calculate the normal lightspeed; that is only possible if your clock is running backwards, skewing your measurements. And again, the same observation works in reverse: from the starship's perspective, EVERYONE ELSE is moving backwards in time, which explains why their photons appear to be moving TOWARDS THEM (that is, your forward speed minus the normal lightspeed at which you receive them).

Simultaneity is preserved, but cannot be observed. Though the speed of light remains constant in all reference frames, it means that observers moving at high speed relative to each other cannot make truthful observations about what's happening to one another; their observations are valid in their own reference frames, and ONLY their own reference frames.

That's assuming they had time to do so. From Picard's flashback, it didn't sound like he gave them time at all. And we've seen ships in Star Trek go kaboom immediately.

Well, there is The Law of Conservation of Ninjutsu to consider. Remember, in television any particular party to a conflict has a fixed amount of badass; a single protagonist against fifty ninjas therefore turns out to be a pretty even fight, since the amount of badass on the opposing side is distributed among those fifty ninjas. If, however, you have a protagonist fighting a SINGLE ninja, it is still an even fight, as that one ninja just happens to be a 50x badass relative to all of his dead peers.

This seems to be the case in "Way of the Warrior." The Klingons hit DS9 with about thirty ships, which is unfortunate because it apparently means every single one of them has about 1/30th their normal hull and shield strength (and we got to see a couple of Vorchas blown to bits where earlier in the same episode they seemed to take a pretty heavy pummeling). I suspect the same is likely to be true of the Ferengi; if Bok Junior had been part of a fleet of twenty ships, then the Picard Maneuver would have been used to destroy every single one of them in a massive guns-blazing turkeyshoot (and a couple of those twenty ships would have gotten confused and fired on the wrong target). One on one, though, concentrates the Ferengi's supply of badass on a single ship and makes it harder to kill; instead of simply blowing apart, the Ferengi ship would have listed sickeningly for a few moments with fire and secondary explosions billowing out, etc etc.

Which begs another question, why would you run to the tactical officer to have a discussion in the middle of combat?

Good question is good.

Riker: "Worf..." <BOOM!> what can you tell me about that bird of prey? Any weaknesses?" <BOOM!>
Worf: "They're using an old D12 bird of prey... <BOOM!> They were retired from service because of defective plasma coils!"
Riker: "Any way we can use that to our advantage?" <BOOM!>
Worf: "Are you shitting me? We're in the middle of a battle! Shut up and give some damn orders!"

Perhaps a bit inexperienced? Or did the young, inexperienced Ferengi Captain just say, "Fire at the Stargazer, ignore the new ship!"

Or suppose he said "Fire at that ship!" and the weapons officer -- who wasn't watching the viewscreen -- fired at the distant image he was already locked onto?

Regardless, though, the fact is Stargazer is depicted as being very quick on the draw after deceleration. I could buy that Bok fired at the same time, but firing FIRST doesn't fit the narrative.

It doesn't quite work for FTL situations. As you've pointed out, a FTL ship can outrun its own emitted photons so LS Sensors are useless for looking around when going FTL.

But that's only true from the OBSERVER's point of view. From YOUR point of view, your photons are still moving ahead of you at the speed of light.

More importantly, most of the things in the universe were already there long before you engaged your engines, so you won't have to worry about them appearing to be in multiple places. It gets more complicated with another FTL ship, but it's worth keeping in mind that since light takes a certain amount of time to travel, you can see where he was thirty seconds ago, then where he was twenty seconds ago, then where he was ten seconds ago, etc etc until you get close enough to match velocities. Matching velocities restores simultaneity; all those weird time-dilation effects disappear and you are free to lock your weapons onto the target as you normally would.

[blssdwlf]

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

Too slow. The Ferengi would re-engage and they'd end up in a tail chase again.

It isn't too slow since the Ferengi would be sitting tight waiting for their LS Return Pulse. At just above LS, the Stargazer would still beat the return pulse back.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

To be sure, you're picking up the light FROM the trail as it hits your sensors. That light is being emitted from the entire trail at once, and you can plainly see a point in space (moving with the trail) where no light is being emitted.

It is not necessary to fly THROUGH the trail in order to detect it; you can see the trail from a distance, as long as you're behind it.

Nah, you're flying FTL with LS sensors. You won't be able to see anything in front of you except for the radiation you actually run into. You would need to fly through the trail in order to follow it.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

Special relativity again: even at FTL speed, a beam of light still moves away from you at the speed of light. The other FTL starship one light second ahead of you is perfectly visible, especially if he's moving at the same speed you are (for a relative velocity of exactly zero no matter what's happening outside of your respective warp bubbles).

You've got that mixed up. Special Relativity applies when you have objects observing each other but still below the speed of light. That's why people are still trying to come up with ways to make it work for FTL observers.

The other problem you have is that the speed of light is still slower than the observers AKA ships traveling Faster Than Light. That's why, by definition, FTL ships can outrun their emitted photons and thus with LS sensors are completely blind and are literally feeling their way through space as radiation runs into them.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

It would if the FLASH propagated faster than light, which is a very real possibility considering what it represents.

If the FLASH propagated faster than light, how would the target see it? With FTL Sensors, of course

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

And yet in the TUC screencap, the Enterprise is not moving at FTL speed relative to the camera.

