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?
No. I get exactly what you mean. I'm just saying that lack of evidence IS evidence in an of itself. For example if I said "Unicorns don't exist." And then you say, "Well just becasue you've never seen one, doesn't mean they don't exist." Yes, you're technically correct there could be unicorns hidden in some far off jungle and no one has ever seen them. But because of the fact that there has never been one observed in all the realms that humans have explored it is highly indicative that they don't exist. Is it absolute proof? Of course not.
My conclusion that the NCC-1701 warp drive did not use subspace does fit with the available onscreen evidence. And further matches up with the changes in nacelle design, and the changes in how the reactors function. It doesn't contradict anything seen on screen, instead it only contradicts fan assumptions.
I'm still waiting for your evidence that they DID use subspace for FTL propulsion.
You make a great point about bathrooms. We don't have any evidence that they had bathrooms. It is reasonable to assume that some sort of waste management system exists, but we don't have any indications as to what those systems might be. Maybe they didn't have bathrooms as we know them, maybe they just paste suction cups to their butts.
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.
Yes, but there is no evidence it was ever retconned either. It's just fan assumption.
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.
So called "early installment weirdness" is still canon. I don't dismiss it just becasue it's different than TNG era trek.
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.
I'm using the term "Alcubierre" to refer to any system that generates a "bubble" of spacetime that enables ftl travel. This being differentiated from the TNG era propulsion which uses a "bubble" of subspace to move FTL.
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.
I don't believe I have pushed that time barrier means time dilation in this thread. I'm just wondering what the difference between pre and post "Time Barrier" warp drives are. That the question that I'm really trying to find an answer to. In regards to fictional FTL propulsion we have a system that "bends" spacetime and we have a system that "bends" subspace. What is a third system that overcomes or is unable to overcome a "time barrier"?
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?
Series Bibles aren't canon. If I look up references to impulse engines from just Star Trek, not the other series, I find a couple of interesting things. First, impulse engines maintain velocity NOT acceleration. References to impulse are always about speed. This indicates that they don't operate like rockets, becasue, as was pointed out earlier, when rockets are on they provide acceleration. However, when impulse engines are on they provide velocity, depending on the setting. Second, impulse engines can operate in reverse. There are a couple references where impulse engine are used to go backwards. This is also unlike rocket engines which produce thrust in one direction. So it appears that the actual series is contradicting the series bible.