"Full stop?"
- Thread starter Urge
- Start date
Because space craft 'drifting' their way to everywhere, and acceleration being more the important (or the only applicable) engine characteristic (rather than maximum speed) runs counter to average viewer's experience of vehicle operation, i.e. if the engine stops, vehicle stops.
Well, I've always looked at it like this, the warp drive is more like a reactor than an engine, and the nacelles produce the warp field. Impulse drives are more like rocket motors or jet engines. This is why I always liked the tech of the TMP era, it had a much more logical system than TNG.
The warp core only needs to drive the warp engines; it's a waste of fuel if the ship isn't actually at warp, since 90% of its INTERNAL power is coming from the fusion reactors anyway (which are also always on).
To answer the above question, the real reason engines were always on in space ships was 1) modeling problems, since filming miniatures usually represented engines with glowing lights that couldn't be switched on and off and 2) the grandfather claus.
Strictly speaking, the warp core shouldn't be active at all unless the ship is actually AT WARP. If there's a need for it to be active, then that power ought to be channeled to the impulse engines instead of having those big fusion reactors be operational all the time.
So their credit, the VFX crew of STXI were smart enough to extinguish the glow of the impulse engine just before the ship goes into warp; I imagine there's a bit of a "gearshift" moment when power is transferred from impulse engines to warp nacelles.
Indeed. The big intermix chamber was the prime mover for BOTH systems, with the impulse engines simply being "low gear," drawing their power directly from the main reactor.
Of course, the new system is sort of like those Pegasus class hydrofoils: you have diesel engines for the propellers, and then a turbofan engine for when the ship is using foils. Russian hydrofoils use diesels for both, but they need FRIGGIN HUGE engines to pull it off; I imagine that's why the NuEnterprise has SIX warp cores instead of just the one.
TMP still sits as the best when it came to the thought put behind it's tech from the start...
And don't get me started on that stupid "eject the core" nonsense...
what a dumb concept.
And don't get me started on that stupid "eject the core" nonsense...
what a dumb concept.
And don't get me started on that stupid "eject the core" nonsense...
Which part of the concept? The use that was in ST:XI, or ejecting the core in principle?
It's worth pointing out that, despite this popular conception, there is a strong, and growing, perspective in scientific circles that the "everything is relative" perspective is, in fact, INVALID. It's a nice "tool" for certain calculations, but it does result in the ability to create math proofs which disprove the theory itself!
My favorite one is the idea of two ships moving towards each other at 1/2C (not accelerating, moving at a constant velocity), from the perspective of a person on a planet surface. Now, from the perspective of the first ship, it is essentially stationary, the planet is moving at 1/2C, and the other ship is moving at C. Meanwhile, from the perspective of the second ship, the first ship is moving at C, the planet is moving at 1/2C, and the second ship itself is "stationary."
Now... that's the central point of the "all frames are relative" argument, isn't it?
Now, suppose that all three objects start out at the same point, the two ships then fly away, then (and yes, I know this isn't strictly possible, but it makes the problem easier!) instantaneously turn around and fly back at the same speed.
The only thing you're disregarding is the complexity of variable velocity. The basic rules still apply perfectly well.
Look at the problem from the viewpoint of each party. The guy on the surface, the guy on the first ship, and the guy on the second ship.
Solve it each way.
You end up with three different solutions. Yet, in REALITY, you won't have (1) the two ships experiencing less time than the time experienced on the planet (if the planet is the "reference"), AND (2) the planet experiencing slightly less time than the first ship, and the second experiencing MUCH les than the first ship (effectively NO time will have passed, since they were at C relative to the first ship)... as seen from that first ship's perspective... AND (3) the opposite occurring with the second ship.
When the three objects meet, they will meet at precisely one point in time. How much time will have passed from each perspective?
I've seen a few dozen proofs based upon this. The final answer, given by the typical college-professor, is to get really mad and just tell you that you don't "get it" and give you an "F" for questioning what you're supposed to accept blindly.
But the proofs are perfectly valid. The existing theory, as widely MISUNDERSTOOD, has glaring problems.
Reality is that "time" and "rate" are two entirely different things. We've observed "rate changes" for objects moving very fast... but we also observe the same thing when we chill things to absolute zero. Is it really "time" being dilated, or just "rate?"
And if "time" is really an absolute, why not "space" too?
Who's to say... seriously... that there isn't some sort of "universal frame of reference" to which everything is related? We know our local frame-of-reference... based upon the velocity of our star system, which is itself moving as part of a galaxy which is moving, and so on. Maybe the "real" speed of light is much faster (relative to the "real reference") than what we know, but we're "dilated" down because we're moving pretty quickly?
