# Moving Slow at Warp Speed

Discussion in 'Trek Tech' started by Henoch, Jan 11, 2019.

Joined:
Feb 23, 2018
Location:
Discofan
I am sorry but that doesn't work. A vertical asymptote means that before you get to warp 11 for example, there is an infinity to go through first. I don't care what you do when you're at wrap eleven if to get there you have to go through an impossibility first.

Same thing about real physics. You can't get to the speed of light without an infinite amount of energy. You could argue that once you're at say twice the speed of light things get normal again but to get there you must dispose of an infinite amount of energy and that's impossible.

Joined:
Aug 26, 2003
...Unless you cheat, which is pretty much what tunneling is: you skip the part where you ought to expend high energies, because you can.

Does warp work by cheating and tunneling through energy barriers to the other side? We really have no idea. This might not be how warpships get past lightspeed, but it might be related to how they get to higher warp factors, through the Parsley, Sage, Rosemary and Thyme barriers.

Timo Saloniemi

Joined:
Feb 12, 2011
Location:
standard orbit
Nope.

In TNG "Where No One Has Gone Before," the Enterprise was cruising at warp 1.5 when Kosinski and the Traveler entered their warp field modifications, which cause the ship to jump immediately past warp ten.

In other words, there's nothing that says the ship has to pass continuously through all warp values between nine and 13 to get to warp 13. The ship could be cruising at less than warp ten, jump immediately to warp 11, and then from there accelerate continuously to warp 13.

That's not actually what real physics says. For one thing, light always travels at the speed of light, although a photon has finite energy. For another, you might want to take a look at mathematical solutions to the equations of general relativity by Alcubierre et al that at least theoretically describe the possibility of superluminal travel for material objects [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive].

Anyway that's irrelevant. We're not talking about real physics, we're talking about the fictional warp drive in Star Trek.

Last edited: Feb 7, 2019

Joined:
Feb 23, 2018
Location:
Discofan
Well, but in that case, it's no different from saying that it's just bullshit and leave it at that.

In normal speak when you say "come here immediately!" you don't expect people to just appear before you, you are usually aware that they have to walk the distance between where they are and where you are.

I am not talking about photons. Photons ARE at the speed of light they don't get there. Material objects must get to the speed of light and that means to get through all the speeds in between.

Joined:
Feb 12, 2011
Location:
standard orbit
So, you skipped over the link I provided? OK.

Joined:
Feb 23, 2018
Location:
Discofan
Your link is about speculation based on assumptions that are nearly insane, like the possibility of creating a region of space with a negative mass. How do you do that?

If I tell you that you can make yourself invisible if you eat ten kilos of salt in one day. Try to prove me wrong!

Like Scotty once said: "If my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon"

Joined:
Feb 12, 2011
Location:
standard orbit
Lulz. It's a link to actual theoretical science.

Joined:
Feb 23, 2018
Location:
Discofan
Tsk, tsk... It doesn't even refer to any peer-reviewed document.

Joined:
Feb 12, 2011
Location:
standard orbit
"Classical and Quantum Gravity is a peer-reviewed journal...."
"Physical Review is an American peer-reviewed scientific journal...."

Joined:
Feb 23, 2018
Location:
Discofan
All right. So you can move faster than light (sort of) if you change the state of space over tens of light years. It's like saying that you can make a hard-boiled egg by bombarding an egg with subnuclear particles!!
Besides, if you read the article it says that in order to make a small ship move through the galaxy you need more energy than contained in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE!!! Even they know that their solution is stupidly impractical!

Joined:
Feb 12, 2011
Location:
standard orbit
Yeah, it's why I used the words "at least theoretically describe the possibility," which I said right out of the gate.