Voyager's starting position

[Guy Gardener]

Have you seen the earsex episode of Family Guy?

It was advertised as a Christian alternative to unwanted teen-pregnancy.

"And remember the old saying, once you go black, you go deaf."

I'll tell you a secret.

The real reason men want to have sex at night with the lights off, is so that women can't tell that we don't want to, or can't open our eyes during the procedure.

We took a vote in the secret club of all men in the world, but we just didn't think that we could sell the need for a clothes peg sealing up our nose too, without it seeming a scooch insulting, even if, as Greg Kelly suggested, that we called it a "sex peg".

Which just started a slue of reminiscence about Married with Children that lasted about 4 hours.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I'll tell you a secret.

The real reason men want to have sex at night with the lights off, is so that women can't tell that we don't want to, or can't open our eyes during the procedure.

Don't tell me crap like this, I've been out at a party.

Seriously. You don't want to see your AGING WOMAN when you're having sex? Okay, hang out with your palm until you drop dead and/or go stale.

Do you think holodecks will cause more marriage problems or be a salvation?

 

[Guy Gardener]

"ageing"?

Dude.

That's you.

transference.

I was saying the opposite earlier about how clutching to fleeting youth is stupid.

10 reasons why you need to shut your eyes, and turn the lights off during sex.

1. Fear that she'll laugh.
2. Fear that she'll be disgusted.
3. Fear that you'll forget the order you're supposed to approach her anatomy. seriously it's like driving a car and you're trying to figure out how to get somewhere for the first time but the traffic report is telling about all these obstructions and delays and you work yourself into a bother.
4. Premature ejaculation.
5. Confirmation that she's bored halfway through.
6. Vagina Dentata.
7. Scratched corneas, squirting, or lost contact lenses.
8. Homophobia. seriously. If a less enlightened guy sees another guy in bed when he's getting down to business, even if it's himself, there can be performance issues. I mean in a devils threesome (Two horns. Clever?) you're prepared to see another penis, and at the end give each other a high-one for a job well done, so a threesome is not nearly as shocking as when a groundhog gets frightened into thinking that it's own shadow is going to eat him, indicating another 6 weeks of winter.
9. Plausible deniabilty when you need help to enter.
10. Pretending she's a movie star. Seriously. Your "other" is going to get jiggy with you differently if you're someone else, unless they're a one trick pony failure of sexual inadequacy, but if your lover got it into their head that you were Marilyn Munro (Been watching far too much Smash) and they could maintain that for 20 minutes, isn't it possible that they would be operating at 200, maybe 300 percent of what you're used to?

 

[tighr]

The real reason men want to have sex at night with the lights off, is so that women can't tell that we don't want to, or can't open our eyes during the procedure.

We took a vote in the secret club of all men in the world, but we just didn't think that we could sell the need for a clothes peg sealing up our nose too, without it seeming a scooch insulting, even if, as Greg Kelly suggested, that we called it a "sex peg".

Dude, speak for yourself.

I leave the lights on. In fact, more often then not, the women are the ones who are self-conscious and want the lights off.

I must have missed the meeting where the rest of the men voted on lights off.

 

[Guy Gardener]

It wasn't a unanimous result and hardly binding.

A heated debate.

Besides, it's not like we still have a secret police force replacing everyone's light bulbs with CCTV cameras checking in on to see who is letting the side down.

Although it was moot for me, my last girlfriend would only have sex sober before breakfast.

 

[Uxi]

So, let's assume 4.1 light years per day is the velocity at which you can attain if you maintain constant warp power (also unlikely).

Why would there be any set velocity limit? Acceleration is far more likely the metric. That also changes the calcs quite a bit, though mass vs acceleration is also important (F=ma), though let's remember, in space, bigger ships can and often should be faster than smaller ones, which is often counterintuitive from newtonian physics inside a gravity well, but the way it should be in space.

 

[Guy Gardener]

the only real way to figure out average speed, is distance divided by time.

1 thousand light years divided by 365 days.

2.7 light years per day.

0.11 light years per hour

0.002 light years per second.

A light year is of course 10 trillion km.

so that makes it

voyagers average expected cruising speed for the journey is 1,100,000,000,000,000 km per hour. (1.1 trillion kph.)

And according to my handy dandy encyclopaedia (which opens right up tot he warp scale page if you drop the book or even a head wind rushes past) 1.1 trillion light years per hour is warp 8 precisely.

(Looking at what else they had to say about warp 8, "10kly = 10 y" i really think that I still went about this the long way.)

 

[tighr]

Why would there be any set velocity limit? Acceleration is far more likely the metric. That also changes the calcs quite a bit, though mass vs acceleration is also important (F=ma), though let's remember, in space, bigger ships can and often should be faster than smaller ones, which is often counterintuitive from newtonian physics inside a gravity well, but the way it should be in space.