Look... I'm not saying this is true, or that it's not true. But you need to be very careful about assuming that something that your High School science book tells you is somehow "absolute universal truth." We are barely at the infancy-level in terms of our understanding of the physics under which the universe really runs.
Always take, not with a "grain of salt" but rather with a SLAB of it, anyone who claims that they know "universal truth" on a matter like this, where we have almost no real experience.
That said...
In "trek" terms:
Given that a true "full stop" would mean you'd stop, relative to the fabric of the universe, and thus you'd basically be moving TREMENDOUSLY quickly relative to the rest of the galaxy, it's unlikely that "full stop" means that in any "universal" terms.
Rather, there would need to be some form of "galactic coordinate system" (likely based upon a combination of subspace-beacon nav-buoys and real-world landmarks... like, for instance, quasars, pulsars, and/or neutron stars). You'd have a complicated "inertial-guidance system" like system on your ship as well, but would constantly be checking your position relative to not only it but also the external beacons and "landmarks."
"Full stop" would most likely be based upon that coordinate system.
On the other hand... suppose that there is some form of "ether" making up the fabric of space-time (some theories... including the ones behind "zero-point energy" generation... incorporate this concept). In that case... perhaps you'd be going "full stop" relative to the local "fabric of space." This "fabric" might be part of the galaxy, not the "universe as a whole" and would be moving relative to the galaxy.
Hell, it might even have currents and flows... the "Star Trek Star Maps" book from a couple of years ago postulated exactly such a concept. Your speed is measured relative to the fabric of space-time you're in... and that might, itself, be moving. So "Warp 5" in one place might be much different, relative to "real" speeds, than it is in another location.
Anyway, it's all make-believe for now. Just as a significant of what you've evidently been told is "real physics" is.
It's all just good storytelling - and hopefully, someday, our distance descendents may know the whole story.
I have far more than a high school understanding of Special and General Relativity (and better than most physics professors' understanding too)... are you asking for a tutorial?It's worth pointing out that, despite this popular conception, there is a strong, and growing, perspective in scientific circles that the "everything is relative" perspective is, in fact, INVALID. It's a nice "tool" for certain calculations, but it does result in the ability to create math proofs which disprove the theory itself!
My favorite one is the idea of two ships moving towards each other at 1/2C (not accelerating, moving at a constant velocity), from the perspective of a person on a planet surface. Now, from the perspective of the first ship, it is essentially stationary, the planet is moving at 1/2C, and the other ship is moving at C. Meanwhile, from the perspective of the second ship, the first ship is moving at C, the planet is moving at 1/2C, and the second ship itself is "stationary."
Now... that's the central point of the "all frames are relative" argument, isn't it?
Now, suppose that all three objects start out at the same point, the two ships then fly away, then (and yes, I know this isn't strictly possible, but it makes the problem easier!) instantaneously turn around and fly back at the same speed.
The only thing you're disregarding is the complexity of variable velocity. The basic rules still apply perfectly well.
Look at the problem from the viewpoint of each party. The guy on the surface, the guy on the first ship, and the guy on the second ship.
Solve it each way.
You end up with three different solutions. Yet, in REALITY, you won't have (1) the two ships experiencing less time than the time experienced on the planet (if the planet is the "reference"), AND (2) the planet experiencing slightly less time than the first ship, and the second experiencing MUCH les than the first ship (effectively NO time will have passed, since they were at C relative to the first ship)... as seen from that first ship's perspective... AND (3) the opposite occurring with the second ship.
When the three objects meet, they will meet at precisely one point in time. How much time will have passed from each perspective?
I've seen a few dozen proofs based upon this. The final answer, given by the typical college-professor, is to get really mad and just tell you that you don't "get it" and give you an "F" for questioning what you're supposed to accept blindly.
But the proofs are perfectly valid. The existing theory, as widely MISUNDERSTOOD, has glaring problems.
Reality is that "time" and "rate" are two entirely different things. We've observed "rate changes" for objects moving very fast... but we also observe the same thing when we chill things to absolute zero. Is it really "time" being dilated, or just "rate?"
And if "time" is really an absolute, why not "space" too?
Who's to say... seriously... that there isn't some sort of "universal frame of reference" to which everything is related? We know our local frame-of-reference... based upon the velocity of our star system, which is itself moving as part of a galaxy which is moving, and so on. Maybe the "real" speed of light is much faster (relative to the "real reference") than what we know, but we're "dilated" down because we're moving pretty quickly?
Look... I'm not saying this is true, or that it's not true. But you need to be very careful about assuming that something that your High School science book tells you is somehow "absolute universal truth." We are barely at the infancy-level in terms of our understanding of the physics under which the universe really runs.
