How Fast Could "All Good Things" Enterprise Go?

[Search4]

Timo's explanation is brilliant. Not sure its valid, mind you, but its brilliant. The notion that warp 10 is max and we're going to count decimals is... well... stupid in retrospect. I've always wondered why they didn't just use multiples of "C", the speed of light, which has a huge advantage in that it ties to something that can be measured.

 

[Dayton3]

Timo's explanation is brilliant. Not sure its valid, mind you, but its brilliant. The notion that warp 10 is max and we're going to count decimals is... well... stupid in retrospect. I've always wondered why they didn't just use multiples of "C", the speed of light, which has a huge advantage in that it ties to something that can be measured.

The producers of Star Trek never wanted to tie the Enterprise down to a specific velocity.

That way you could have statements like "the planet is 150 light years away, we can make it in six hours"

 

[c0rnedfr0g]

As far as I'm concerned, Riker and Crusher and the whole damned bunch of AGT should thank their lucky stars that they didn't hyper-evolve into salamanders.

 

[Search4]

i don't know, they could have had hundreds of enterprise children.
leading to the series 'star trek: lizards'

 

[CuttingEdge100]

I'd have to agree with Search4 on this particular issue. Having speeds like Warp 9, Warp 9.2, Warp 9.975, Warp 9.9999999349212 is kind of ridiculous.

The idea was so that ships in ST wouldn't become too fast and the whole galaxy would be explored by the first season (although I don't really see what's wrong with exploring another galaxy or two) but the new warp-scale was just retarded. I think they should have just used the TOS scale which actually made sense.


Dayton3,

The producers of Star Trek never wanted to tie the Enterprise down to a specific velocity.

That does make a lot of sense. Though, to the best of my knowledge Gene Roddenberry did come up with a Warp-Factor scale, but it wasn't ever explained during the TV show to my knowledge, and most of the figures seemed meaningless anyway as they covered way more distance for a given warp factor than they should.

At Warp 6, (216c) which was the TOS Enterprise's cruise-speed, it would take around 16.9 days to cover 10 light years.


CuttingEdge100

 

[USS KG5]

(although I don't really see what's wrong with exploring another galaxy or two)

Well storytelling-wise it makes no difference. Exploring a new Galaxy is great if you want to dump all your old aliens and have whole new ones. Problem is on a TV budget they will all look rather human, and speak English.

Tech-wise the problem is distance, the Galaxy might be unimaginably big but that is peanuts compared with the distances between galaxies. So in order to travel from Galaxy to galaxy in reasonable time (say a week) the shows tech would have to allow instantaneous travel to most places in our Galaxy.

Nothing wrong with that (its works for Stargate after all) but Trek would have to basically abandon its old format and old aliens to make it work.

Nothing wrong with any part of it really, but I suspect any future trek will see mostly the Milky Way...

 

[Captain Robert April]

The Star Trek Maps in the 80's also included a little booklet entitled "Introduction to Navigation", which went more into the nuts and bolts of warp drive, including a major revision to the classic "c times the warp factor cubed" formula, namely the matter of the relative matter density of the area one is warping through. Makes a major difference in the relative velocity.

 

[Brent]

The fastest the Enterprise in ST:TNG ever went was Warp 9.65 during "Q-Who"- though the ship was still accelerating and probably ended up in the Warp 9.8 range.

In "All Good Things", the three engined Enterprise-D was apparently capable of Warp 13 as that is the speed Admiral Riker ordered after the battle with the Klingons.

So presumably that was quite fast.

But.

The U.S.S Pasteur was capable of Warp 13 as well. Captain Crusher ordered that speed when leaving for the area near the anomaly.

And the Pasteur didn't look like it was a real speed burner.

So how fast could the Enterprise-D go in all likelihood?

IMO, Warp 20, its a good round number

 

[weyoun18]

Here's a little question that you mathematicians can clarify for me.

Is there a difference in Warp 9.99999 (repeating) and Warp 10?

When you initially look at it, you would say "of course" but here's my logic behind it...

I think we can all agree that 1/3 = .33333... (repeating) and 2/3 = .6666...

Therefore, .99999... = 1

Apply that to the Warp scale and it's enough to make you head explode trying to figure that one out. I asked the same question to my College Algebra teacher a couple semesters ago and he said "I don't know," which actually got me extra credit for stumping the teacher...

