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_monkey

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

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

A brown dwarf ?
Sounds obscene !!

Akrasia

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

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

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.

Yeah, but what if we found some, like, just lying around somewhere?

http://www.astronomynow.com/news/n1108/19antimatter/

Capt'n Midnight

Akrasia wrote: »

Yeah, but what if we found some, like, just lying around somewhere?

http://www.astronomynow.com/news/n1108/19antimatter/

160 nanograms ?

The Hiroshima bomb was the equivalent of half a gram of anti-matter or 500,000 nanograms and the N1 rocket explosion was about 7 Kt , so about half that of Hiroshima so about 250,000 nanograms.

My suspicion is that you'd need more energy to launch the collector than you'd harvest

Also that the number will get revised downwards.

ScumLord

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.

But that's not what warp speed does. Your not travelling in the traditional sense.

The_Valeyard wrote: »

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

Because space bends. We can see light bending around objects with gravity. Warping space would be a theory based on that known fact.

I think we're at the stage where we can see that steam lifts the lid off the boiling pot of water, we just have to turn that discovery into an engine that can take advantage of that natural process.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

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

It's pretty scary to think there are stars wandering around the place out there. I'd heard of this but didn't think one was on record. I would have though it would cause havoc but I guess it wasn't that big.

namloc1980

This is Warp Speed!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzlmQLbr1Y4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkIODtJii2o

kneemos

Anybody know what this is.Keeps popping up.

Capt'n Midnight

kneemos wrote: »

Anybody know what this is.Keeps popping up.

just means you need to install adblock plus

Tokyo

Warp drive is supposed to work by non-newtonian physics (i.e. it doesn't 'push' the ship through space) but by folding or 'warping' space itself. A common analogy is to think of space as a piece of paper. You create a fast shortcut by folding it on itself. The matter/anti-matter stuff is what's used to generate the enormous energy it requires to warp space. So the engines still have to work harder to make the ship go faster.

PirateShampoo wrote: »

All I know is that Warp 10 in theory impossible.

In the original series, warp scale: Warp FactorX=Xc^3, where c is the speed of light.

Therefore Warp 1 is c
Warp 2 is 8*c
Warp 3 is 27*c

up to Warp 9 which is 729*c
Warp 10 undefined...

Anything over warp 10 is Transwarp: Transwarp FactorX=X(c^4*c^1/4)

Iwasfrozen

mike_ie wrote: »

Warp drive is supposed to work by non-newtonian physics (i.e. it doesn't 'push' the ship through space) but by folding or 'warping' space itself. A common analogy is to think of space as a piece of paper. You create a fast shortcut by folding it on itself. The matter/anti-matter stuff is what's used to generate the enormous energy it requires to warp space. So the engines still have to work harder to make the ship go faster.

In the original series, warp scale: Warp FactorX=Xc^3, where c is the speed of light.

Therefore Warp 1 is c
Warp 2 is 8*c
Warp 3 is 27*c

up to Warp 9 which is 729*c
Warp 10 undefined...

Anything over warp 10 is Transwarp: Transwarp FactorX=X(c^4*c^1/4)

Wait what, going by that logic wouldn't Warp 10 be 1,000*c? Since 10^3 = 1,000.

Tokyo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Wait what, going by that logic wouldn't Warp 10 be 1,000*c? Since 10^3 = 1,000.

From TNG Technical Manual:

we had to provide some loophole for various powerful aliens like Q, who have a knack for tossing the ship millions of light-years in the time of a commercial break. Our solution was to redraw the warp curve so that the exponent of the warp factor increases gradually, then sharply as you approach Warp 10. At Warp 10, the exponent (and the speed) would be infinite, so you could never reach this value.

In other words, warp factor 10 was redesignated to correspond with infinite velocity. As such, a vessel traveling at warp 10 would occupy all points in the universe simultaneously.

Capt'n Midnight

mike_ie wrote: »

In other words, warp factor 10 was redesignated to correspond with infinite velocity. As such, a vessel traveling at warp 10 would occupy all points in the universe simultaneously.

They just copied the infinite improbability drive from the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy :rolleyes:

fizzypish

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

half a gram of anti-matter or 500,000 nanograms

This is so very pedantic of me but....

.5 g != 500000 ng

500000 ng = .0005 g

ZiabR

The fact that you would need an infinite amount of energy to propel matter faster than the speed of light leads me to believe that it is next to impossible, sadly.

Now, Einstein did have another theory that essentially states that you could wrap the matter in a "bubble" and move space around the matter as opposed to pushing matter through space.

The main problem with FTL travel is the issue of Time Dilation which has been proven on many occasions. Essentially, when you reach to speed of light, time stops. An astronaut could travel to Alpha Centauri which is the next closed start to earth (roughly 59 light years away). If they were travelling at the speed of light and reached Alpha Centauri, then turned around and came back to earth, very little time would have passed for the astronaut but over 125 years would have passed on Earth.

There are bigger problems than FTL travel

Akrasia

If you're in a warp bubble, you're not actually travelling so that particular type of time dilation should not have an effect.

I'd be concerned about what kind of relative gravity would exist in and around the warp bubble because gravity can also dilate time. if there is negative density and negative energy inside the bubble, is it possible there is also negative gravity.

It's possible that existing in a negative energy bubble could somehow send travellers backwards in time which would create all kinds of universe destroying paradoxes

jimgoose

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

They just copied the infinite improbability drive from the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy :rolleyes:

That would explain the small piece of (extremely stale) fairy-cake in Q's pocket. Wait, that's the Total Perspective Vortex, isn't it... hmmm...

Capt'n Midnight

jimgoose wrote: »

That would explain the small piece of (extremely stale) fairy-cake in Q's pocket. Wait, that's the Total Perspective Vortex, isn't it... hmmm...

It would also explain the smugness