Always take, not with a "grain of salt" but rather with a SLAB of it, anyone who claims that they know "universal truth" on a matter like this, where we have almost no real experience.
The math isn't especially difficult (for Special Relativity), and the examples you've questioned are some of the easiest to answer.
But here is the thing, both Special and General Relativity are used in every day applications (such as the GPS network of satellites which have to take both aspects into account to work properly).
What most physicists don't understand (because they don't understand the mathematics of General Relativity) is that gravity is a consequence of time dilation. You experience gravity while standing because your head is experiencing a different rate of time passage than your feet. Not a lot, but the differential is what creates the accelerated reference frame.
If you understand the math, it is all really straight forward. Unfortunately most people who go into physics won't see that type of math until it is being put forward in Relativity, so they are getting hit with difficult concepts and difficult math at the same time. I took a few years of this type of math (differential geometry) before approaching Relativity so that I wouldn't have to accept important details without a deep understanding of them.
My education (the thousands of dollars I spent and even more that I still owe) was all based on answering a single question... what is gravity?
Isn't there supposedly some difference in observed dilation between an object moving away from you at "1c":=(-1/2c)+(-1/2c), and an object moving towards you at that speed (same calculation, different signs) - and wouldn't that difference cancel out the effect you describe?
Yes and no. Strictly speaking, the equation works on "relative velocity" alone and the direction doesn't really matter. It doesn't matter which ship accelerates, nor does it matter which direction they're going, only relative velocity matters.
After working with these calculations for a while I've figured out that "time dilation" doesn't actually occur in these situations, it only APPEARS to occur so long as their relative velocities remain high. Both craft return to simultaneity the moment they begin to match velocities.
TMP= The Motion Picture TNG= The Next Generation
That's literally one of only two explanations we've come up with, to date, that doesn't result in nonsensical calculation results... yeah.
So... are you seeing a "doppler effect" in observation... an apparent dilation (or compaction) of your observations? Or... does the rate at which events occurs shift due to some "absolute" velocity? Either one can give the same results as current "modern physics" concepts would infer, without that pesky "everything is entirely perspective-dependent" thing which does, no question, result in the ability to solve the same problem multiple times and get totally different answers.
Any solution to any problem that says "if you solve it this way, give this answer, and if you solve it the other way, gives a totally different answer" is indisputably a flawed solution.
Doesn't make it an unuseful solution... just really great evidence that our understanding of these things is extremely limited - far moreso than lots of people in the field would like for us to believe.
We're, as a species, a remarkably arrogant bunch. At every time in our history, we've always maintained that we know "everything we need to know." And then, when we discover a little bit more, we pretend that NOW we "know everything we need to know" and those idiots in the past were somehow different than we are.
It's remarkable to watch, isn't it?
The universe is essentially INFINITELY complex. We will never... NEVER... understand everything. The best we can do is come up with mathematical models which seem to fit what we observe. And we keep those models - but only until we discover a better mathematical model for what we observe, or we discover that our mathematical model doesn't fit as well as we thought it did.
Right now, like at every other point in history, we have people who will tell you, and believe it absolutely, that we KNOW this "fact" or that "fact" about things we really know very little about.
Remember... we've never had a human being travel outside of the distance from the Earth to the moon. We've never collected any data from any spacecraft which has passed beyond the limits of our solar system, and remarkably little data from within our solar system.
Basically, what we've done is measured, to a small extent, what happens right here, in our own backyard. And we've looked out the window a bit. And from that, we've concluded that we know what's happening everywhere else outside of our little piece of property.
We really need to stop pretending we know more than we do. It's sort of embarrassing for me to watch my species do this!
This reminds me of when I ask people why information cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light and I get told that it would violate causality and for me to be confused by this means I'm a complete waste of skin and that I have the mental prowess of a farm turkey.
What I'm told:
"If Astronaut Bob explodes a bomb on Mars, then uses an FTL radio to tell Mission Control on Earth that it happened, then Earth will have heard about the exploding bomb before it actually happened."
To which I reply:
"Uhmmm, I can see how Mission Control might hear about it from Bob before they *SEE* it happen in their telescope, but that doesn't change the fact that Bob transmitted the message after he exploded the bomb. Mission control still heard about it after it happened. I don't see how time travel is involved."
And I get looked at like I have three heads as if I'm a dumbass for saying it.
It's as if someone fires a hypersonic bullet at me from a few miles away and because I get hit by the bullet and then hear the shot minutes later, I'm a moron if I don't believe the bullet traveled backward in time.
What I'm told:
"If Astronaut Bob explodes a bomb on Mars, then uses an FTL radio to tell Mission Control on Earth that it happened, then Earth will have heard about the exploding bomb before it actually happened."
