nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Warp Speed.

kneemos

What's the science behind warp speed,or the makey up science at least?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

The_Valeyard

Jawgap wrote: »

With a warp drive, you don't move the ship, you warp space and bring your destination to you - the speed of light is irrelevant.

So why doesn't the universe tear itself apart with multiple ships doing this?

Iwasfrozen

Jawgap wrote: »

With a warp drive, you don't move the ship, you warp space and bring your destination to you - the speed of light is irrelevant.

Well I guess it comes down to how to generate negative energy and if enough can be generated to carry this out.

How would this affect time dilation though?

jimgoose

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It's makey up science, as far as we know nothing can break the light speed barrier and nothing with a mass can ever reach light speed.

You sir, need to try out a Kawasaki ZZ-R1400. And Improbability Drive is faster anyway.

kneemos

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Well I guess it comes down to how to generate negative energy and if enough can be generated to carry this out.

How would this affect time dilation though?

Not

sure.

Jawgap

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Well I guess it comes down to how to generate negative energy and if enough can be generated to carry this out.

How would this affect time dilation though?

See post #31 (top of the page)

Iwasfrozen

Jawgap wrote: »

You can travel into the past

Would it though? I was thinking if space is bending, the ship isn't actually moving faster than the speed of light.

MarkAnthony

All we need is negative energy? Just open a thread about benefits in After hours and we'll be at Vega in under 3 minutes.

fizzypish

MarkAnthony wrote: »

All we need is negative energy? Just open a thread about benefits in After hours and we'll be at Vega in under 3 minutes.

Aww man. I've trouble analyzing simple circuits at the best of times. Add in negative voltage and I start dribbling and smashing my head on the desk. I shudder to think about negative energy......

Although, wouldn't negative energy be something thats drawing from an energy source so any device that draws from a power source is a negative energy source? E.G. Battery in a phone == + energy source, the rest of the phone == - energy source
And I base this on absolutely nothing.

CINCLANTFLT

It simple... X.Y.¤⊙¤⊙ω⊙¤⊙⊙¤⊙⊙.K^xy ~ W

the_monkey

The_Valeyard wrote: »

So why doesn't the universe tear itself apart with multiple ships doing this?

It actually was slowly doing just this, wasn't there a TNG episode with a storyline like this ?

Jawgap

MarkAnthony wrote: »

All we need is negative energy? Just open a thread about benefits in After hours and we'll be at Vega in under 3 minutes.

I know a ready, cheap and accessible source of negative energy......

......just PM me and I'll give you my ex-wife's address! Stick her on a ship (please

) and you'd circumnavigate the known universe and still be home in time for dinner!

fizzypish

CINCLANTFLT wrote: »

It simple... X.Y.€⊙€⊙ω⊙€⊙⊙€⊙⊙.K^xy ~ W

X.Y.€^4.⊙^7.ω.K^xy ~ W

Tidied that up for you.

Akrasia

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It's makey up science, as far as we know nothing can break the light speed barrier and nothing with a mass can ever reach light speed.

Space itself can travel 'faster than light'

Galaxies outside of the 'observable universe' will never be visable to us because they are travelling away from us faster than the speed of light

The cosmic speed limit refers to objects travelling through space. Warp drives get around this by 'warping space' around your space ship so that you're not actually moving but spacetime moves around you.

It requries 'negative mass' or density lower than the density in a pure vacuum

It had been thought that the energy requirements to achieve negative mass were greater than the amount of energy contained in the entire observible universe, but Harold White at NASA did some sums recently and thinks we might be able to tweak the design to massively increase efficiency and bring warp travel closer to the realms of feasability.

(of course, until he produces experimental results, we should probably presume he's wrong)

Capt'n Midnight

We've caught up with a lot of the technobabble on Star Trek
Data was built with an ultimate storage capacity of eight hundred quadrillion bits and a total linear computational speed rated at sixty trillion operations per second

To put that in perspective

Nvidia revealed its most powerful mobile processor yet, the Tegra X1 — which is capable of doing teraflops, or trillions of calculations every second.

US county sheriff’s department of Bakersfield, CA ordered a petabyte-class storage array.

BTW the original Warp Speed cubed was how many times faster than light it was, Warp 1 = c Warp 2 = 8c Warp 4 = 64c

Anyway Star Trek is science fantasy so I wouldn't loose any sleep over it.

Mal-Adjusted

I thought this thread was about wasp speed

philstar

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygE01sOhzz0

wellboytoo

http://i.imgur.com/OG6sHkf.jpg

Yellowblackbird

There's also cycling down the hill of howth with a good strong wind at your back.

Depraved

Yesterday I was out in the countryside (The Philippines) and was sitting down on a tree stump. A snake slithered to within an inch of my foot and I swear I traveled about 2 miles in 1 second flat. I think it was warp speed.

derfderf

Akrasia wrote: »

Space itself can travel 'faster than light'

Galaxies outside of the 'observable universe' will never be visable to us because they are travelling away from us faster than the speed of light

The cosmic speed limit refers to objects travelling through space. Warp drives get around this by 'warping space' around your space ship so that you're not actually moving but spacetime moves around you.

It requries 'negative mass' or density lower than the density in a pure vacuum

It had been thought that the energy requirements to achieve negative mass were greater than the amount of energy contained in the entire observible universe, but Harold White at NASA did some sums recently and thinks we might be able to tweak the design to massively increase efficiency and bring warp travel closer to the realms of feasability.