It doesn't need to be. We just need to know that the warp streaks can be present when a ship is AT warp.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

The reason it's not relevant is because we do not know whether or not the use of weapons would have been easier or harder than the use of a tractor beam.

Since we know that starships can track incoming ships traveling at Warp speed we are left with this special case for using tractor beams to seize the Stargazer.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

Special relativity: light always travels at the speed of light in all reference frames. The point I was making is that the perception would have to be FASTER than light for the streaky "drop out of warp" images to be representative of "FTL until we stop." In those cases, you wouldn't be able to visibly trace the movement of the ship; there'd be a flash of light and it suddenly appears out of nowhere.

As noted above, Special Relativity is for slower than light situations. A LS Camera wouldn't see an FTL ship in the order we are shown.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

At most, it tells us the warp engines are active. As it stands, we have at least one solid datapoint from TVH that suggests "traveling at warp" and "traveling at FTL" are not necessarily the same thing.

Well, unless there was a planet just below them or if they're whipping around a star they were FTL - as the datapoint from TVH suggests.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

A "firing solution" is a term derived from the mathematical equations used to direct artillery batteries; literally, a solution to an equation that involves the speed and direction and distance of the target, the speed and direction of the shooter, the arc and velocity of the shell, wind direction and coriolis effect, all to work out a determination of which way the gun must be pointed to score a hit.

And the "firing solution" works as long as the variables stay the same. Since the solution, aka phaser lock, was supposedly set prior to the warp jump according to you, then after the Stargazer dropped out of warp the solution aka lock would've been invalid as the weapons officer did not know in advance that they would maneuver.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

A "phaser lock" apparently works the same way, considering it is possible to maintain a phaser lock against a maneuvering target. The "float" means the FCS is constantly re-runnning this calculation all the time so that the solution remains current and you're not firing on where the target was expected to be a couple of seconds ago.

The funny thing is that time-wise, letting the "lock relay float until the actual fire order is given" sounds alot like waiting for the lock to re-acquire ON ITS OWN before pushing the fire button. That doesn't sound like it'd save time over just pushing the "Re-Acquire Lock" button

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

Which, again, does not specify whether that is before or after Stargazer fired its weapons. Recall again that Picard immediately opened fire after reversing his engines; Stargazer being in two places at once is apparently concurrent with its opening fire.

And recall Riker pointing out that to the Ferengi the Stargazer appeared in two places at once and Picard said they fired on the wrong one. The only viable options are either the Ferengi fired first at the wrong target or they both fired simultaneously.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

And Picard doesn't speculate on WHY the Ferengi fired on the wrong target. He merely states that they did, because that's literally all the information he had available.

He doesn't need to since he destroyed their ship without getting destroyed in the process, eliminating the chance for them to fire at the Stargazer after they were hit.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

In the scenario where the Stargazer suddenly appeared and opened fire, IT WAS.

"Suddenly Appeared" Not Equal to "In the Middle Of..."

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

Mathematically, it doesn't make any difference: even if you're going FTL relative to some other observer (which we ARE over cosmic distances), you're still stationary in your OWN reference frame, and that is the context to which special relativity actually applies.

See above regarding SR and observers at STL vs FTL.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

Warp drive makes it weird because you no longer have to be in another galaxy on the other side of the universe to be moving away from someone at FTL speeds. But SR still applies in exactly the same way.

It applies in that LS is still slower than the ship at FTL will outrun it's own emitted photons. The very definition of FTL (even in SR)

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

Well, there is The Law of Conservation of Ninjutsu to One on one, though, concentrates the Ferengi's supply of badass on a single ship and makes it harder to kill; instead of simply blowing apart, the Ferengi ship would have listed sickeningly for a few moments with fire and secondary explosions billowing out, etc etc.

The Ferengi ship would've been destroyed instantly, simply because Picard is one of the Good Guys

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

Good question is good.

Riker: "Worf..." <BOOM!> what can you tell me about that bird of prey? Any weaknesses?" <BOOM!>
Worf: "They're using an old D12 bird of prey... <BOOM!> They were retired from service because of defective plasma coils!"
Riker: "Any way we can use that to our advantage?" <BOOM!>
Worf: "Are you shitting me? We're in the middle of a battle! Shut up and give some damn orders!"

I'm going to amend my comment:

Which begs another question, why would you run to the tactical officer to have a discussion in the middle of combat? Perhaps a bit inexperienced OR THEY AREN'T THAT GOOD? Or did the young, inexperienced Ferengi Captain just say, "Fire at the Stargazer, ignore the new ship!"

And to point out that you wrote about TIME, whereas I wrote about WHY: "Just because you have enough time to press a button does NOT mean you have enough time to run to your tactical officer and have a serious discussion about which of those two targets you should fire your torpedoes at."

In anycase your "Generations" example points out that:
1. Worf still waited for authorization to fire the torpedoes to finish off the BOP
2. and the E-D succumbed to all the hits inflicted upon it
3. but they still had time to target the right ship

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

Or suppose he said "Fire at that ship!" and the weapons officer -- who wasn't watching the viewscreen -- fired at the distant image he was already locked onto?

