So when Zefram says this in FC, they're obviously not at warp yet. I know at warp the bubble prevents the ship from experiencing time dialation, but does it also protect the ship when not at warp? I've never quite understood how it works.
"Approaching light speed!"
- Thread starter clever_username
- Start date
the warp bubble does not "protect" the ship from time dialation, rather, a ship moving using warp (regardless of "speed") does not experience the dialation effect due to it having no true "speed".
Warp drive doesn't so much move the ship as much as it moves the universe around it.
Warp drive doesn't so much move the ship as much as it moves the universe around it.
alright, but since they weren't at warp, then wouldn't they experience time dialation?
and no wonder the universe is such a mess, all those ships movin it around!
and no wonder the universe is such a mess, all those ships movin it around!
I got the impression that the warp engines were engaged long before the "Approaching lightspeed!" line. 24th century starships go to superluminal speeds in a split second, but Cochrane's test rig here apparently took the better part of a minute to accelerate past lightspeed once the switch was thrown.
That is, IIRC, previous dialogue had already contained references to "setting the intermix" and "engaging". Too bad there's no online script for ST:FC around for quick checking. (TrekCore has the as such fascinating early script that contains many interesting plot holes... And a completely different description of the first warp flight.)
Timo Saloniemi
That is, IIRC, previous dialogue had already contained references to "setting the intermix" and "engaging". Too bad there's no online script for ST:FC around for quick checking. (TrekCore has the as such fascinating early script that contains many interesting plot holes... And a completely different description of the first warp flight.)
Timo Saloniemi
It depends on the mechanism. If they were accelerating by conventional means, then yes, they would experience time dilation (three syllables, eight letters, only one a, no "dial" of any kind involved, please and thank you). But an Alcubierre-type warp metric can operate at subluminal as well as superluminal speeds, and either way, the shape of the metric cancels out any time-dilation effect, because the ship within the bubble occupies flat space and is effectively unaccelerated.
In fact, according to the real theory, it would actually be far easier to operate a warp drive at sublight than FTL, because then you wouldn't have to deal with all the problems that arise at FTL (the immense negative energy requirement, the runaway instability of the stress-energy tensor, the horizon problem, the shutdown problem, etc.). It's possible, even likely, that if we ever do create an Alcubierre-type warp drive, it will only be practical to use at sublight.
Which means that there's really no need for impulse engines at all. All that should be necessary is to run the warp drive at distortion values below 1000 millicochranes.
The universe does not move around the ship.. that's utter nonsense which Futurama made fun of, for Maker's sakes.
A warp field simply (well, not simply in effort, but in theory) compresses space in front of the vessel and normalizes it at the rear. This has the effect of making anything with the subspace field a longer vector along the axis than in real space. So something going .25C in a warp field folded twice over would effectively be going 1C outside the bubble.
So, you can simply be going .1C in a warp field, folded twice over, to go .4C ... but still be using the warp engines.
What all this means is that a Star Trek ship never actually goes beyond .75C or so, but appears to because it's warped its vector to cover more distance than 'real space' would normally allow. This neatly allows effective FTL travel while never requiring breaking the 'light barrier', or worrying about that pesky time dialialiation either.
A warp field simply (well, not simply in effort, but in theory) compresses space in front of the vessel and normalizes it at the rear. This has the effect of making anything with the subspace field a longer vector along the axis than in real space. So something going .25C in a warp field folded twice over would effectively be going 1C outside the bubble.
So, you can simply be going .1C in a warp field, folded twice over, to go .4C ... but still be using the warp engines.
What all this means is that a Star Trek ship never actually goes beyond .75C or so, but appears to because it's warped its vector to cover more distance than 'real space' would normally allow. This neatly allows effective FTL travel while never requiring breaking the 'light barrier', or worrying about that pesky time dialialiation either.
^I gotta say, that is F'd up!. If I read you correctly, you're saying that a ship in a warp bubble is moving in normal space as well? and that the faster it moves within the normal space inside the warp bubble translates to a faster overall warp speed? You do know that even at .75c there would be time dilation effects especially from sustained usage?
This is the first time I have ever heard of "warped vectoring" in all my years of fandom. This theory just sounds wrong.
Yea, I was over simplifying. Just trying to get across the notion that no momentum is imparted to the ship.
