Moore's Law and Star Trek propulsion
- Thread starter NightCastle
- Start date
I have explained why the warp scale used in the 24th century is more accurate than the one used in the 23rd, but apparently I can't get through to anybody on here who has hounded me about the topic. To be honest, I'm tired of debating this over and over again, so let's just drop it.
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
I didn't read most of the other stuff and don't really know about the BS science of warp drive, but using decimal points would make it more accurate, wouldn't it? I mean pounds are more accurate than kilograms unless you use decimals of course, because they are smaller units.
But yeah, arguing about Star Trek warp scale stuff makes all of us look stupid.
But yeah, arguing about Star Trek warp scale stuff makes all of us look stupid.
I think a better reason for you to drop it, is that you don't actually know what you are talking about.
Just to run this into the ground, please, list ONE POST where you actually explain why it's more accurate.
To put it bluntly, we already have Tachy on this board to provide one sided debates with no facts. You need to find another niche.
No, having more decimal places makes a value more precise, not necessarily accurate.
Accuracy and precision are two different concepts.
For example, a grandfather clock that is set to the correct time is accurate, but not precise, because it does not measure time to the second or better. On the other hand, an atomic clock is very precise, because it can measure nanoseconds, but if it reports the time incorrectly by, say, 5 hours, then it is very precise but not accurate.
In this case, then, the TNG warp scale forces speeds in excess of warp 9 to be reported to more significant figures (more precision) all the time, just because someone thought equating "infinite velocity" with "warp 10" was a good idea. Why?
Reading the TNG Technical Manual, the subspace communications are sent at warp 9.999999999 (or something) and superbeings like Q are able to toss the Enterprise around at speeds of 9.99999999999999 (or something). Why not say warp 23 for one and warp 93 for the other? That would better illustrate the incredible difference between the two velocities.
Frankly, I just can't figure out why when the warp scale was redrawn with warp 10 at the upper limit, did the show start giving ships the ability to travel at warp 9.975?
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
Thanks for that. I was thinking I'd missed something. Good examples too.
Pavonis does make a good argument in making a clear and simple distinction between accurate and precision. I still hold to the idea that the warp scale used in the 24th century, represents an advancedment in the understanding of how the fields created by a ship's core bend space, thus allowing starships to be enveloped in a bubble of space-time that hurtles them at faster-than-light speeds.
Because the guy who redrew it (in the real world, as opposed to in-universe. I'm less-than-sure what benefit there would be in-universe) wanted to stop the writers from constantly upping the warp factor ships could do just because it sounded
cooler.
Because the writers didn't let a system explicitly designed to prevent them constantly upping top speeds stop them.
I don't understand why you guys like the idea of the old warp scale, and not the one used since TNG. I would guess that the reason that the writers and/or producers set warp 10 as the limit, instead of letting the numbers go up and up, is because it just seemed silly to let the numbers keep going up without any limit. They wanted to make the show as believable as possible, and having the warp factors go up without any limit was not the way to go.
In original Star Trek, the Enterprise managed to reach warp 14.1; in the animated series, some ships were as fast as warp 36. Then all of a sudden, warp 10 is the maximum? If a speed limit was needed, then why not call it warp 100? Admittedly the writers may have ended up sending the new ships off at warp 99.75+, rather than warp 9.975, but at least then the warp factors would have been consistent across the various series. It's not as though anyone in the franchise ever bothered calculating travel times over interstellar distances, then writing the plot of an episode around those travel times and speed limits.
As we all know, ships in Star Trek, and in sci-fi in general, move at the speed of plot.
As we all know, ships in Star Trek, and in sci-fi in general, move at the speed of plot.
Well, for me, there is a distinction between the concept of an upper limit on warp speeds, which I think is a believable idea*, and the silly way in which it was implemented in TNG.
*(most propulsion tech seems to have upper limits imposed by physics; don't see why warp tech would be any different)
Because it's even more silly to describe ever faster top speeds using decimal points. From a story telling perspective it doesn't work. Which is what this is. fictional stories. What is going to impress upon the reader/viewer the impression of speed more? "Captain, we've just passed warp 24!", or "Captain, we've just passed warp 9.9995!"
This.
Most readers are going to be too busy paying attention to what's happening with the story, to be really moved by "Captain, we've reached warp 24!". Besides, the Trekkies that I know are used to the warp scale used since TNG, so hearing or reading that a starship is going beyond warp 10 is going to throw them off(FYI: I was talking about the warp scale, as if I was in-universe).