And the weapons officer would look at his targeting screen and ask "Which one?!" :P

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

Regardless, though, the fact is Stargazer is depicted as being very quick on the draw after deceleration. I could buy that Bok fired at the same time, but firing FIRST doesn't fit the narrative.

Simultaneous exchange was one of the options presented

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

But that's only true from the OBSERVER's point of view. From YOUR point of view, your photons are still moving ahead of you at the speed of light.

Only if you're moving at STL speeds. At FTL speeds, you're moving Faster Than Light and you will outrun those photons. And because of that, with LS sensors, a ship going FTL is limited to feeling its way around.

An FTL ship with LS Sensors chasing another FTL ship by following it's light trail simply cannot know how far ahead or even how long the trail is because it can only receive the radiation. Matching velocities could only mean the chasing ship accidentally colliding with the other ship.

[Crazy Eddie]

blssdwlf wrote:

---

It isn't too slow since the Ferengi would be sitting tight waiting for their LS Return Pulse.

Which they would receive five to ten seconds before Stargazer dropped out of warp (since it took five to ten seconds for Picard to ORDER them to jump to warp).

Nah, you're flying FTL with LS sensors. You won't be able to see anything in front of you except for the radiation you actually run into.

The trail isn't made of radiation, it's the mirage-like effect of a ship's movement through space. The radiation FROM the trail still propagates at the speed of light and you can still see it from a considerable difference, even if you're not at FTL yourself.

You've got that mixed up. Special Relativity applies when you have objects observing each other but still below the speed of light.

Strictly speaking, it applies in any inertial reference frame, FTL or otherwise. It gets complicated at FTL, but that doesn't make it inapplicable.

The other problem you have is that the speed of light is still slower than the observers AKA ships traveling Faster Than Light.

Yes, but only from the perspective of the observer in a stationary reference frame. That means that if you go to high warp, you cannot look over your shoulder and see an afterimage of yourself; you are still stationary in your own reference frame and photons will continue to propagate away from you at the speed of light.

If the FLASH propagated faster than light, how would the target see it? With FTL Sensors, of course

You don't need FTL sensors to detect something tat HITS you at FTL. Just ask Sulu.

Since we know that starships can track incoming ships traveling at Warp speed we are left with this special case for using tractor beams to seize the Stargazer.

But Enterprise CAN'T track the Stargazer without scanning for the sudden gas compression. Tractor beam OR a phaser strike would have been a viable option otherwise.

As noted above, Special Relativity is for slower than light situations.

Strictly speaking, it's for any situation involving an observer in an inertial reference frame (VERY strictly speaking, only a single reference frame). FTL or sublight is irrelevant.

And the "firing solution" works as long as the variables stay the same.

No. By definition, the firing solution works as long as the variables are ACCURATE. This is why guided missiles and torpedoes use dynamic solutions that constantly update fifty times a second as they home in on a target (since missiles, unlike some torpedoes, cannot turn around and re-engage if they miss).

And recall Riker pointing out that to the Ferengi the Stargazer appeared in two places at once and Picard said they fired on the wrong one. The only viable options are either the Ferengi fired first at the wrong target or they both fired simultaneously.

The Ferengi firing second IS still a viable option if Stargazer's distant image was still present while their ship was beginning to break up.

And for all three possibilities, we're talking about timing differences of three or four seconds, if that. If the Ferengi were that quick on the draw, I doubt they would have been stupid enough to ignore the target that had suddenly appeared right in front of them.

"Suddenly Appeared" Not Equal to "In the Middle Of..."

When the guy you've been chasing down the street suddenly whirls around and punches you in the face, you're in a fist fight. When the guy you just shot in the leg suddenly jumps out of cover and fires at you with an AK-47, you're in a firefight.

When the starship you've been trying to destroy for the last few minutes suddenly jumps into firing position and hammers you with phasers and photon torpedoes at point blank range... well, you get the idea.

It applies in that LS is still slower than the ship at FTL will outrun it's own emitted photons. The very definition of FTL (even in SR)

But a starship at warp isn't moving at FTL in its own reference frame (that's impossible by definition). It's moving at FTL in EVERYONE ELSE'S reference frame. Therefore, the fundamental assumption of Special Relativity still holds true that you appear to outrun your own photons only in an outside observer's reference frame and this does not hold true in YOUR reference frame at all.

The Ferengi ship would've been destroyed instantly, simply because Picard is one of the Good Guys

Yeah, but good guys get to savor their victory by watching the dramatic fiery explosion of their enemies. If that enemy is annoying enough, he might even get to watch it in slow motion.

And to point out that you wrote about TIME, whereas I wrote about WHY: "Just because you have enough time to press a button does NOT mean you have enough time to run to your tactical officer and have a serious discussion about which of those two targets you should fire your torpedoes at.

But that was my point in the end. Even under ideal circumstances, the weapons officer may have simply made a mistake or misinterpreted the Captains orders; shuddering/exploding from a rain of weapons fire is FAR from ideal circumstances, and it fits the timeline better since Picard gives no indication -- either in dialog or the flashbacks -- that he gave the Ferengi anything like the kind of time they would have needed to intentionally/mistakenly select and fire on the wrong target. Therefore, it makes more sense that it was an unintentional mistake, probably a consequence of their not really being able to think with the bridge exploding all around them (Ferengi ARE rather sensitive to loud noises, after all).