This is the first time I have ever heard of "warped vectoring" in all my years of fandom. This theory just sounds wrong.
Yea, I was over simplifying. Just trying to get across the notion that no momentum is imparted to the ship.
I don't know where Vance is getting that from. It's not an accurate description of the warp theory. The idea is that the warp bubble causes an inflation-like expansion of spacetime behind the ship and a compression in front of it, reducing the ship's distance from its destination and increasing its distance from its starting point. The ship is effectively stationary relative to the space it occupies (or rather, is "coasting" on an unaccelerated, geodesic path, which is as close as you can get to "motionless" in open space). It's not actually motion, but a topological transformation of spacetime that reorients the warp bubble relative to the surrounding universe. That's why "the engines don't move the ship, they move the universe around it" is a feasible, if humorous, way of characterizing the effect. The ship isn't moving, but its geometric relationship to the surrounding universe is being changed.
Christopher, sorry. What I'm explaining is the only consistant warp theory as expressed in Trek, though I know there have been many, many different ones. I know you're a Trek author and all.. but I've got it right here.
It's hard to explain in a sense... the subspace 'field' is an area of displaced space. Within the field itself, you can say it's normal. The trick is that the area in front of the ship is compressed, and the area behind it is normalized. The displaced area of subspace is, effectively, longer along the transit vector than 'real space' would be. Warp allows you to travel greater 'effective' distance for the same 'real' distance, basically.
It does not, ever, 'move the universe around the ship'.
Now, why the confusion? Gene Roddeberry changed the rules somewhat largely to discredit the existing licenses (and fan works) back when TMP was being made, a habit that he reinforced heavily once TNG was created. By eliminated the only explanation for warp given that WORKED, all the other explanations suddenly got air-time, even when they conflate. That's how you get the bizzare 'shortcut through time' theories, or the 'move the universe' theories, the 'subspace dimension' stuff, and how transporter beams actually cut through hyperspace, and so on.
Lastly, some contemporary models for warp take what I describe above and also contribute relative 'thrust' to the shaping of the warp field (which somewhat works for TNG's approach as well). This is basically that the relative position of the ship ITSELF is carried by virtue of warping space. The only problem with this approach is that it would take the power of a few hundred stars to move a small ship at sublight speeds, much less warp factors, due to how much warping and manipulation of space/time would be required. (The TOS version is no easy feat either, but does require far far less energy to explain.)
It's hard to explain in a sense... the subspace 'field' is an area of displaced space. Within the field itself, you can say it's normal. The trick is that the area in front of the ship is compressed, and the area behind it is normalized. The displaced area of subspace is, effectively, longer along the transit vector than 'real space' would be. Warp allows you to travel greater 'effective' distance for the same 'real' distance, basically.
It does not, ever, 'move the universe around the ship'.
Now, why the confusion? Gene Roddeberry changed the rules somewhat largely to discredit the existing licenses (and fan works) back when TMP was being made, a habit that he reinforced heavily once TNG was created. By eliminated the only explanation for warp given that WORKED, all the other explanations suddenly got air-time, even when they conflate. That's how you get the bizzare 'shortcut through time' theories, or the 'move the universe' theories, the 'subspace dimension' stuff, and how transporter beams actually cut through hyperspace, and so on.
Lastly, some contemporary models for warp take what I describe above and also contribute relative 'thrust' to the shaping of the warp field (which somewhat works for TNG's approach as well). This is basically that the relative position of the ship ITSELF is carried by virtue of warping space. The only problem with this approach is that it would take the power of a few hundred stars to move a small ship at sublight speeds, much less warp factors, due to how much warping and manipulation of space/time would be required. (The TOS version is no easy feat either, but does require far far less energy to explain.)
I'm probably one of a few to phrase it that way, largely because I'm having a harder time explaining the concept in simpler terms. There is no 'warped vectoring', I just meant that the vector along the ship's path is distorted (by virtue of the warp field). The front of the field compresses space, and it normalizes in the rear.
The ship could, effectively, be only going .1C or something yet the warp field has the composite effect of making her go 8C (or more).
Again, this changed at some point in TNG (unexplicitly) where warp became even more magical and nonsensical by having it tech the tech tech with the techity techs. In other words, it because an inconsistantly-used bullshit plot device that had magical properties which changed weekly.
