RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,506
Posts: 5,511,399
Members: 25,136
Currently online: 435
Newest member: aprizan

TrekToday headlines

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Tech

Trek Tech Pass me the quantum flux regulator, will you?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 18 2008, 09:56 PM   #31
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: WARP derived from known physics

^^Umm, it's probably against board policy to quote huge chunks of text from other sites like that. And it's definitely improper online etiquette. Note that the site you copied from says that Landis's list appears there with his permission. You do not have Landis's permission to post it here, nor do you have the permission of Marcelo Ribiero or Winchell Chung to copy large portions of their sites, especially without attribution. You should only provide links to those sites, as I did, and quote reasonably brief portions, enclosing them in quote boxes to make the attribution clear.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 11/16/14 including annotations for "The Caress of a Butterfly's Wing" and overview for DTI: The Collectors

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18 2008, 10:17 PM   #32
prometheuspan
Lieutenant Commander
 
prometheuspan's Avatar
 
Location: yes, i do live
Re: WARP derived from known physics

but....


i'm going to sleep now, and when i come back, I'm going to try not to feel like a moron.
__________________

http://mytalktoday.com/solutions/viewforum.php?f=50
please come help get us into space for real!!
prometheuspan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19 2008, 12:07 AM   #33
shipfisher
Commander
 
Re: WARP derived from known physics

The 180 IQ thing shows mate, though if you'll excuse me for saying, all that quoting above is sort of turning into a "pissing" contest. Many posters here are out past my CPU's capacity (I barely rate Mensa membership), but sometimes the layman's point of view can be worth tossing into the fray.

Trying to explain trek warp drive in terms of present day physics is probably akin to having Archimedes explain a transistor. A new paradigm is needed to explain warping space without energy expenditure of stellar magnitude and black hole strength grav fields. Basic trek tech (which is all just good fun - this ain't the CERN forums) has coils composed of milanium or verterium cortenide converting em energy to "subspace field stress" in some far less violent manor than Alcubierre or any of his mates would say was likely.

Steer the 180 IQ toward sorting out unified field theory (or what ever it becomes) for the less gifted of us, and then see what FTL "slight of hand" the universe offers up.

Last edited by shipfisher; September 19 2008 at 12:25 AM.
shipfisher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19 2008, 03:20 AM   #34
SonicRanger
Rear Admiral
 
SonicRanger's Avatar
 
Location: Sheffield, England
Re: WARP derived from known physics

shipfisher wrote: View Post
Trying to explain trek warp drive in terms of present day physics is probably akin to having Archimedes explain a transistor.
Except for the oh-so-minor detail that transistors are real, and Trek warp drive is imaginary. Of course, prometheuspan is using imaginary physics, so that's okay. One simply can't confuse the imaginary and the real (which, I am afraid, is happening a lot in this thread).

prometheuspan wrote:
SonicRanger wrote:
Sorry, prometheuspan, but that's gibberish, not "known physics."
No, its not gibberish. Its also not known physics, its extrapolated from known physics. failure to understand something doesn not mean its gibberish, it means you don't understand the sense it makes.
The schizophrenic man screaming at cars on the street corner thinks that he is making sense -- that doesn't mean he is.
__________________
"STAR TREK is... Action - Adventure - Science Fiction."
-- Gene Roddenberry, 1964, top of the first page of his original pitch and outline for Star Trek
SonicRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19 2008, 05:04 AM   #35
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: WARP derived from known physics

Actually Trek warp drive is a lot closer to being un-imaginary than you'd think. At least, depending on what model you're using. In 1978, NASA propulsion engineer and ST:TMP science advisor Dr. Jesco von Puttkamer wrote a production memo explaining warp drive in terms grounded in real physics -- and his model was based on essentially the same principle as the one that Alcubierre proposed in Classical and Quantum Gravity 16 years later. Since Alcubierre is a confessed Trekker, I wonder if he was aware of Puttkamer's warp model.

Never underestimate the power of science fiction to inspire real scientific and technological innovations.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 11/16/14 including annotations for "The Caress of a Butterfly's Wing" and overview for DTI: The Collectors

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19 2008, 05:36 AM   #36
SonicRanger
Rear Admiral
 
SonicRanger's Avatar
 
Location: Sheffield, England
Re: WARP derived from known physics

^^^

That's all fine and good, Christopher.