1. Worf still waited for authorization to fire the torpedoes to finish off the BOP

Worf is not a Ferengi pirate.

Simultaneous exchange was one of the options presented

Sure, but still hardly the ONLY option.

Only if you're moving at STL speeds. At FTL speeds, you're moving Faster Than Light and you will outrun those photons.

No you won't. Even if you're FTL in someone else's reference frame, you're still stationary in your OWN. You don't outrun your own photons because from YOUR point of view, you're not actually going anywhere (and this is especially true of warp drive, which effectively CREATES a moving reference frame within which a starship appears to be stationary in a rapidly moving universe).

[blssdwlf]

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

Which they would receive five to ten seconds before Stargazer dropped out of warp (since it took five to ten seconds for Picard to ORDER them to jump to warp).

That does not negate the fact the Stargazer at FTL would still outrun the return pulse the Ferengi are waiting for.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

The trail isn't made of radiation, it's the mirage-like effect of a ship's movement through space. The radiation FROM the trail still propagates at the speed of light and you can still see it from a considerable difference, even if you're not at FTL yourself.

You can see the light trail, aka reflected photons, as it reaches you if you're not FTL. When you are FTL with only LS sensors you are running into the light trail without the ability to see forward due to your LS sensors.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

Strictly speaking, it applies in any inertial reference frame, FTL or otherwise. It gets complicated at FTL, but that doesn't make it inapplicable.

If that were the case, we wouldn't have people trying to come up with ways for SR to work in an FTL frame of reference. It's not complicated - it just doesn't apply.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

Yes, but only from the perspective of the observer in a stationary reference frame. That means that if you go to high warp, you cannot look over your shoulder and see an afterimage of yourself; you are still stationary in your own reference frame and photons will continue to propagate away from you at the speed of light.

Where are you getting this from? Are you trying to redefine FTL as STL? A ship going FTL is outrunning light. That is the definition of Faster-Than-Light. Look that up. That's why FTL in GR and SR can cause all sort of causality problems.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

You don't need FTL sensors to detect something tat HITS you at FTL. Just ask Sulu.

They were already feeling the FTL effects way before the visible shockwave reached them. It's a good thing the ILM cameras are FTL as well

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

But Enterprise CAN'T track the Stargazer without scanning for the sudden gas compression. Tractor beam OR a phaser strike would have been a viable option otherwise.

They never said the phasers were not able to track them. Data's plan was very specific to using tractor beams.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

Strictly speaking, it's for any situation involving an observer in an inertial reference frame (VERY strictly speaking, only a single reference frame). FTL or sublight is irrelevant.

And again, SR still treats FTL as FTL and things at LS will still be slower than things at FTL.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

No. By definition, the firing solution works as long as the variables are ACCURATE.

Yes, I was just pointing out that your original reply didn't leave room for constant adjustment.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

The Ferengi firing second IS still a viable option if Stargazer's distant image was still present while their ship was beginning to break up.

Still unlikely since they would've correctly targeted the ship that actually fired at them, if they fired second.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

And for all three possibilities, we're talking about timing differences of three or four seconds, if that. If the Ferengi were that quick on the draw, I doubt they would have been stupid enough to ignore the target that had suddenly appeared right in front of them.

If they seriously thought the far away target was one hit from blowing up it could've been on the Ferengi captain's mind to even the odds to one ship not knowing how much more effective the Stargazer's weapons were close up.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

When the guy you've been chasing down the street suddenly whirls around and punches you in the face, you're in a fist fight.

No, that's called being in the middle of a chase and getting sucker punched. When you respond, assuming you can respond, then it becomes a fist fight.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

When the guy you just shot in the leg suddenly jumps out of cover and fires at you with an AK-47, you're in a firefight.

Yes that would be correct.

And when a ship that was considered damaged and about to die in the distance suddenly is joined by a new ship that appeared out of no where it's called a surprise attack which will lead to further combat.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

When the starship you've been trying to destroy for the last few minutes suddenly jumps into firing position and hammers you with phasers and photon torpedoes at point blank range... well, you get the idea.

Which from the Ferengi's POV would be the start of a new battle with a new foe. You get the idea...

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

But a starship at warp isn't moving at FTL in its own reference frame (that's impossible by definition).

And from where do you get this? By definition, a ship moving Faster-Than-Light is well, you know, Faster-Than-Light speed.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

It's moving at FTL in EVERYONE ELSE'S reference frame. Therefore, the fundamental assumption of Special Relativity still holds true that you appear to outrun your own photons only in an outside observer's reference frame and this does not hold true in YOUR reference frame at all.

That's not correct. You're thinking of reference frames where the observers and objects are moving STL. SR makes LS constant across all reference frames but it also does not like FTL because it can cause a Causality violation. True FTL in SR is still moving faster than light speed, thus light speed radiation and sensor pulses can be outrun.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

Yeah, but good guys get to savor their victory by watching the dramatic fiery explosion of their enemies. If that enemy is annoying enough, he might even get to watch it in slow motion.

