How many examples of how your argument is wrong do we have to give you before you respond to them?
I have run out of explanations. I don't know what to do anymore.
Moore's Law and Star Trek propulsion
- Thread starter NightCastle
- Start date
I have run out of explanations. I don't know what to do anymore.
Sorry - I think I missed the point of the thread earlier! I prefer TOS personally. I'm fed up with Warp 9.99999999998. Warp 16 rolls off the tongue much more easily. I do understand that they are the same speed.
However, the other theory that Warp speeds represent energy used rather than the actual speed travelled may be more sensible. In that case TOS inefficient engines could have been using greater energy for a lower speed in TOS. By TNG, engines could have been improved as far as the technology allows so a lower warp factor can achieve a higher speed.
All of this would be subject to the presence of dark matter, which could mean that warp 10 goes slower than warp 6 in a more dense area. This would also explain the need for navigators to plot a course through the least dense areas of space. That doesn't make total sense though as TNG warp engines would be able to go higher (not faster) than warp 10 in areas of dense space because they would be travelling more slowly.
Clear as dark matter?
However, the other theory that Warp speeds represent energy used rather than the actual speed travelled may be more sensible. In that case TOS inefficient engines could have been using greater energy for a lower speed in TOS. By TNG, engines could have been improved as far as the technology allows so a lower warp factor can achieve a higher speed.
All of this would be subject to the presence of dark matter, which could mean that warp 10 goes slower than warp 6 in a more dense area. This would also explain the need for navigators to plot a course through the least dense areas of space. That doesn't make total sense though as TNG warp engines would be able to go higher (not faster) than warp 10 in areas of dense space because they would be travelling more slowly.
Clear as dark matter?
This sounds like a or dramatic or storytelling reason for the change in Warp scales - what happened to the science?
Is it really possible to give an in-universe reason for Starfleet to adopt the TNG warp scale that stands up to scrutiny? Even if you can concoct a beautiful technical rationale for the new scale, the ultimate result would be akin to chefs voluntarily switching to the Kelvin scale for temperature - it becomes awkward within the range that is practically used (or which must have been on the drawing board, at least, when they adopted it).
Yea, that's what we keep trying to explain to PrimeDirective, and the argument that he keeps failing to address.
How many examples of how your argument is wrong do we have to give you before you respond to them?
I have run out of explanations. I don't know what to do anymore.
None, Not one, of your "explanations" has actually explained anything(the one above bordering on incoherence), and yet you don't even respond to the examples we give. Just admit that you don't have a good argument and move on.
How so? I never gave a damn what the warp limit was. I couldn't care less if it was 10 or a million. The warp numbers are just plot devices.
Transportation and replicators are highly improbable and you think we are worried about numbers we use for warp speed?
I won't give up because I know that I'm right, and you're just a patronizing and arrogant individual.
Yea, that's what we keep trying to explain to PrimeDirective, and the argument that he keeps failing to address.
How many examples of how your argument is wrong do we have to give you before you respond to them?
I have run out of explanations. I don't know what to do anymore.
None, Not one, of your "explanations" has actually explained anything(the one above bordering on incoherence), and yet you don't even respond to the examples we give. Just admit that you don't have a good argument and move on.
^Well, your never going to get anywhere until you can give us a rational explanation as to why you are right and we are wrong.
As for patronizing and arrogant, everyone else in this thread has used the same or similar examples/arguments as I have. So, by extension......
As for patronizing and arrogant, everyone else in this thread has used the same or similar examples/arguments as I have. So, by extension......
Speak for yourself, dude.
I have given Sojourner every possible explanation that has popped into my head, and still he isn't convinced. I'll just hold off from commenting on this thread, until I can think of more explanations.Speak for yourself, dude.
LOL LOL LOL.
You know you're in trouble whenever someone uses the word "logic" in a TrekBBS post.
To help you out.
Okay, Out-Universe explanation:
In TOS, we saw warp speeds by aliens, hostile craft, and sometimes the Enterprise herself with some modifications, hit warp 10, warp 14, warp 9. "Impossible, she can't go that fast!" Scotty would yell, and people would look at amazement and Spock would say "warp T E N" very seriously. But basically it was established that the Enterprise was a high tech ship, and she only went to about warp 8. Except when something crazy happens. But the fans were most familiar with warp 8 being fast, and warp 9 being really, really fast.
In forming TNG, Gene and The Powers That Be, wanted to get away from "the transporter not working", "warp 15!" plot devices, and from what I can see, finding more copies of 1930's Earth. They only ended up sticking with 1 of these premises. BUT the idea was that the Enterprise D was much, much faster than the TOS ship, but didn't want to get into the clunkyness of "warp 18". So the production team re-draw the "scale" of warp speeds, and it was made clear that nothing goes faster than warp 10. Boundries. So please no stories about going faster than warp 10. (That didn't take long). But it was clear that the Enterprise D's warp 6 was a helluva lot faster than the Enterprise or Enterprise-A's warp 6. Speed is a function of design and power. But all a warp "factor" is is a description of speed. Use KPH or MPH, or feet/second. It's a measuring stick for speed and The Powers That Be wanted something a little bit more elagant, but wanted to be clear that the Enterprise-D was really, really fast.
Okay, In-Universe explanation:
The warp scale was changed, or redefined, based on what was learned and experienced from ships going much faster. 10 was the barrier on the scale became an infinite velocity. All other speeds were scrunched into the 1-9.99999999999999999999999999999, so "warp 6" described something much faster than it used to. So did "warp 8". The only technology that changed was propulsion, design, and power, and the understanding of the efficency peaks.