But there is no consistent model of how Trek warp works, which is not surprising -- after 40+ years, too many people have added their two cents. The result is a moderately to wildly inconsistent mess that technically oriented fans must go to great lengths to explain and make consistent.

But, as Timo has pointed out, saying things like...

Each warp Engine generates a wormtunnel which merges into the others at an event horizon line ahead of and in back of the vessel. Those holomorphic singularities then branch wildly out, or flare, to form the bulbous sphere of the warp bubble.
The amount of energy used to do this is not as important as the degree of organization. In theory, a very small amount of energy could do it if that energy was very highly organized.
A warp field uses a magnetic field to modulate and cross interfere with the vessels own gravitational field. The vessels own gravity is the initial warp field until the warp distortion begins.
Any normal matter which encounters a warp boundary will be turned cataclysmically into graviton energy.
Warp, if it works, will be based on using some sort of energy field to come into phase with the gravitional field of th vessel.
... in the initial post of a thread title "WARP derived from known physics" is a joke. One cannot pretend that these uneducated statements are anything less than fantasy. Reading speculative physics books and articles and cut 'n' pasting bits and pieces together doesn't constitute a coherent argument. It is the equivalent of a kidnapper's ransom note cut out of newspaper clippings -- the words have been shuffled around to mean something that the original writers never intended.
__________________
"STAR TREK is... Action - Adventure - Science Fiction."
-- Gene Roddenberry, 1964, top of the first page of his original pitch and outline for Star Trek

Last edited by SonicRanger; September 19 2008 at 06:18 AM. Reason: typo
SonicRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19 2008, 06:28 AM   #37
shipfisher
Commander
 
Re: WARP derived from known physics

SonicRanger wrote: View Post
shipfisher wrote: View Post
Trying to explain trek warp drive in terms of present day physics is probably akin to having Archimedes explain a transistor.
Except for the oh-so-minor detail that transistors are real, and Trek warp drive is imaginary. Of course, prometheuspan is using imaginary physics, so that's okay. One simply can't confuse the imaginary and the real (which, I am afraid, is happening a lot in this thread).
You mean confusing the real and the imaginary isn't what this forum is all about?
shipfisher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19 2008, 07:49 PM   #38
Albertus
Lieutenant
 
Albertus's Avatar
 
Location: East Sussex, UK
Re: WARP derived from known physics

Its really nice to see that such intelligent people can be reduced to gibbering idiots. The only 'real world' scenario is 'zero point', or 'vacum energy'. Start talking about that as a 'Warp' alternative, and I am with you.
Albertus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19 2008, 10:11 PM   #39
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: WARP derived from known physics

^^If you're talking about extracting energy from the vacuum as a power source, that's a fantasy that violates the law of conservation of energy. At best, you could get a more concentrated amount of energy out of it, but you'd need to put in a greater amount of energy than you could get out.

You're also blurring two different categories. ZPE is a power source; warp is a propulsion system. Just getting zero-point energy doesn't make you go anywhere; it would simply give you the power you needed to fuel whatever drive you did use, whether a warp field, a wormhole, or something different.

However, the Casimir effect does depend on vacuum fluctuations, and has been proposed as a means of producing the negative energy (at least relative to the surrounding space) that's required to create stable warp and wormhole metrics. So the quantum vacuum is being taken into account in multiple cutting-edge FTL theories, including the Cleaver-Obousy warp proposal.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 11/16/14 including annotations for "The Caress of a Butterfly's Wing" and overview for DTI: The Collectors

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 20 2008, 03:25 PM   #40
prometheuspan
Lieutenant Commander
 
prometheuspan's Avatar
 
Location: yes, i do live
Re: WARP derived from known physics

Had i known that my capacity to edit would end on some time frame i hardly would have left those posts in such condition.

It has become increasingly clear that you guys are not interested in the subject, just mocking me.

This does not motivate me to bother to explore it any further.