Was that exploding BOP firing any weapons as it exploded? No

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

But that was my point in the end. Even under ideal circumstances, the weapons officer may have simply made a mistake or misinterpreted the Captains orders; shuddering/exploding from a rain of weapons fire is FAR from ideal circumstances, and it fits the timeline better since Picard gives no indication -- either in dialog or the flashbacks -- that he gave the Ferengi anything like the kind of time they would have needed to intentionally/mistakenly select and fire on the wrong target. Therefore, it makes more sense that it was an unintentional mistake, probably a consequence of their not really being able to think with the bridge exploding all around them (Ferengi ARE rather sensitive to loud noises, after all).

Ok, I can buy the possibility that it was a complete accident that the weapons officer fired at the wrong target.

So, the possibilities we have are:

1. Stargazer and Ferengi ship exchanged fire simultaneously. Ferengi chose the wrong target.
2. Ferengi fire first, but chose the wrong target.
3. Ferengi fired second but due to damage or confusion prior to its immediate destruction, fired at the wrong target.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

Worf is not a Ferengi pirate.

You used the "Generations" example, so I'm just playing off it In anycase, the Ferengi weapons officer didn't have any reason to go rogue and start shooting on his/her own, or at least we're not presented with information to suggest that.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

No you won't. Even if you're FTL in someone else's reference frame, you're still stationary in your OWN. You don't outrun your own photons because from YOUR point of view, you're not actually going anywhere (and this is especially true of warp drive, which effectively CREATES a moving reference frame within which a starship appears to be stationary in a rapidly moving universe).

See above regarding FTL. The ship that is moving at FTL is moving at FTL speeds. If it is moving at STL speeds, LS will outrun it. It maybe moving or not moving at all inside the bubble, but if the bubble it is using to move around in went from A to B faster than the speed of light then in any reference frame it will be also FTL.

[Crazy Eddie]

blssdwlf wrote:

---

You can see the light trail, aka reflected photons, as it reaches you if you're not FTL. When you are FTL with only LS sensors you are running into the light trail without the ability to see forward due to your LS sensors.

But you CAN see forward at FTL, precisely because you are still stationary in your own reference frame. This isn't even a trekism or a theoretical prediction; in the real world WE are already moving at FTL velocity with respect to distant galaxies 47 billion LY away (and they, in turn, are moving away from us faster than light). Not only do we have no trouble at all seeing what's "ahead" of us, but we can see the heavily distorted/redshifted images of those galaxies near the edge of our visual horizon.

If that were the case, we wouldn't have people trying to come up with ways for SR to work in an FTL frame of reference. It's not complicated - it just doesn't apply.

You have it backwards: If it didn't apply, they wouldn't be trying to make it work. The reason they're still TRYING to make it work is because it is very complicated, and because we have very little data to work with on FTL reference frames (as I said above, the only ones we know of are about 47 billion light years away).

Where are you getting this from? Are you trying to redefine FTL as STL? A ship going FTL is outrunning light.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding about how relativity works.

In relativity -- ANY flavor of it -- a reference frame is considered to be a mathematical coordinate system with the firsthand observer (Let's call him "Steve") at the center. Steve has an omniscient instant-information tool that can make measurements of velocity, distance and direction for other objects that exist within his reference frame with him. Since Steve is measuring from his own fixed position, there is no measurable quantity for "Steve's velocity." You can measure the relative velocity between Steve and an outside observer (let's call this observer "Joe"), but in Steve's reference frame, JOE is the one who is moving.

So Steve is happily humming along in his reference frame until he sees a flash of light, looks over with his omniscient godlike tool and sees Joe speeding towards him. Steve's tool will measure Joe's velocity by measuring the distance between them and recording how much the distance changes over a given time interval (Delta-D and Delta-T gives you V). He sees that in the space of one second, Joe has moved one million kilometers closer to him, ergo Joe is moving towards him faster than light. But Steve can also use his tool to measure the speed of the photons being emitted from Joe as he moves through space; again, measuring the distance changes in the rate of time, Steve's tool sees that those photons moved just under 300,000km closer to him in the same second. So in Steve's reference frame, Joe has outrun his own reflection and is moving towards him faster than his photons are.

So what if Steve uses his magical tool to measure his OWN photons? He will, of course, see them moving away from him at the speed of light. This is because Steve is in a stationary frame of reference measuring velocities and distances to other objects that happen to pass through that frame. The thing about special relativity is, Joe's magical tool would be able to make the exact same calculations at the exact same time and come to the exact same conclusions with regard to his own frame: from his point of view, STEVE is moving towards him at superluminal velocity and his own photons are uniformly moving outward at C. Both frames are equally valid, even when they contradict.

That's why FTL in GR and SR can cause all sort of causality problems.

It can cause APPARENT causality problems, yes. What trips up alot of people is that relativistic time dilation doesn't ACTUALLY occur, it's an observational difference resulting from the extreme difference in those reference frames. Practically speaking, it's a bit like Schroedinger's cat: the magic tool I mentioned above is a mathematical abstraction, whereas in reality you cannot transmit or receive information faster than light and therefore cause and effect cannot exceed that velocity either.

They were already feeling the FTL effects way before the visible shockwave reached them.

