Moore's Law and Star Trek propulsion
- Thread starter NightCastle
- Start date
I didn't mean that the producers or writers of the different series created the old or new warp scales, but that the scientists and engineers of the Federation looked at the one used in the 23rd century, and decided that they needed to redesign it to more accurately describe the faster-than-light velocities of starships.
I dunno about that. It makes more sense to keep piling the numbers up as one goes faster and just use the already well known concept of "infinity" to represent, uhm well, Infinity
But, technically, the TOS Enterprise has gone faster than TNG's Warp 10 aka Infinity since once it "got there 3 days before it left"
Just like humanity thought that nothing could travel faster than light once upon a time, right now warp 10 is the limit regarding the velocity at which a starship can travel using a warp engine. The only means of travel faster than that is by using a quantum slipstream drive, which creates a wormhole-like opening through space-time. Until we find another way of traveling the vast distances of out galaxy, your "infinity" theory will have to sit on the sidelines. The concept of "infinity" is not "well known", so I don't know what you're talking about. That's why they gave it the name that they did, because they didn't have the understanding to name it anything else, lol.
I dunno. The dialogue from "Threshold" pretty much defined Warp 10 as .."if you were ever to reach warp ten, you'd be traveling at infinite velocity." So, to me at least, there isn't any difference with saying "Holy cow batman, we're going infinite velocity" and "Holy cow batman, we're going warp ten".
But that is only on the the TNG+ scale and not the TOS scale And as far as infinite velocity goes, sure, you get wherever you are going instantly, but it isn't faster than getting there before you left.
But that is only on the the TNG+ scale and not the TOS scale
And as far as infinite velocity goes, sure, you get wherever you are going instantly, but it isn't faster than getting there before you left.
What they meant by that is that since warp 10 is the known limit that any starship can travel using a warp engine, it's "infinity"(a.k.a. the limit), that's why they call it a "barrier". lol.
Let's see from Threshold...
PARIS: Okay, okay. We'll tell you. We're trying to break the maximum warp barrier.
KIM: Nothing in the universe can go warp ten. It's a theoretical impossibility. In principle, if you were ever to reach warp ten, you'd be traveling at infinite velocity.
NEELIX: Infinite velocity. Got it. So tha-that means very fast.
PARIS: It means that you would occupy every point in the universe simultaneously. In theory, you could go any place in the wink of an eye. Time and distance would have no meaning.
...
JANEWAY: It would appear that the theory of infinite velocity is correct. It may be possible to occupy every point in the universe simultaneously.
...
EMH: That's my theory. The only difference between natural evolution and what happened to Mister Paris is that his changes took place over a 24-hour period. Somehow, traveling at infinite velocity accelerated the natural human evolutionary process by millions of years. It's possible that Mister Paris represents a future stage in human development, although I can't say it's very attractive.
So "Maximum Warp Barrier" = "Warp 10" = "Infinite Velocity". All seems pretty interchangeable to me. I don't agree with it but, there you go
I guess I just went a bit overboard, lol. What I was thinking is that warp 10 is the theoretical limit(obviously no ship can travel at warp 10, without suffering consequences.) to warp travel, and that until more is discovered about faster-than-light travel, the current warp scale is the most accurate one. That still doesn't change my logic concerning the rescaling of the warp factor scale. It just makes sense to fine tune a system, once more is learned about the idea(s) that it was designed to explain.
Last edited:
^How is the current warp scale saying "9.999995" any more accurate than the old warp scale saying "16" for example? It's all arbitrary. I find just adding higher 2 digit numbers much easier than adding fractional decimals. Why do you need another name for infinite (warp 10) when infinite works just fine? Especially when the both refer to an unobtainable goal?
It's not the same. Here's why: Saying that warp 16 is the same as warp 10, is like sayin that 55mph is the same as 100mph.
No, your wrong. Saying warp 16(TOS scale) is the same as warp 9(TNG scale) is like saying 60mph is the same as 100kph. 2 different numbers representing the same speed. Same as 32 Fahrenheit and 0 Celsius. different numbers, same temperature.
The TNG scale just does not lend itself to higher and higher top speeds. It's like saying 100 is going to be the impossible limit for cars to reach. As cars get faster you end up with 99.9995 speed.
I find it much easier to say (and visualize) something like warp 28 using a straight logarithmic scale as opposed to 9.99995 using an exponential scale.
The TNG scale just does not lend itself to higher and higher top speeds. It's like saying 100 is going to be the impossible limit for cars to reach. As cars get faster you end up with 99.9995 speed.
I find it much easier to say (and visualize) something like warp 28 using a straight logarithmic scale as opposed to 9.99995 using an exponential scale.
Your logic doesn't make the concept easier to understand, it just complicates it. You're the only person who seems to object to the simple, yet understandable and trully logic nature of my argument. Maybe you should review your Academy "Warp 101" textbook, sir.
Oh God. Please tell me your not "in character".
How does my logic make the concept any harder to understand than yours? Do you not understand the examples?
I would point out that you are also the only person who seems to be arguing your side of the argument.
You show me an actual "Academy 'Warp 101' textbook" and I will indeed examine it.
How does my logic make the concept any harder to understand than yours? Do you not understand the examples?
I would point out that you are also the only person who seems to be arguing your side of the argument.
You show me an actual "Academy 'Warp 101' textbook" and I will indeed examine it.
Because I seem to be the only one on here who has a good enough understanding of not only physics, but of theoretical physics to know that I'm right. I'm not only a Star Trek fan, but also a knowledgeable individual in scientific thinking. If I need to explain the joke I made with the warp textbook, then I don't think you have the brains to understand the basis of it
In TOS there was no indication of any theoretical upper limit on warp velocity. Warp speeds were only limited by the ship's power and the stresses the hull could withstand. And why should there be an upper limit to speeds that are already faster than light? At least just saying "Warp Infinity" sounds cooler than "Warp 10". Warp 9.99995? Bah. Just say Warp 23!
And I hate to break it to you, PrimeDirective, but you're certainly not the only scientifically knowledgeable poster here. I doubt you're even in the top 50 of the most scientifically knowledgeable posters on TrekBBs. As a newcomer, it's best not to boast about your intelligence before you've familiarized yourself with the community and its education level. We have many scientifically literate posters here.
And I hate to break it to you, PrimeDirective, but you're certainly not the only scientifically knowledgeable poster here. I doubt you're even in the top 50 of the most scientifically knowledgeable posters on TrekBBs. As a newcomer, it's best not to boast about your intelligence before you've familiarized yourself with the community and its education level. We have many scientifically literate posters here.
You have no idea who I am, so you don't know how intelligent I am, so please, STFU.
What's hard to understand? TOS uses one system of velocity measurement, TNG uses another - the confusion occurs because both systems call their speed divisions "warp factors"
I don't know who you are, true. I only know what your profile says - that's you're an education major in college. The fact is, we have a few PhDs who post here on a regular basis, so knowing that, I can say with confidence you're not in the top 50 smartest TrekBBS posters. That's not an insult.