(of course, until he produces experimental results, we should probably presume he's wrong)

I read somewhere they'd need an antimatter reserve the mass of Jupiter to power it, but by redesigning the ship it's much less.
They had a few grams at CERN a while back...

everlast75

Whatever about the possibility of lightspeed, lots of items which were not around and on Star Trek were later invented/made real, ie tablets, virtual reality glasses and they reckon matter/anti-matter energy production is on the way. They are working on transporter beams too - won't be in our lifetime but still

CiDeRmAn

Transporter beams...
Just make sure there are no flies in there with you when they turn it on! #brundlefly

Capt'n Midnight

derfderf wrote: »

I read somewhere they'd need an antimatter reserve the mass of Jupiter to power it, but by redesigning the ship it's much less.
They had a few grams at CERN a while back...

No CERN didn't have a few grams of anti-matter

everlast75 wrote: »

and they reckon matter/anti-matter energy production is on the way.

Who are "they" ?

Like Hydrogen you can't get energy from anti-matter unless you use way more energy to make the stuff in the first place.

http://angelsanddemons.web.cern.ch/antimatter/making-antimatter

The total amount of antimatter produced in CERN’s history is less than 10 nanograms - containing only enough energy to power a 60 W light bulb for 4 hours.

...
Taking into account the low production efficiency, it would need 25 million billion kWh to make one single gram! Even at a discount price for electric power, this would cost more than a million billion Euros!

Of if you're handy with a soldering iron you could make your own solar panel from solar cells you can buy on aliexpress for 50c / watt. The problem with free energyand electric cars isn't harvesting or using it. The big problem is storing it.

Eugene Norman

Transporters are thought impossible because there is too much information to transmit. Also it kills you and recreates a copy.

the_monkey

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

We've caught up with a lot of the technobabble on Star Trek
Data was built with an ultimate storage capacity of eight hundred quadrillion bits and a total linear computational speed rated at sixty trillion operations per second

To put that in perspective

Nvidia revealed its most powerful mobile processor yet, the Tegra X1 — which is capable of doing teraflops, or trillions of calculations every second.

US county sheriff’s department of Bakersfield, CA ordered a petabyte-class storage array.

BTW the original Warp Speed cubed was how many times faster than light it was, Warp 1 = c Warp 2 = 8c Warp 4 = 64c

Anyway Star Trek is science fantasy so I wouldn't loose any sleep over it.

Strange, then it would still take 13 days to get to Vega at Warp 9 ...

Not G.R

the_monkey wrote: »

Strange, then it would still take 13 days to get to Vega at Warp 9 ...

9×9×9 = 729c

729 × 300,000 (speed of light in km/s)

218,700,000 km/s

_

60×60×24×14 = ~1,200,000 (sec in 14 days)

_

218,700,000 x 1,200,000 = 2.6244e14

2600000000000000km = 274.8 LY.

Not that far in the grand scheme of things.

I fu*king hate Star Trek too! :pac:

Capt'n Midnight

the_monkey wrote: »

Strange, then it would still take 13 days to get to Vega at Warp 9 ...

They retconned the definition later on so warp 10 was infinity +1 or somesuch. Voyager especially was a load of technobabble fixing any problem in the last few minutes of the episode.

kneemos

Not G.R wrote: »

9×9×9 = 729c

729 × 300,000 (speed of light in km/s)

218,700,000 km/s

_

60×60×24×14 = ~1,200,000 (sec in 14 days)

_

218,700,000 x 1,200,000 = 2.6244e14

2600000000000000km = 274.8 LY.

Not that far in the grand scheme of things.

I fu*king hate Star Trek too! :pac:

Universe ending paradoxes are a sham as well apparently.
When Spock meets Spock nothing happens.

the_monkey

Not G.R wrote: »

9×9×9 = 729c

729 × 300,000 (speed of light in km/s)

218,700,000 km/s

_

60×60×24×14 = ~1,200,000 (sec in 14 days)

218,700,000 x 1,200,000 = 2.6244e14

2600000000000000km = 274.8 LY.

Not that far in the grand scheme of things.

I fu*king hate Star Trek too! :pac:

Now im confused Vega is 27 LY ...

27/729 = 0.037 Years = ~13.5 days.

edit ok i see you missed a 0 there .... so even worse, a shorter distance for all that time travelling ... ST lied to me

* I wonder is this the most pointless post on boards ?

Capt'n Midnight

kneemos wrote: »

Universe ending paradoxes are a sham as well apparently.
When Spock meets Spock nothing happens.

And what about the prime directive ? Especially in Voyager :rolleyes: and Wesley and the flower bed, 'nuff said.

Unlike us mammals most other species on this planet use eggs. So my guess is that it's much easier to freeze the embryos and eggs and defrost then when you get near the destination. Robo-teachers and all that. Also most other species can fend for themselves from day one.

We are the oddballs. It's probable that ET isn't like us.

Getting to another star system is easy, well it might be for our descendants. With the technology we will have in a few hundred years we could have got to this star and hitched a lift. The star and it's planets would have supplied energy and resources for the journey.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31519875

An alien star passed through our Solar System just 70,000 years ago, astronomers have discovered.
...

The object, a red dwarf known as Scholz's star, cruised through the outer reaches of the Solar System - a region known as the Oort Cloud.

Scholz's star was not alone; it was accompanied on its travels by an object known as a brown dwarf. These are essentially failed stars that lacked the necessary mass to get fusion going in their cores.