Haven't you heard? And you won't believe how fast you can get back. Well the time barrier's been broken.
Ruk voice:
That's what those spheres on the back of the engines do! Spheres must cancel out time dilation.
when did TOS take place, 23rd century or 22nd century
- Thread starter Gabriel
- Start date
Haven't you heard? And you won't believe how fast you can get back. Well the time barrier's been broken.
Ruk voice:
That's what those spheres on the back of the engines do! Spheres must cancel out time dilation.
(Trans)warp of the excelsior into the TNG era seemed to involve using subspace. However, prior to this there is no mention* of subspace being used for propulsion. It's only ever used for communication. So if we suppose the NCC-1701 was using an alcubierre type warp drive what type of warp drive was used before the Time Barrier was broken? Or were alcubierre style drives used before the Time Barrier was broken, and the NCC-1701 warp drive was different from both the alcubierre style and the subspace style.
*excluding Enterprise of course.
*excluding Enterprise of course.
Actually, very few documented cases. You must be referencing TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT? The only numeric on-screen documented case for TOS is in The Corbomite Maneuver where they were being towed at 0.64 c:
SPOCK: He's sneaked power down a bit.
SULU: Our speed is down to point six four of light.
Another vague one might be Where No Man Has Gone Before:SULU: Our speed is down to point six four of light.
Captain's log, Star date 1312.9. Ship's condition, heading back on impulse power only. Main engines burned out. The ship's space warp ability gone. Earth bases which were only days away are now years in the distance...
SPOCK: Recommendation one. There's a planet a few light days away from here. Delta Vega...
Star date 1313.1. We're now approaching Delta Vega.
Also, every time Kirk ordered "Full Speed" while on impulse, or "Full Impulse", we don't know how fast it is, but it's as fast as she goes under impulse.SPOCK: Recommendation one. There's a planet a few light days away from here. Delta Vega...
Star date 1313.1. We're now approaching Delta Vega.
Just because TOS characters didn't talk about warp drive being subspace-based, that doesn't mean it wasn't, because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It just means the subject didn't come up.
The first use of "subspace" as a property of warp drive was in Dr. Jesco von Puttkamer's technical notes for Star Trek: The Motion Picture (which basically predicted Alcubierre's theory 16 years early, but only in broad conceptual strokes rather than doing the actual math, which is the important part in physics). However, von Puttkamer used the term to refer to the "bubble" of spacetime inside the warp field. TNG was the first use of the term to refer to a distinct spacetime continuum analogous to the "hyperspace" used in other fiction.
That's a meaningless question, since Alcubierre's model is the only one known that works like a fictional warp drive, i.e. a space warp generated by a ship and enabling it to travel effectively faster than light, as opposed to something generated externally like a wormhole. And as I said, there's no reason why the Special Relativity phenomenon of time dilation would apply to space-warp propulsion, because, again, the ship is not actually moving at all, it's just restructuring the topology of spacetime. You remember how Futurama did a joke about how their drive worked by moving the universe around the ship so that the ship didn't have to move faster than light? That's actually not an entirely invalid description of how warp drive works.
Motion in space doesn't work the same way it does on Earth, because there's no friction to speak of. On Earth, you need to maintain thrust to keep a constant velocity, because you have to cancel out the friction trying to slow you down. But in the vacuum of space, you only maintain a constant speed if you're not under thrust, if you're just coasting. If your engines are firing, then you're accelerating.
So "full impulse" does not refer to a specific speed; it refers to how hard you're accelerating. It's not like the difference between going 25 MPH or going 50 MPH; it's more like the difference between pushing lightly on the gas pedal or slamming it to the floor. Either way, you'll keep getting faster and faster as long as you're applying thrust. But in space, if you take your foot off the pedal, you won't slow down; you'll just keep going at the same speed until you apply reverse thrust to decelerate.
Also, in naval usage, "full speed" doesn't mean the fastest possible speed, but the top recommended speed; pushing it beyond that to the limit is called "flank speed." So by analogy, "full impulse" would mean the highest recommended acceleration rather than the highest possible acceleration.
TOS "The Paradise Syndrome (S3) They traveled back to the Planet with the transplanted American Indian tribe (that Kirk with Amnesia lived among for MONTHS) under Impulse drive after they warped out at top warp speed to divert it and failed.
But still for both WNMHGB and TPS (which bth have the ship sublight at near relativistic speed for days - there was no appriciable relativistic Time Dilation efects mentioned or shown.
As for how fast Impulse Drive is - from ST:TMP -
1.8 hours = 96 minutes
From Earth to Jupiter at 'c' is 43 minutes so if they were going Full Impulse that's a little less then 1/2 lightspeed give or take.