Okay, In-Universe fandom theories (Ships Of Starfleet, Starfleet Prototype, Mr. Scott's Guide...):
Probert's 1701 refit was often in fandom tech manuals given speeds like Warp 8 cruising, Warp 10 flanking, and Warp 12 emergency. A measured speed increase from the design improvements. Other designs in similar publications, and things like the new-build Enterprise-A, were said to reach speeds of warp 14, 15 or 17 for brief moments. The ships were getting faster and faster. Somehow NX-2000 and Transwarp were supposed to change the game, but somehow, the results really weren't as expected. The powerplant and ship design was successful, but it never did deliver on the speeds promised. BUT in failure, it helped re-define how the warp scale was looked at. So around 2300 warp 10 became infinite speed, and all the other warp speeds (including crazy warp 20!) were put back into a 9 integer scale that was defined more by theoretical efficiency peaks than by velocity alone. At this point, hardly any ship could reach the new warp 9.0 - and they wouldn't for several decades. Come to the close of the 24th century, and ships were pressing into the 9.999999 range. This was not helpful from a command standpoint. The scale was redefined again, inserting a new warp factors were only decimals were before.
It's more of a back and forth between what's practical or not. Perhaps having warp 44 isn't as helpful as making warp 44 the new warp 8, but perhaps having warp 9.9999977777777777544444 isn't as helpful as having a warp 12.
Now, to PD:
1.) No one is arguing that warp drive, warp power, and ship design hadn't improved by TNG.
2.) A change of scale, though, doesn't nessesarily describe an improvement of speed, technology, or science.
You know you're in trouble whenever someone uses the word "logic" in a TrekBBS post.
To help you out.
Okay, Out-Universe explanation:
In TOS, we saw warp speeds by aliens, hostile craft, and sometimes the Enterprise herself with some modifications, hit warp 10, warp 14, warp 9. "Impossible, she can't go that fast!" Scotty would yell, and people would look at amazement and Spock would say "warp T E N" very seriously. But basically it was established that the Enterprise was a high tech ship, and she only went to about warp 8. Except when something crazy happens. But the fans were most familiar with warp 8 being fast, and warp 9 being really, really fast.
In forming TNG, Gene and The Powers That Be, wanted to get away from "the transporter not working", "warp 15!" plot devices, and from what I can see, finding more copies of 1930's Earth. They only ended up sticking with 1 of these premises. BUT the idea was that the Enterprise D was much, much faster than the TOS ship, but didn't want to get into the clunkyness of "warp 18". So the production team re-draw the "scale" of warp speeds, and it was made clear that nothing goes faster than warp 10. Boundries. So please no stories about going faster than warp 10. (That didn't take long). But it was clear that the Enterprise D's warp 6 was a helluva lot faster than the Enterprise or Enterprise-A's warp 6. Speed is a function of design and power. But all a warp "factor" is is a description of speed. Use KPH or MPH, or feet/second. It's a measuring stick for speed and The Powers That Be wanted something a little bit more elagant, but wanted to be clear that the Enterprise-D was really, really fast.
Okay, In-Universe explanation:
The warp scale was changed, or redefined, based on what was learned and experienced from ships going much faster. 10 was the barrier on the scale became an infinite velocity. All other speeds were scrunched into the 1-9.99999999999999999999999999999, so "warp 6" described something much faster than it used to. So did "warp 8". The only technology that changed was propulsion, design, and power, and the understanding of the efficency peaks.
Okay, In-Universe fandom theories (Ships Of Starfleet, Starfleet Prototype, Mr. Scott's Guide...):
Probert's 1701 refit was often in fandom tech manuals given speeds like Warp 8 cruising, Warp 10 flanking, and Warp 12 emergency. A measured speed increase from the design improvements. Other designs in similar publications, and things like the new-build Enterprise-A, were said to reach speeds of warp 14, 15 or 17 for brief moments. The ships were getting faster and faster. Somehow NX-2000 and Transwarp were supposed to change the game, but somehow, the results really weren't as expected. The powerplant and ship design was successful, but it never did deliver on the speeds promised. BUT in failure, it helped re-define how the warp scale was looked at. So around 2300 warp 10 became infinite speed, and all the other warp speeds (including crazy warp 20!) were put back into a 9 integer scale that was defined more by theoretical efficiency peaks than by velocity alone. At this point, hardly any ship could reach the new warp 9.0 - and they wouldn't for several decades. Come to the close of the 24th century, and ships were pressing into the 9.999999 range. This was not helpful from a command standpoint. The scale was redefined again, inserting a new warp factors were only decimals were before.
It's more of a back and forth between what's practical or not. Perhaps having warp 44 isn't as helpful as making warp 44 the new warp 8, but perhaps having warp 9.9999977777777777544444 isn't as helpful as having a warp 12.
Now, to PD:
1.) No one is arguing that warp drive, warp power, and ship design hadn't improved by TNG.
2.) A change of scale, though, doesn't nessesarily describe an improvement of speed, technology, or science.
Last edited:
PrimeDirective,
Just give it up. Saying you have given explanations is not the same thing as actually giving them. Just to clear this up a little, I will restate the original point of contention.
Why is it more accurate to have a scale with an upper limit of 10 which forces the use of decimal points to portray higher speeds (warp 9.995) than it is to just use an open ended scale that allows you to use whole numbers (warp 25)?
Just give it up. Saying you have given explanations is not the same thing as actually giving them. Just to clear this up a little, I will restate the original point of contention.
Why is it more accurate to have a scale with an upper limit of 10 which forces the use of decimal points to portray higher speeds (warp 9.995) than it is to just use an open ended scale that allows you to use whole numbers (warp 25)?