Tell that to the guys in the transporter beam, just minding their own business and trying to get to the moon, who just got chopped up by tidal forces at the edge of a warp bubble
My understanding is that an Alcubierre-type bubble is going to be extraordinarily dangerous to things near the edge of the bubble. Probably why they don't use them "in solar systems" (even though we know they technically can). There's probably a law. Which is why it was cool for Kirk to jump the Bounty to warp inside the atmosphere, because the law hadn't been passed yet.
Incidentally, is the star system in Trek 11 "Laurentian" like everyone spells it as, or "Lorentzian"?
The premise that 'the engines move the universe around the ship' is ridiculously inaccurate though and not humorous in any way.
When I came across that term for the first time, I actually envisioned the universe as a bubble being physically moved so the ship actually never moves but still reaches it's destination.
Alternatively, I hit a snag when trying to imagine multiple ships at the same time using same technique because it hit me that the universe would be torn in multiple places because every ship would be moving it in it's own direction.
And that didn't make any sense for one thing ... because to me, it was as if you were punching holes into a balloon from different points, which would result in the balloon to collapse.
Also, in contrast to the ship, the universe is such a large 'bubble', that you would likely need an enormously high amount of energy in order to 'move' it.
And just how minuscule is a ship in contrast to the universe?
Trillions of times ... far more?
It would be like trying to envision an ant moving Earth or the Sun ... which is not exactly feasible with our current understanding of physics.
Present the theory as it is in order to convey the point, and don't use oversimplified explanations that don't make any sense ... or if you must, use a simplified explanation that fits the theory properly.
If I interpreted the theory you described 'Christopher' correctly, then it's the warp bubble that's changing it's location (and the ship within it) relative to the surrounding universe without physical motion being involved due to the forces in question.
Fine ... but that still means the universe is not being moved, so why use an utterly inaccurate term to describe something, even if it is a simplification?
When I came across that term for the first time, I actually envisioned the universe as a bubble being physically moved so the ship actually never moves but still reaches it's destination.
Alternatively, I hit a snag when trying to imagine multiple ships at the same time using same technique because it hit me that the universe would be torn in multiple places because every ship would be moving it in it's own direction.
And that didn't make any sense for one thing ... because to me, it was as if you were punching holes into a balloon from different points, which would result in the balloon to collapse.
Also, in contrast to the ship, the universe is such a large 'bubble', that you would likely need an enormously high amount of energy in order to 'move' it.
And just how minuscule is a ship in contrast to the universe?
Trillions of times ... far more?
It would be like trying to envision an ant moving Earth or the Sun ... which is not exactly feasible with our current understanding of physics.
Present the theory as it is in order to convey the point, and don't use oversimplified explanations that don't make any sense ... or if you must, use a simplified explanation that fits the theory properly.
If I interpreted the theory you described 'Christopher' correctly, then it's the warp bubble that's changing it's location (and the ship within it) relative to the surrounding universe without physical motion being involved due to the forces in question.
Fine ... but that still means the universe is not being moved, so why use an utterly inaccurate term to describe something, even if it is a simplification?
It's Laurentian. "Lorentzian" would be pronounced differently, because the Z isn't silent (though it would sound like an S there).
Ahh, but remember, there are no absolute reference frames in the universe. All motion is relative, and how you define it is purely a matter of what frame of reference you use, what you choose to define as the origin of your coordinate system. If I'm doing pushups, then in an Earth-based frame of reference, I'm pushing myself up away from the Earth. But in a me-based frame of reference, I'm pushing the Earth down away from myself. As far as the laws of physics are concerned, both interpretations are equally correct.
So by the same token, it's no less valid to say that the ship is standing still and the universe being moved around it than it is to say that the ship is being moved through the universe. In the ship-based frame of reference, where the origin of the coordinate system is defined as a part of the ship, then yes, the ship is standing still by definition -- just as we assume ourselves to be "standing still" if we're motionless relative to the Earth, even though the Earth is hurtling at a staggering speed along its orbital path. And it's even truer with regard to a warp-driven ship than with a conventionally accelerated ship, because the ship really is effectively motionless within its bubble. It's just that its geometric relationship with other bodies in the universe is being adjusted through a topological transformation.