Indeed, they were feeling the effects BEFORE THEIR SENSORS DETECTED THE SHOCKWAVE. That, too, should tell you something.

And again, SR still treats FTL as FTL and things at LS will still be slower than things at FTL.

You're still forgetting about the issue with their respective reference frames: in SR, you are always stationary within your own reference frame, no matter what speed SOMEONE ELSE measures between the two of you.

And from where do you get this?

Special relativity. You're always stationary in your own reference frame.

That's not correct. You're thinking of reference frames where the observers and objects are moving STL. SR makes LS constant across all reference frames but it also does not like FTL because it can cause a Causality violation.

And the REASON it causes causality violations is because of that very discrepancy: I see my photons moving ahead of me, and YOU see my photons falling BEHIND me.

So Steve moves towards Joe at FTL velocity for one second and then stops at a point 2 light seconds away and waits for Joe to see him. In Steve's reference frame, it takes that photon 3 seconds to reach Joe: the photon traveled 1 light second while he was moving at 2 light seconds after he stopped. Vice versa for Joe, whose photons cover the exact same distance in the exact same time interval. But if Joe measures STEVE'S photons (IOW, Steve's image) then he sees that Steve's photons take much longer than 3 seconds to reach him. That means that Steve and Joe will have two totally contradictory observations of reality: Steve will record that his photons reached Joe at the same moment that Joe's photons reached Steve, but Joe records that his photons arrived at Steve two seconds before Steve arrived at Joe. That cannot usually be reconciled because SR treats both reference frames as being mathematically valid (in reality, it is invalid to treat only ONE of them as the moving observer and therefore both of them would reach identical but contradictory conclusions). The only way to reconcile the contradiction mathematically is if Joe comes to the conclusion that one of the parameters of Steve's measurement device was skewed during travel: Steve thinks his photons were moving away from him because time was moving backwards for him while he was FTL (and vice versa for Steve, who will make the same contradictory observation of Joe's photons).

Hence the causality violation: in some interpretations of SR, Steve actually arrives at his destination before he actually left: Stargazer wouldn't merely APPEAR to be in two places at once, it LITERALLY WOULD be. The alternate interpretation is that the violation is only apparent and a consequence of the fact that information cannot travel faster than light; since you really cannot obtain information at a distance that quickly, there's no opportunity for a causality violation, only the kind of illusory afterimages like we see in the Picard Maneuver.

Ok, I can buy the possibility that it was a complete accident that the weapons officer fired at the wrong target.

So, the possibilities we have are:

1. Stargazer and Ferengi ship exchanged fire simultaneously. Ferengi chose the wrong target.
2. Ferengi fire first, but chose the wrong target.
3. Ferengi fired second but due to damage or confusion prior to its immediate destruction, fired at the wrong target.

In a nutshell, yes. And like I said, these are three possibilities separated in timing by three or four seconds at most. It really could go either way, but from the available information the second two seem the most likely.

See above regarding FTL. The ship that is moving at FTL is moving at FTL speeds.

Simple question for you: you're in space, nothing around you, nothing no sensors, the most distant stars are too far away to accurately measure; IOW, you're in a reference frame that lacks any other objects other than yourself.

What is your velocity in this frame?
Now you fire your engines and accelerate forward at 3Gs for 30 seconds and then stop your engines. Still no other object in your reference frame and you are totally alone.
What is your velocity in this frame?
Then you go to warp 9. Still no other object in your reference frame and you are still totally alone.
What is your velocity in this frame?

[blssdwlf]

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

But you CAN see forward at FTL, precisely because you are still stationary in your own reference frame. This isn't even a trekism or a theoretical prediction; in the real world WE are already moving at FTL velocity with respect to distant galaxies 47 billion LY away (and they, in turn, are moving away from us faster than light). Not only do we have no trouble at all seeing what's "ahead" of us, but we can see the heavily distorted/redshifted images of those galaxies near the edge of our visual horizon.

Those examples are still of objects moving Slower Than Light. An object ACTUALLY moving at Faster-Than-Light speed will outrun light. Faster-Than-Light .

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

You have it backwards: If it didn't apply, they wouldn't be trying to make it work. The reason they're still TRYING to make it work is because it is very complicated, and because we have very little data to work with on FTL reference frames (as I said above, the only ones we know of are about 47 billion light years away).

It's got nothing to do with complicated. SR simply doesn't have equations for ACTUAL FTL situations.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

You have a fundamental misunderstanding about how relativity works.

No, you have the misunderstanding. Where in relativity does it say an Object ACTUALLY traveling Faster Than Light will be slower than Light?

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

Indeed, they were feeling the effects BEFORE THEIR SENSORS DETECTED THE SHOCKWAVE. That, too, should tell you something.

Yes, it tells me that one component is not visible, the shaking, while another is visible. That is consistent with how subspace is portrayed in Trek.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

You're still forgetting about the issue with their respective reference frames: in SR, you are always stationary within your own reference frame, no matter what speed SOMEONE ELSE measures between the two of you.

And that light is a constant in your reference frame and that you're actually moving faster than light.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

Special relativity. You're always stationary in your own reference frame.