Nor does it bode well for my continued participation on this board.
__________________

http://mytalktoday.com/solutions/viewforum.php?f=50
please come help get us into space for real!!
prometheuspan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 20 2008, 11:32 PM   #41
shipfisher
Commander
 
Re: WARP derived from known physics

prometheuspan wrote: View Post
Had i known that my capacity to edit would end on some time frame i hardly would have left those posts in such condition.

It has become increasingly clear that you guys are not interested in the subject, just mocking me.

This does not motivate me to bother to explore it any further.

Nor does it bode well for my continued participation on this board.
Mate!

This is a forum.

This thread has received many well considered responses.

That is well and truly a result.

Don't confuse getting served the hard word with any particular malice on anyone's part. That's just part of the game around here.

The more you get people's backs up and diverge from orthodox thought on a given subject, the more you get at least some in the audience going "hmmm...".

Revolutions have started that way, even if the trekbbs boards might not seem the most fertile ground for such at times.

The cheering section for the keen insights of others aren't amongst the most prolific posters on these boards. Seemingly grudging acknowledgment that you may have a point should be deemed high praise. Just have fun with whatever you get back and remember that an entertainment franchise is in fact at the core of things in this neck of the woods. Many here have put together a somewhat personalized model of how trek tech works as seen on screen, and this tends to be associated with varying degrees of emotional investment (I'm guilty of this - it happens when you grow up with something). Some posts rate as pretty good rorschach test results.

Once again...have fun.

Last edited by shipfisher; September 21 2008 at 12:17 AM.
shipfisher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 21 2008, 09:42 PM   #42
Ronald Held
Rear Admiral
 
Location: On the USS Sovereign
Re: WARP derived from known physics

Would you want to continue the discussion on the Science forum?
Ronald Held is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 24 2008, 12:40 AM   #43
Tigger
Fleet Captain
 
Tigger's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Re: WARP derived from known physics

prometheuspan wrote: View Post
It has become increasingly clear that you guys are not interested in the subject, just mocking me.
That is not true and you insult those who have tried to have a conversation with you by stating so. A conversation is a two-way dialogue, after all.

Personally, I agree this should be kicked over the Science forum, since the goal is to discuss a fictional propulsion system solely within the context of existing science.

Second, it would likely have been better to approach this one "statement" at a time, rather then positing an entire theory. That way, to conversation stays focused on one thing at a time and discuss it to a consensus. Once that is done, move on to the next "statement" so as to build on each preceding one.

Third, Science is not just about the results. You also really do have to "show the work on the chalkboard" to prove those results are valid. If Einstein's paper on Relativity was just the equation and the equation alone, the professional science community would not have taken it seriously.

And fourth, understand that Science is about the math. I don't know how many professional scientists "lucidly visualize" or however you said was how you developed your theories, but I do know that they develop theories that involve a great deal of equations that are all then solved so as to offer a mathematical proof of their theorem.

If you are unable or unwilling to do that, then you're going to have a difficult time working with those of us with scientific backgrounds because we work the way the discipline tells us to work. And for every "genius" you can quote who broke the system, if their work is recognized by the professional scientific community, somewhere along the way, they presented that work in a way that conformed to that discipline.
__________________
Chris "Tigger" Wallace
Tigger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 24 2008, 10:19 PM   #44
prometheuspan
Lieutenant Commander
 
prometheuspan's Avatar
 
Location: yes, i do live
Re: WARP derived from known physics

Mate!

This is a forum.

This thread has received many well considered responses.
It has received only one response worthy of calling it such and the rest is crap. That one response starts off assuming that I am ignorant and moves to inform me of shit i already knew. Then 15 people drive the thread off topic to tell me how much they think I'm lame.

Crap. I'd do better with a group of first graders.


Don't confuse getting served the hard word with any particular malice on anyone's part. That's just part of the game around here.
Frankly, the alpha dog king of the hill game gets entirely too much
air time compared to solving the problems. I'm not interested in all of that BS, I'm interested in how to make a workign model. anybody who doesn't share that interest should stay off the thread, not use it a vehicle to prop up their diseased egos.

The more you get people's backs up and diverge from orthodox thought on a given subject, the more you get at least some in the audience going "hmmm...".
Hmmm is great. Starting half a dozen threads on this board and not getting a single useful response because everybodies either too busy playing at pack psychology or nobody answers? Thats not hmm, thats FAIL.


