What if...

[Buddy Peabody]

What would happen if a starship was traveling at warp and lost its capability to "brake"? If it was moving and never hit anything, inertia would leave it in motion indefinitely, right? What would be the time dilation or other effects of such an occurrence?

 

[sojourner]

1. there is no time dilation at warp.
2. warp is inertial-less. To "brake" you just turn the engine "off".

The scenario cannot happen.

 

[Finn]

TNG had them unable to stop the engines while the ship were going at very high warp several times.

 

[Buddy Peabody]

How can something be "inertia-less"?

 

[Bill Morris]

Despite the Trek thing of having the inertial dampers separate from the warp drive, in order to move a physical object faster than lightspeed you would have to manipulate the as-yet-little-understood "fabric of space" in such as way as to cancel inertia. A simple Trek example is when O'Brien created a static warp bubble around DS9 to reduce its inertial mass so that its thrusters could move it to the vacinity of the wormhole. But a commonly known related phenomenon is the Casimir effect, which is currently getting a lot study because of its importance in nanotech. The terminology for what causes it even seems to be in a state of confusion, with terms thrown around like vacuum flucuations, virtual particles, zero-point radiation, aether, etc., etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

 

[sojourner]

TNG had them unable to stop the engines while the ship were going at very high warp several times.

Which violates neither point 1 or 2 of my post.

 

[Finn]

^I know. However, it has do with number two- they were unable to turn off the engines.

 

[sojourner]

^So they keep going until the engines run dry.

 

[Tiberius]

Normal rocket thrust = get up to speed, turn engines off and then you coast.

However, to move faster than light, you need a warp field. If you turn the warp field off, then you immediately fall back below light speed

 

[Buddy Peabody]

However, to move faster than light, you need a warp field. If you turn the warp field off, then you immediately fall back below light speed

At which point you would continue to be in motion, and also be subject to time dilation.

I guess I can accept the collapse of a warp field or bubble as a reason for dropping out of warp without "brakes," but if the ship is moving at less than c it should be subject to inertia like anything else...as witnessed when Riker hooks the star drive section up to the saucer in the TNG pilot (albeit at a much slower speed).

Basically I was thinking of a Poul Anderson "Tau Zero" story set in the Star Trek universe and I was wondering if it would be possible to do it at warp. But I guess the ship would have to be going less than the speed of light.

 

[Tiberius]

I would think that the once the warp bubble collapses, the ship would drop back to the speed it was travelling at relative to the bubble - namely, zero.

 

[Saturn0660]

I would think that the once the warp bubble collapses, the ship would drop back to the speed it was travelling at relative to the bubble - namely, zero.

This ----^

I'd go with that logic. Is you were at rest when you went to warp you be at rest when you droped out of warp again.

 

[T'Girl]

I would think that the once the warp bubble collapses, the ship would drop back to the speed it was travelling at relative to the bubble - namely, zero.

Or, the ship would "return" to the speed it was traveling at, when the warp bubble was established.

If the ship were stationary (relative to whatever), then when the warp bubble collapsed it would again be stationary. If on the other hand the ship were traveling at a thousand kilometers per second, it would be again.

Time dilation? At normal space velocity - impulse speeds - there would be time dilation, yes.

 

[jgalley]

seeing as how FTL travel (or "warp drive") is a fictional technology..of COURSE there's holes in it.

or in short. That's just how it works. Because that's how it's needed to work in order to do what they need it to do.

move on. pointing out flaws in how something works is pointless.

 

[sojourner]

Holes? who was pointing out holes? are you in the right thread?

 

[jgalley]

Holes? who was pointing out holes? are you in the right thread?

holes in how the technology works or doesn't work. Things that need more explanation.

I can't believe I actually have to explain this......lol..wow

 

[sojourner]

^explain what? No one was pointing out any holes. The question merely asked what happens in a particular circumstance. The question was answered. Do you see a hole in how the technology works? If so, please let us in on it.