Special Relativity doesn't talk about Warp drive or Actual Faster-Than-Light travel. You're just making it up now.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

And the REASON it causes causality violations is because of that very discrepancy: I see my photons moving ahead of me, and YOU see my photons falling BEHIND me.

No. It can causality violations because an object or ship at FTL could observe an event with Object B outside of it's light cone and then potentially break causality by traveling to a point in Object B's past to change it causing a paradox.

Why? Because they are actually traveling Faster Than Light.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

Simple question for you: you're in space, nothing around you, nothing no sensors, the most distant stars are too far away to accurately measure; IOW, you're in a reference frame that lacks any other objects other than yourself.

What is your velocity in this frame?

Slower Than Light, since no object can naturally travel FTL.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

Now you fire your engines and accelerate forward at 3Gs for 30 seconds and then stop your engines. Still no other object in your reference frame and you are totally alone.
What is your velocity in this frame?

Still Slower Than Light.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

Then you go to warp 9. Still no other object in your reference frame and you are still totally alone.
What is your velocity in this frame?

I'm outrunning Light. I stop my ship and wait for my light trail to catch up. I went Faster Than Light.

[Crazy Eddie]

blssdwlf wrote:

---

Those examples are still of objects moving Slower Than Light. An object ACTUALLY moving at Faster-Than-Light speed will outrun light. Faster-Than-Light .

Exactly what part of "Only in an outside observer's reference frame" are you not understanding?

It's got nothing to do with complicated. SR simply doesn't have equations for ACTUAL FTL situations.

The equations apply to FTL just fine. It's just that their larger real-world applications are difficult to parse, but this is equally true of very high sublight velocities anyway.

No, you have the misunderstanding. Where in relativity does it say an Object ACTUALLY traveling Faster Than Light will be slower than Light?

What does "actually" mean in relativity? There's no such thing as a universal reference frame, ergo the only way you could be moving at FTL velocity is with respect to an outside observer. In that observer's frame, you're moving FTL. In your OWN frame, you're stationary. What's more, in the frame of a third observer equidistant between you, both you and the second observer may be seen converging on his position and NEITHER of you are FTL.

It depends on the reference frame you're using. There's no "absolute" frame to determine who is really moving at what speed.

Special Relativity doesn't talk about Warp drive or Actual Faster-Than-Light travel.

Special relativity doesn't "talk" about any travel at all. It's a mathematical abstraction to explain why the speed of light is a constant in all inertial reference frames. The IMPLICATIONS of the theory is what is commonly discussed in thought experiments and paradox studies.

Significantly, plugging in a number greater than C in the bottom part of the equation would yield an imaginary number, and operating the equation with the imaginary number yields either near-infinite time-dilation (time stops) or inverse dilation (Delta-T is a negative value).

No. It can causality violations because an object or ship at FTL could observe an event with Object B outside of it's light cone and then potentially break causality by traveling to a point in Object B's past to change it causing a paradox.

Which is a consequence of the negative values you would get for Delta-T (e.g. time travel appears to be happening). The reason time travel appears to be happening is that relativity treats the speed of light as a constant and time as a variable: light always moves at C in all reference frames, but time may speed up or slow down (or in this case, reverse) to keep those frames consistent.

Velocity is a function of distance over time. If time is a negative value, what happens to velocity?

Slower Than Light, since no object can naturally travel FTL.

Half the universe is currently traveling FTL with respect to the other half. Warp drive simply makes it possible for this to happen over smaller (non-cosmic) scales.

Still Slower Than Light.

The answer is ZERO.

I'm outrunning Light.

Wrong. The answer is still ZERO.

That's the fundamental thing you're not understanding about relativity: all velocities are RELATIVE.

[blssdwlf]

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

Exactly what part of "Only in an outside observer's reference frame" are you not understanding?

Exactly what part of being faster-than-light are you not understanding? Anything traveling faster than the speed of light (in vacuum) will outrun anything traveling at light speed.

If we can still see the galaxy receding from us, even heavily redshifted, it is still only traveling Slower Than Light.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

The equations apply to FTL just fine. It's just that their larger real-world applications are difficult to parse, but this is equally true of very high sublight velocities anyway.

You know that is silly. Your first interpretation, a FTL ship will arrive before it's emitted photons is correct. Your regression into this silly idea that somehow photons traveling at light speed will outrun a ship traveling faster-than-light is just bizarre.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

What does "actually" mean in relativity? There's no such thing as a universal reference frame, ergo the only way you could be moving at FTL velocity is with respect to an outside observer.

Wrong. FTL means traveling faster than light (in a vacuum). Special Relativity postulates an invariant light speed (in a vacuum). If you are FTL, you will always be moving faster than the speed of light which is the same across all reference frames. I used "actually" as a simple way to differentiate your examples of objects that appear to, but are not actually, going faster-than-light.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

In that observer's frame, you're moving FTL. In your OWN frame, you're stationary. What's more, in the frame of a third observer equidistant between you, both you and the second observer may be seen converging on his position and NEITHER of you are FTL.

You forget, in the ship that is traveling Faster-Than-Light's frame, the speed of light will still be SLOWER than the ship.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

It depends on the reference frame you're using. There's no "absolute" frame to determine who is really moving at what speed.