Revolutions have started that way, even if the trekbbs boards might not seem the most fertile ground for such at times.
There lies the tragedy. All of these great minds and all they can seem to do with them is constantly work out whos on top.


The cheering section for the keen insights of others aren't amongst the most prolific posters on these boards.
I'm not looking for cheering, just adults who are interested in warp speed
and how to obtain it, instead of juveniles who need to cyclically prove how much better they are than the next easy target.



Seemingly grudging acknowledgment that you may have a point should be deemed high praise. Just have fun with whatever you get back and remember that an entertainment franchise is in fact at the core of things in this neck of the woods.
I can't imagine how you or anybody would think that this is fun, that I have gotten back anything, or that this isn't a total waste of time.


Many here have put together a somewhat personalized model of how trek tech works as seen on screen, and this tends to be associated with varying degrees of emotional investment
Which is all fine and good until somebody sits down given what we know of physics and tries to figure it out rationally. Then that person is mocked, ignored, and told that hes being an idiot.
Which is a crying shame, because its an interesting high order problem,
and doing it justice on this board would have been a worthy conversation.



Once again...have fun.
I'm not having fun. Then Again, everything i ever try to do with humans to have fun pretty much ends up the same way.
__________________

http://mytalktoday.com/solutions/viewforum.php?f=50
please come help get us into space for real!!
prometheuspan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 24 2008, 10:27 PM   #45
prometheuspan
Lieutenant Commander
 
prometheuspan's Avatar
 
Location: yes, i do live
Re: WARP derived from known physics

That is not true and you insult those who have tried to have a conversation with you by stating so. A conversation is a two-way dialogue, after all.
Its great to have one of those. Let me know if and when it starts or what forum i have to sign up for.


Personally, I agree this should be kicked over the Science forum, since the goal is to discuss a fictional propulsion system solely within the context of existing science.
My goal is build a working FTL drive. I don't know what everybody elses goals are other than to beef up their egos by pissing on mine.

Second, it would likely have been better to approach this one "statement" at a time, rather then positing an entire theory. That way, to conversation stays focused on one thing at a time and discuss it to a consensus. Once that is done, move on to the next "statement" so as to build on each preceding one.
Dear humanz; sorry my mind doesn't work in clinity little baby steps.
I WAS going to solve all of your problems, but, since you can't handle communications deeper than a single paragraph, I've decided trying to help humans is entirely pointless.


Third, Science is not just about the results. You also really do have to "show the work on the chalkboard" to prove those results are valid. If Einstein's paper on Relativity was just the equation and the equation alone, the professional science community would not have taken it seriously.
Give me a break. If you have any knowledge at all about the underlying complexities then you know as well as i do that covering them is impossible given the forum rules regarding three posts and the post limit. One second you say less is more and the next second theres not enough. I can't win either way, so, why bother?

And fourth, understand that Science is about the math. I don't know how many professional scientists "lucidly visualize" or however you said was how you developed your theories, but I do know that they develop theories that involve a great deal of equations that are all then solved so as to offer a mathematical proof of their theorem.
Virtually all of the ones that made the big breakthroughs describe doing so via thought experiments.


If you are unable or unwilling to do that, then you're going to have a difficult time working with those of us with scientific backgrounds because we work the way the discipline tells us to work.
Thats gibberish and crap. Science says talk about the theory, not the person. Science says ask questions and ask for clarification, not, shoot from the hip and ask questions later. None of this has anything to do with science, its all alpha dog egotism and pack psychology.


And for every "genius" you can quote who broke the system, if their work is recognized by the professional scientific community, somewhere along the way, they presented that work in a way that conformed to that discipline.
Actually, einstein and others redefined the discipline and made it conform to them.

I'm not looking to do that, I'm just (was. Have now given up) trying to start
a conversation by generating a working lexicon for primary important principles.

Obviously, this board doesn't have what it takes, and its always been a flat waste of time.
__________________

http://mytalktoday.com/solutions/viewforum.php?f=50
please come help get us into space for real!!
prometheuspan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
technobabble, warp drive

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:14 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.