To which I reply:
"Uhmmm, I can see how Mission Control might hear about it from Bob before they *SEE* it happen in their telescope, but that doesn't change the fact that Bob transmitted the message after he exploded the bomb. Mission control still heard about it after it happened. I don't see how time travel is involved."
And I get looked at like I have three heads as if I'm a dumbass for saying it.
It's as if someone fires a hypersonic bullet at me from a few miles away and because I get hit by the bullet and then hear the shot minutes later, I'm a moron if I don't believe the bullet traveled backward in time.
Full stop relative to the Galaxy, or Solar System you are currently in, I'd say.
Indeed. Also...
TOS = The Origonal Series
TAS = The Animated Series
TFS = The Film Series (all the TOS crew movies)
DS9 = Deep Space Nine
VOY = Voyager
ENT = Enterprise
There are people who believe certain things because anything else would disrupt their world view. They reach a level of comfort and draw a line in the sand and say "no further". For these people this is an emotional choice rather than a cognitive one.
These people come in many forms... ranging from those that believe the Earth is flat to those who have so invested themselves in a scientific hypothesis that personal aspects (rather than nature) guides their beliefs. For these people, no amount of evidence would make any difference.
But the great thing is is that nature doesn't care what anyone believes.
With this question of Relativity, I think there is more than enough information out there to answer the question quite well. The only thing I would point out about those who seem to want to dismiss this is that they seem to often have a common anecdote about some educational trauma associated with this subject. It might just be coincidence, but it is interesting none the less.
These people come in many forms... ranging from those that believe the Earth is flat to those who have so invested themselves in a scientific hypothesis that personal aspects (rather than nature) guides their beliefs. For these people, no amount of evidence would make any difference.
But the great thing is is that nature doesn't care what anyone believes.
With this question of Relativity, I think there is more than enough information out there to answer the question quite well. The only thing I would point out about those who seem to want to dismiss this is that they seem to often have a common anecdote about some educational trauma associated with this subject. It might just be coincidence, but it is interesting none the less.
I'm sorry David - I wonder if you realize that you're every bit as guilty of what you're talking about as anyone else.There are people who believe certain things because anything else would disrupt their world view. They reach a level of comfort and draw a line in the sand and say "no further". For these people this is an emotional choice rather than a cognitive one.
These people come in many forms... ranging from those that believe the Earth is flat to those who have so invested themselves in a scientific hypothesis that personal aspects (rather than nature) guides their beliefs. For these people, no amount of evidence would make any difference.
But the great thing is is that nature doesn't care what anyone believes.
With this question of Relativity, I think there is more than enough information out there to answer the question quite well. The only thing I would point out about those who seem to want to dismiss this is that they seem to often have a common anecdote about some educational trauma associated with this subject. It might just be coincidence, but it is interesting none the less.
If you really believe we have "more than enough information" at this point, without ever having ever so much as had a manned vessel leave the Earth/Moon system, or having any actual piece of scientific hardware travel to a remotely relativistic velocity... then that's really pretty disturbing.
You tend to come across pretty harsh when someone disagrees with you, and you tend to take certain things very personally... even when nobody is talking about you at all. I LIKE you, but I find this aspect of you very... disturbing.
Let's be blunt. You buy into a particular theory. But it is a theory... a set of mathematical algorithms which we THINK fit what we think we've seen. But our knowledge, even of EVERYDAY matters, is always subject to challenge and revision.
You're guilty, in this case, of simple arrogance. You think that the universe is defined by what you believe it is. That's a very HUMAN attitude, but not a particularly sound SCIENTIFIC one.
Saying "we don't know everything" isn't self-delusion. Saying "we DO know everything we need to know" is.
Saying "the model I've chosen is the RIGHT one" is a delusion. Because it is, no matter how accurate, merely a MODEL, in math, of something far, far more complicated.
Good science is always... ALWAYS... about questioning things. If you really are as knowledgeable as you'd have us believe, you should accept that statement as axiomatic, and not react with commentary such as you just gave, which is really pretty clearly a derogatory assessment of anyone who questions the "absolute reality" which exists in your own belief.
The more we know, the more we realize how unbearably complex the system we live in called "the universe" really is. It may seem very simple to a child... it may seem reasonably straightforward to the average man-on-the-street... but as we learn more and more, the main impact of that is that we realize how much more there is to learn.
It is literally impossible for a finite human brain to comprehend the literally infinite, and infinitely complex, universe in which we live. The best we can do is to come up with models which, to one extent or another, simplify this reality to a level where our brains can begin to grasp it.
"We know more than enough?" You can't truly believe that, can you?
Similar threads