Your premise is faulty, because the Enterprise was pacing the asteroid as it drifted through space. Asteroids don't move at anywhere even remotely close to relativistic velocity, even ones on interstellar trajectories. For instance, the recently discovered interstellar asteroid 'Oumuamua had an estimated velocity of 26.33 km/s, which is less than a hundredth of a percent of the speed of light. Faster rogue stars and planets may get up to a few hundred km/s, still a fraction of a percent of c. The time dilation at that speed would be insignificant.
Anyway, the numbers in "The Paradise Syndrome" don't add up. It took "several hours" to reach the intercept point at warp 9, and a bit over 59 days getting back at impulse. Now, onscreen warp travel has always been shown to be much faster than the supposed warp formulae, but if we go by the warp factor cubed model, then warp 9 is a minimum of 729c, and if we assume "several" means, say, 5 hours, then we're talking a distance of about 3645 light-hours, i.e. 152 light-days, which is about 5 light-months. So to cover that distance in 2 months, they would've had to be going 2.5 times the speed of light, which of course is impossibly fast for an asteroid, let alone a starship at impulse speed.
More proof that it's generally best just to ignore the numbers in Star Trek, because the people who come up with them rarely care if they make sense; they're just meant to give the audience a rough impression in passing, so they're unlikely to hold up to scrutiny.
Don't know how this relates to 23rd or 22nd century, but it's fun. Their speed is never discussed, but if it takes ~2 months to drift back to the planet with the asteroid, then they are going at fairly slow speeds (10's of thousands of miles per hour), no time dilation. Warp 9 near a star is going much slower than the warp formula if you are not using the Cochrane Factor adjustment. We analyzed this scenario in another thread. [URL="https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/moving-slow-at-warp-speed.297708/"]Moving Slow at Warp Speed[/URL]
I have to disagree with you here. We have lots of evidence. And that evidence is that there are zero cases where the term subspace is used in relation to warp drive. Now we can compare this with other series for example:
TNG has approximately 23 cases where the term subspace is used in relation to warp drive over a span of 178 episodes.
DSN has approximately 17 cases where the term subspace is used in relation to warp drive over 176 episodes.
VOY approximately 15 cases where the term subspace is used in relation to warp drive over 172 episodes.
That's one mention per 7.74 episodes for TNG.
That's one mention per 10.35 episodes for DSN.
That's one mention per 11.46 episodes for VOY.
Based on these numbers, and assuming that they represent an average amount of discussion, we should expect to see about between 6 and 10 mentions of subspace in relation to warp drive. Instead we get zero. This represents an anomalous absence of mentions. And could be highly indicative of the NCC-1701 warp system not involving subspace.
But we also need to consider the fact that the entire warp system is different. In TNG onward dilithium is used IN the m/am reactor to regulate the reaction. In ST dilithium powers the ship and is a separate system from the (up to three) m/am reactors.
Additionally, the design of the warp nacelles is completely different. TNG era nacelles have blue glowy grills with red bussards on front.
NCC-1701 nacelles have no blue glowing elements. Instead the only glowing elements are the nacelle caps which are completely different in appearance than the TNG era bussards.
Is any of this solid proof? Of course not. However, it very strongly indicates a difference in systems between the two eras.
Considering that technical notes are not canon, while interesting, its not really relevant.
Not really, we have evidence for at least three different type of warp drive systems in the Star Trek Universe. Time Barrier Limited, Post Time Barrier, and TNG(Excelsior Transwarp). My question is what is the difference between these systems? IF an Alcubierre system is one of the first two, then how does the third system operate?
We need to remember that Impulse Engines are not rocket engines. They could be operating on field principles similar to warp drive. So "Full Impulse" could be in indication as to how much energy is being pumped into the system rather than an indication of thrust or speed.
Just more evidence that warp speeds are slower near gravity wells.
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/moving-slow-at-warp-speed.297708/
Annnnd... you've totally missed the point of "Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence." They never mentioned a bathroom in TOS -- does that mean nobody ever needed one?
Obviously the writers of TOS did not intend to connect subspace to warp drive, but this is a work of fiction that is being made up as it goes, and countless other things have been retconned in after the fact without it representing an in-universe change.
Oh, good lord, you are being ridiculously literal. "Time barrier" was a bit of gibberish they made up before they'd established the rules of the universe in any detail. It was just early-installment weirdness like James R. Kirk and lithium crystals.
You're willfully misunderstand the real physics of the Alcubierre model in order to fit your attachment to something completely fictional. Again: Alcubierre's theory is not some single type of warp drive. The lack of time dilation would be a feature of warp drive, period.