And that's why the Futurama joke is useful -- because it forces you to think about the idea of getting from one place to another without movement in the conventional sense. Yes, it's a facetious way of expressing the idea, but its challenging of conventional assumptions about movement can be a step in the process of getting the listener or reader to understand the principles involved in warp drive. It's not meant to be a complete or accurate explanation, but it's a useful metaphor as part of a fuller explanation.
Not to mention that humor and familiar allusions can help sugarcoat a science lesson. Another one I'm fond of -- and as with the Futurama reference, I'm not the only one -- is paraphrasing Douglas Adams: "The trick to orbit is in knowing how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." It's actually a pretty good description of the physics involved in orbit -- you're falling toward the body you're orbiting, but falling sideways fast enough to "miss" as its ground curves away from you, so that you just keep falling in a curve indefinitely.
When I'm driving a car, I think it would be misleading to say that Earth moves around me, while my car is sitting still.
But that is a valid physical description, and in some instances is more useful. For instance, if you're describing the motion of something inside the car, for instance an uncovered drink that spills out when you make a sharp turn, you'd discuss it in the context of a reference frame where the car is still and the drink is subjected to a centrifugal force. From an outside observer's reference frame, that force is fictitious, and what's really happening is that the drink is subject to its own inertia while the car is subject to an angular force. But to the inside observer, the effect is that of a stationary object being pushed sideways.
Put more simply, if you're sitting in you car and reach for your coffee mug, your brain doesn't process that motion in terms of a person racing forward at 35 mph reaching for a mug that's moving forward at 35 mph. Your brain perceives and acts in terms of reaching for a stationary object. So yes, whether you consciously realize it or not, you do often interpret your car as sitting still even when it's in motion.
Besides, it's a flawed analogy here. As I said, the reason the Futurama joke is apropos with regard to warp drive is because the ship isn't moving in any conventional sense. And thus a joke that makes the listener contemplate the concept of a spaceship getting from place to place without moving is a helpful stepping-stone toward the more complex ideas involved.
No, it's mocking pseudo-scientific intellectuals. That was the point of the joke, to make fun of exactly what you're doing now.
Saying "My car moves the earth" is also a ludicrous statement, because physics don't work that way, and the claim of 'you get a different understanding' is an utterly pointless exercise from the point of view of science. Because, at the end of the day, it's wrong and completely flies in the face of motion dynamics.
As for the 'everything in space is relative', there's some truth to that, but we do use points of reference already for space travel - notably, the Earth - so we don't have paralyzed shuttle launches while everyone argues just what "motion" really is in the first place.
Jaynz Rule #2 - Intellectuals are worthless to science.
Your car does move the Earth. Not very detectably, but physics demands it moves it some.
No. Physics allows for other forces and materials at work, such as the terrain you're rubbing against (never a solid piece), or the air around the tires, etc. The kinetic energy is displaced, because it has to be, but you're NOT moving the entire earth with equal force that your car is using.
This actually forms the basis of chaos theory. There are innumerable variables between A and B which makes B not act as expected.
Again, all motion is relative. How you define what's moving and what's stationary is dependent on what you anchor your coordinate system to. If you define your origin as the center of mass of your car, then the car is stationary and the rest of the universe is moving around it. In that frame of reference, the car's wheels make the Earth move backward. That may not be a reference frame we find it meaningful to use on an everyday basis, but it's as physically valid -- or as physically arbitrary -- as any other.
And yes, when your car is moving, it is pushing back against the Earth with equal and opposite force. That's Newton's Third Law. And both the Earth and the car are changing orientation relative to the shared center of mass of the Earth-car system; it's just that the mass of the Earth is so much greater that the change in its orientation is infinitesimal in comparison. It approximates a system in which the Earth is unmoved by the car, and the difference is too trivial to matter in practice, but in terms of the fundamental underlying physics, neither body is unaffected by the interaction.
And yes, when your car is moving, it is pushing back against the Earth with equal and opposite force. That's Newton's Third Law. And both the Earth and the car are changing orientation relative to the shared center of mass of the Earth-car system; it's just that the mass of the Earth is so much greater that the change in its orientation is infinitesimal in comparison. It approximates a system in which the Earth is unmoved by the car, and the difference is too trivial to matter in practice, but in terms of the fundamental underlying physics, neither body is unaffected by the interaction.
Similar threads