Anyways, let me know what you guys think.

 

[Praetor]

Well, in the 'Star Trek' world I'd say yes, there is a difference. I don't think you'd be everywhere and end up a lizard at warp 9.999999999999999999999 but clearly at warp 10 you do, if 'Threshold' is to be believed. Warp 10 is supposed to be infinite velocity, i.e., everywhere at once - just pick your 'exit point' so to speak. There's a distinct difference that separates infinite velocity from going really, really really, really fast. Also, since the warp scale becomes so steep the higher you go I'd say the difference in speed is probably quite appreciable although I have no desire to do the math to support it. So while you could normally round and say no there's not really a difference, in this case I'd argue that there is.

Good job on the extra credit though.

 

[FalTorPan]

If I had a time machine, I would zip back to 1987 and drop this off on the desks of Probert, Sternbach and Okuda. The increasing exponent thing is a good effort, but this would have been simpler.

 

[c0rnedfr0g]

Here's a little question that you mathematicians can clarify for me.

I think we can all agree that 1/3 = .33333... (repeating) and 2/3 = .6666...

Therefore, .99999... = 1

x = .99999...
10x = 9.99999...
10x - x = 9.99999... - 0.99999...
9x = 9
x = 1

Resistance is futile

 

[Captain Robert April]

To think of all the damage that could've been avoided if only someone had given Brannon Braga a copy of 'The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy" and pounded it into his pointed little head that the reference in the tech manual was a joke.

 

[Search4]

Just to continue to dive down: I've always wondered why Warp was a speed, rather than an acceleration. For example, at "speed" Warp 1 it would take 1 year to go a light year... too slow to be practical for most interstellar trips.

So, you could "accelerate" at Warp 1, which would slowly increase your speed in "c" terms... perhaps at the rate of 1c / hour or something, and actually get somewhere over time. Warp 9 would accelerate you a lot faster, of course, possibly on the old "cube" scale. This would explain some of the inconsistencies ("lets travel to the center of the galaxy!") and introduce new ones...

 

[Captain Robert April]

Probably because that would cause too many brains all over America to explode.

 

[SoM]

Here's a little question that you mathematicians can clarify for me.

Is there a difference in Warp 9.99999 (repeating) and Warp 10?

Yes. There's an infinite difference between a large-but-finite number (represented by 9.99 recurring) and an infinite number (represented by Warp 10) by definition. As long as there's a 9 before the decimal point and the very last digit is a 9, there's still an infinite difference there in actual speed - the graph would never ACTUALLY touch 10, it would just asymptote closer.

[This is, of course, the reason why the TNG warp scale would eventually have to be redone as ships got faster - you couldn't round up, no matter HOW fast you went, to Warp 10 because you'd still be moving at finite speed. It'd be that or you'd eventually get commands like "Warp 25 Nines Mr Data" to get round the scale rather than use it.]

 

[USS KG5]

Here's a little question that you mathematicians can clarify for me.

I think we can all agree that 1/3 = .33333... (repeating) and 2/3 = .6666...

Therefore, .99999... = 1

x = .99999...
10x = 9.99999...
10x - x = 9.99999... - 0.99999...
9x = 9
x = 1

Resistance is futile

That particular problem is really high quality maths!

 

[Timo]

Umm, the above basic arithmetic logic only works if one assumes that there is one less 9 in 0.999... than in 9.999... - that is, the same number of nines after the decimal point. Which only follows from the assumed definition of "...", not from the rules of basic arithmetic (in fact, it's contrary to the rules of basic arithmetic). So essentially this juggling is circular logic, proving a certain assumed definition of "..." and nothing else.

Whether that assumed definition is the one that "real" mathematicians would use is another question. AFAIK, there is no rigorous definition for ellipsis in mathematics as such: it just generically indicates the continuation of a pattern.

And whether engineers would use ellipsis in a certain way or another is yet another question...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Cid Highwind]

Actually, yes, "real" mathematicians do use it that way. Conceptually, at least (known as "recurring decimal") - more often, other formatting than an attached "..." is use.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999..., for example.

 

[USS KG5]

^^^^

The Wiki link explains it better than I ever could.