Because warp IS an indication of velocity and not acceleration. This is done to de-couple the velocity each warp represents from the size and mass of the ship, so that warp can be standardized across a fleet of varying ships.

Bigger ships are going to require more energy to reach a certain velocity than a smaller ship, but they are also going to be able to produce that energy more easily than a smaller ship. It's not counter-intuitive to realize that a more massive object will require more force to accelerate to a set velocity.

My proof? In many instances, when ships are accelerating to a set warp, the helmsman calls out the velocity they are currently at. "Passing warp 6, passing warp 7, passing warp 8." This makes no sense if warp is a description of acceleration and not velocity. Acceleration would be the amount of time it takes between two given velocities. Acceleration is the second order derivative of distance traveled. If warp were an acceleration, then as you pass each warp factor, you'd be experiencing a third order derivative, commonly referred to as "jerk". That doesn't appear to be the case.

 

[Uxi]

Your argument is predicated on an arbitrary velocity limit, which just doesn't make sense since you can continually apply thrust in space for as long as you have power and with no effectively no friction to slow you down, you can continue to accelerate and increase your vector.

Where is it established that warp factors are an indication of velocity? The helm calling out warp factors doesn't change anything. They have inertial compensation to mitigate "jerk" in anything other than impacts or extreme/evasive maneuvers.

Bigger ships will indeed require more energy but they can put bigger engines and power plants, as well.

 

[Guy Gardener]

The velocity limit for regular warp in the tng era is warp 10.

So called "Infinite speed".

(The future seen in All Good Thins is post TNG.)

These ships are not in regular space.

They create a static warp bubble, inside of which there are different nonNetonian rules at play that allows that to movie faster than light among things.

As Mr Dice Clay would say.

"Newton? HEY! I fucked him."

Ditto for Einstein.

Impulse speeds happen in real space and are governed by Newton.

 

[Tiberius]

I can't find my cell phone. I keeps ringing but I can't find it.

A second set of ears will let you triangulate.

Have you ne-eee-eever watched MacGyver?

You start the phone ringing, both point to where you think it is, and walk towards that point. When you bump into each other and after you stop cuddling, you two should have found that cellphone.

If that doesn't work, add another set of ears, and then another and another, and don't stop till you've found the phone or ancient Rome would be proud.

That made me lol.

 

[tighr]

Your argument is predicated on an arbitrary velocity limit, which just doesn't make sense since you can continually apply thrust in space for as long as you have power and with no effectively no friction to slow you down, you can continue to accelerate and increase your vector.

A) They're not in space, they're in subspace.

B) What if light particles themselves are providing friction? At a vehicle moving at those superluminal speeds, they'd be prone to all kinds of outside forces, forces which may act negatively upon speed. Otherwise, they wouldn't need things like deflector arrays.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Sisko the Solar Sailor?

I love that episode!

Meanwhile once upon a time Voyager was crippled by dust and pebbles because Janeway didn't think deflector shields were important.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

8. Homophobia. seriously. If a less enlightened guy sees another guy in bed when he's getting down to business, even if it's himself, there can be performance issues.

Someone told me this once but I thought they were making it up.

 

[Guy Gardener]

I was shown a pamphlet from a less than progressive church a while back that suggested men should tie their right hand to their bedpost in an effort to avoid sleep-masturbation.

The world takes all sorts.

 

[Uxi]

Your argument is predicated on an arbitrary velocity limit, which just doesn't make sense since you can continually apply thrust in space for as long as you have power and with no effectively no friction to slow you down, you can continue to accelerate and increase your vector.

A) They're not in space, they're in subspace.

It's supposed to sidestep relativistic effects but the tech (to say nothing of the technobabble) ever said that basic physics are otherwise altered. In fact, the lack of fighters like Star Wars seems to indicate the Trek model is a bit more realistic. Bigger ships are usually the most effective (Sovereign vs Galaxy vs Excelsior vs Constitution, etc).

B) What if light particles themselves are providing friction? At a vehicle moving at those superluminal speeds, they'd be prone to all kinds of outside forces, forces which may act negatively upon speed. Otherwise, they wouldn't need things like deflector arrays.

The deflector array's very purpose is to push such items out of the way since you don't want even a speck of dust hitting you at high velocities induced by ultrahigh acceleration.

 

[Guy Gardener]

The lack of fighters is because these ships can hit each other with pin point accuracy from a distance of 30 thousand kilometres and greater while impelling at 25 percent of lightspeed.

A fighter isn't a smaller target harder to lock onto.

relatively speaking a fighter appears to be the same sized target as a star ship, if the Starship is less than a hundred metres farther away from the gun emplacement tracking it.

But you know a starship's shields are a thousand times more potent and their weapons have significantly more range.