Special relativity doesn't "talk" about any travel at all. It's a mathematical abstraction to explain why the speed of light is a constant in all inertial reference frames. The IMPLICATIONS of the theory is what is commonly discussed in thought experiments and paradox studies.

Yes, and with the speed of light constant in all reference frames, a FTL object will then be moving faster than the speed of light. That is the implication.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

Significantly, plugging in a number greater than C in the bottom part of the equation would yield an imaginary number, and operating the equation with the imaginary number yields either near-infinite time-dilation (time stops) or inverse dilation (Delta-T is a negative value).

And that is why SR has lots of STL examples but rarely do you read about FTL examples. I recommend you look up SR and Tachyons or FTL particles.

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

Wrong. The answer is still ZERO.

That's the fundamental thing you're not understanding about relativity: all velocities are RELATIVE.

LOL. No. The speed of light (in a vacuum) and my emitted photons are my reference. I traveled Faster Than Light therefore I will arrive before my light trail does. The speed of light is constant in all frames, even for ships going FTL.

[Crazy Eddie]

blssdwlf wrote:

---

If we can still see the galaxy receding from us, even heavily redshifted, it is still only traveling Slower Than Light.

Still incorrect: in all reference frames, light always moves at 299,782 km/s, regardless of the velocity of the object that emits that light, regardless of the observer's relative motion.

That's Einstein's Postulate, the fundamental assumption of special relativity. You need to get your head around that for anything else to make sense.

You know that is silly. Your first interpretation, a FTL ship will arrive before it's emitted photons is correct. Your regression into this silly idea that somehow photons traveling at light speed will outrun a ship traveling faster-than-light is just bizarre.

It bears repeating that the photons arrive first only in the traveler's reference frame; they arrive second in the observer's reference frame. This theoretically allows for a causality violation, which is why FTL travel is sometimes assumed to be a form of time travel.

And I agree, like a lot of things in special relativity it seems very bizarre.

Wrong. FTL means traveling faster than light (in a vacuum). Special Relativity postulates an invariant light speed (in a vacuum)...

... in all reference frames. That means that no matter how much you accelerate, you cannot and will not ever encounter a photon that is not moving away from you at the speed of light.

You forget, in the ship that is traveling Faster-Than-Light's frame, the speed of light will still be SLOWER than the ship.

Think about that for a moment. You just said above that the speed of light is the same in all reference frames, then no amount of forward acceleration can change the speed of light in your frame: If you're at .5C, light still moves forward at C. If you're at .9C, light still moves forward at C. If you're at 2C, light still moves forward at C.

This is because, as you said, the speed of light is a constant in all frames, and that means that TIME is variable. At FTL velocities your clock implicitly moves backwards and therefore your photons appear to be moving away from you while in other frames (whose clocks are moving forwards) those photons are moving towards you.

Velocity is a function of distance over time; that is, the distance to an object at T=0 plus the distance to that object at T=1, T=2, T=3, etc. it is not something you can measure against, say, the vacuum of space or the center of the galaxy and say "I am moving at X velocity." That would be a universal/all-encompassing reference frame, something that SR explicitly disavows.

I know that's confusing, and I know you're struggling with it. One thing that might help is to think of the dichotomy between, say, moral relativism and absolutism (the moral relativist claims that acceptable moral/ethical standards vary from culture to culture and that each culture's opinion of what is acceptable are equally valid). Relativistic physics is essentially the mathematical paradigm of PHYSICAL relativism: there is no such thing as objective truth, and there is no ONE answer for any particular question about velocity of time. It depends entirely on who's asking.

And that is why SR has lots of STL examples but rarely do you read about FTL examples. I recommend you look up SR and Tachyons or FTL particles.

What do you think I've been doing for the past five days?

[blssdwlf]

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

If you're at 2C, light still moves forward at C

This pretty much sums up where you don't understand SR. If you're at 2C you are outrunning light IN ALL FRAMES. Until you are able to grasp this simple concept, none of your attempts at explaining SR are valid.

[Crazy Eddie]

blssdwlf wrote:

---

This pretty much sums up where you don't understand SR. If you're at 2C you are outrunning light IN ALL FRAMES.

I understand that just fine. The difference between you and me is that I actually understand WHAT THAT MEANS.

Answer this question before you pat yourself on the back for your superior understanding: in any given reference frame, how do you determine the velocity of an objective that is moving away from you?

[blssdwlf]

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

I understand that just fine. The difference between you and me is that I actually understand WHAT THAT MEANS.

If you really understand WHAT THAT MEANS, then you'd abandon your line that a superluminal ship (AKA ship traveling Faster Than Light) would be able to look ahead, beyond the photons it is running into, with only Light Speed sensors.

[Crazy Eddie]

blssdwlf wrote:

---

If you really understand WHAT THAT MEANS, then you'd abandon your line that a superluminal ship (AKA ship traveling Faster Than Light) would be able to look ahead, beyond the photons it is running into, with only Light Speed sensors.

1) Since you do not seem to understand what a reference frame is, explaining this to you is pointless.

2) This is the second time I have given you the benefit of the doubt and the second time I have become convinced that you are simply trolling in order to save face and no longer care what's being discussed anymore. I will be more careful in the future.