Not to mention that you have no basis to assume your "time barrier means time dilation" theory is accurate. You evidently just pulled that out of your hat.
In fact, that's exactly what they were originally intended to be. According to the TOS bible (Third Revision, p. 8), "The Enterprise has a secondary propulsion system. These are impulse power engines (same principle as rocket power)."
So now you're contradicting yourself. If you're willing to back-project TNG's retcon that impulse engines are more than just rockets onto the TOS era, why are you unwilling to do the same with the concept that subspace is connected to warp drive?
Sure glad I asked that question...
I think the intended principle is a force is applied to push the ship at a structural hard point, i.e. an impulse engine. So, if a gravity drive is used for example, the impulse engine operates by pushing (or pulling in reverse) the ship from its engine mount. Throwing out reactant fuels or matter is not needed, yet it still "acts" like rocket power by applying thrust to the ship. Of course, this system is very efficient, capable of 100's if not 1000's of G forces. Good thing the ship has an inertial dampening system to counter the G forces, or, they'd be spam in a can.
Sure glad I asked that question...
I note that your definition of an indefinite small number or few is the fourth definition listed in the online merriam-webster. And the other three are all about two, no more, no less. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/couple
Some other online dictionaries do not list an indefinite small number or a few among their definitions of "couple".
We can all agree that If Samuel A. Peebles wanted everyone to be absolutely certain that "where No Man Has Gone before" was before 2196 TM he would have written :the last two centuries" and if he wanted everyone to be absolutely certain that "Where No Man Has Gone Before" might possibly be after 2196 TM he would have written "the last few centuries". TM stands for a date in the Tarbolde-Mitchell calendar, the one used by Mitchell in his statement.
And it is my opinion that the majority of persons would interpret "the last couple of centuries" to mean "the last pair of centuries" or "the last two centuries". Therefore the fictional date of "Where No Man Has Gone Before" should be deduced to be sometime between 2096 TM and 2196 TM, TM standing for a date in the Tarbolde-Mitchell calendar, the one used by Mitchell in his statement, and leaving the date range in Anno domini dating uncertain. With the information given in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" it is possible that 2096 TM might be before AD 2096, or that 2196 TM might be after AD 2196.
Yes, but when a writer is giving the readers or viewers the first bit of information the viewers can use to deduce the precise date or the date range of the story, it is their duty to make the character switch from informal and vague to formal and precise when giving that information.
Samuel A. Peebles could have chosen phrases that were quite precise, such as "the last century", "The last two centuries", "the last three centuries", "the last four centuries", etc. Or he could have chosen a phrase which make it precisely clear that the number of centuries was not specified, such as "The last few centuries". Instead he chose to use "the last couple of centuries", which - if he wanted to avoid misleading the audience - means that he used it in the precise sense of "the last two centuries".
There is one way a writer can have a character mislead the audience. The correct information can be revealed later in the story, thus showing that the character was lying, or misinformed, or careless with facts. Dr. Dehner could have have told Gary Mitchell in a later scene: "Are you sure we can survive on delta Vega? You do make mistakes; you said that 1996 was during the last couple of centuries, for example.".
Or maybe Spock could say: "Mitchell is not omniscient; for example, he told Dr. Dehner that 1996 was within the last two centuries."
Dehner: "What? How could you listen to our private conversation?"
Spock: "I turned on the spy function of the ship's communication system."
But so far as I know there were never any such dialog in any version of the script.
As far as the episode shows nobody but Dehner or Mitchell knew what they said and they both died soon afterwards without much chance to tell anyone off screen.So it seems extremely unlikely that Peebles would intend Mitchell to speak vaguely when saying "the last couple of centuries"..
Last edited:
And? That's how dictionaries work. You use the sense of the word that applies to context. The example under sense #4 even has the same grammatical structure as Mitchell's line: "couple of days" vs "couple of centuries."
When the Enterprise crew returned to a Starbase after the events on Delta Vega they discovered that in their absence that the uniforms had changed!
JB
JB
The crew of the Antares didn't get the memo, either. Boy was Captain Ramart embarrassed when he beamed over to the Enterprise!When the Enterprise crew returned to a Starbase after the events on Delta Vega they discovered that in their absence that the uniforms had changed!
JB
Kirk even rubbed it in by wearing the newest in captain fashion apparel: the green wrap around. Nice. 
Last edited:
Yeah they had a uniform where you could tell a officer rank just by looking at them sleeves.When the Enterprise crew returned to a Starbase after the events on Delta Vega they discovered that in their absence that the uniforms had changed!
JB
