ron@wjvax.UUCP (Ron Christian) (10/18/84)
Heard somewhere that warp 1 is the speed of light. From "star trek the motion sickness" this appears to be the case. So what's warp 2? Certainly not merely 2 times lightspeed. Galactic distances would be too great. Does anyone know the relationship between warp numbers and velocity? Side note: We're probably talking psudovelocity, as they never *actually* exceed the speed of light, but warp space so distances get smaller. -- "Trivia is important." Ron Christian (syntax bug) Watkins-Johnson Co. San Jose, Calif. (...ios!wjvax!ron)
allyn@sdcsvax.UUCP (Allyn Fratkin) (10/18/84)
Warp is defined to be the (warp-number cubed) times the speed of light.
So warp 2 is 2**3 = 8 times the speed of light.
Just to get my word in, I believe there will be a Star Trek IV. Paramount
will eventually give W. Shatner anything he wants. I wouldn't lose sleep
over it.
Also, to add to the discussion about Saavik, I much prefer Kirstie Alley
to Robin Curtis. Robin Curtis is a fine actress, but she's just not
Saavik. This has been said before (maybe that's where I heard it), but
who says we can't have a pretty Saavik?
--
From the virtual mind of Allyn Fratkin sdcsvax!allyn@Nosc
UCSD Pascal Project {ucbvax, decvax, ihnp4}
U.C. San Diego !sdcsvax!allyn
"Generally you don't see that kind of behavior in a major appliance."steve@calmasd.UUCP (Stephen R. Cary) (10/19/84)
As I remember reading my friend's Star Fleet Technical Manual... apparent velocity = c raised to warp level hope this clears things up... anybody got the manual to check me on it? steve cary
kmo@ptsfa.UUCP (Ken Olsen) (10/20/84)
> Heard somewhere that warp 1 is the speed of light. From > "star trek the motion sickness" this appears to be the case. > So what's warp 2? Certainly not merely 2 times lightspeed. > Galactic distances would be too great. Does anyone know the > relationship between warp numbers and velocity? > > Side note: We're probably talking psudovelocity, as they > never *actually* exceed the speed of light, but warp space > so distances get smaller. > -- > > "Trivia is important." Ron Christian > (syntax bug) Watkins-Johnson Co. > San Jose, Calif. > (...ios!wjvax!ron) Warp Factor 1 = the speed of light Warp Factor 3 = 24 times the speed of light Warp Factor 6 = 216 times the speed of light Warp Factor 8 = 512 times the speed of light Warp drive was first used in the year 2018. Ken Olsen {ihnp4,ucbvax,cbosgd,decwrl,amd70,fortune,zehntel}!dual!ptsfa!kmo "I've *got* to have thirty minutes!!" [read with brogue]
barmar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Barry Margolin) (10/20/84)
According to "The Star Fleet Handbook", and possibly also "The Making of
Star Trek", when you are going warp factor N you are traveling at N^2
times the speed of light. So, if you go at the maximum safe velocity
(during the series) of warp 8 you are going 64*c.
Actually, this doesn't sound right for interstellar distances. Maybe
I'm remembering wrong and it is N^3. Then warp 8 would be 512*c. This
is still really insufficient for interstellar distances, but at least it
sounds fast enough to satisfy many people.
--
Barry Margolin
ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics
UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmarmarc@wlcrjs.UUCP (Marc Lavine) (10/20/84)
The cube of the warp number is the number of times the speed of light they are supposed to be traveling at. Therefore, warp 2 is 8 times the speed of light, and warp 8 would be 512 times the speed of light. -- Marc Lavine uucp: ...ihnp4!wlcrjs!marc MCI Mail: MLavine (174-4419)
marc@wlcrjs.UUCP (Marc Lavine) (10/20/84)
>The square of the warp number is the number of times the speed of light they >are supposed to be traveling at. Therefore, warp 2 is 4 times the speed of >light, and warp 8 would be 64 times the speed of light. Sorry about that posting. I wrote that before I checked that manual, and I wasn't able to cancel the article due to a problem on this machine. See the correct article for the answer. -- Marc Lavine uucp: ...ihnp4!wlcrjs!marc MCI Mail: MLavine (174-4419)
mnw@trwrba.UUCP (Michael N. Washington) (10/20/84)
This is for oliveb!ios!wjvax!ron The question of warp speed has been discussed among trekkies for a long time. The definition of warp is a simple equation: n^3*c = warp speed. So warp 1 is the speed of light because 1*1*1*c = c. Warp 2 would be 2^3*c = 8*c. Actual velocity can be argues. It depends on whether you hold Einstein's laws as valid or not. However, most people cater to the notion that warp is the amount of space that the Enterprise (or any ship using greater than light speed) warps, thus making the distance between objects shorter (sort of like the way our Sun "warps" [or bends] space near it. Theory states that you cannot possibly go in a straight line if you could travel very close to the Sun because of the distortion of space near it. I hope this hasn't confused you. Of course, this is all speculation, since we cannot attain such velocities at the present time. Michael N. Washington "Live Long and Prosper" trwrb!trwrba!mnw
alcmist@ssc-vax.UUCP (Frederick Wamsley) (10/21/84)
Even c times the cube of the warp factor is too slow for interstellar
distances. Besides, we have some data from the series that proves the
Enterprise travels faster than that.
In "That Which Survives", the Enterprise is thrown 990.7 light years
from the planetoid being explored by the landing party. During the
trip back to the planetoid, the ship reached a maximum speed of
warp 14.1 (the engine controls were sabotaged, remember).
14.1 cubed is 2803.221. Even if the Enterprise had made the entire trip
at this speed, it would have taken 128.93 days to reach Kirk and company.
In fact the ship got there overnight (after coming within seconds of
blowing up from the engine overload).
In "By Any Other Name", the Kelvans rebuilt the engines to cruise at
warp 11, and expected to reach the Andromeda galaxy in only 300 years.
This doesn't add up either, unless warp speed slows down time on board
the ship.
I don't know what the actual relation is between warp factors and speed --
would anyone who finds out please let me know? :-)
Fred Wamsley
--
UUCP:{ihnp4,tektronix}!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!alcmist ARPA:ssc-vax!alcmist@uw-beaver
I am not speaking as a representative of the Boeing Company or any of
its divisions. Opinions expressed are solely my own (if that) and
have nothing to do with company policy or with the opinions of my
coworkers, or those of the staff of the Software Support Center VAX.raiche@dartvax.UUCP (George A. Raiche) (10/22/84)
> Heard somewhere that warp 1 is the speed of light. From > "star trek the motion sickness" this appears to be the case. > So what's warp 2? Certainly not merely 2 times lightspeed. > Galactic distances would be too great. Does anyone know the > relationship between warp numbers and velocity? > > Side note: We're probably talking psudovelocity, as they > never *actually* exceed the speed of light, but warp space > so distances get smaller. > -- > > "Trivia is important." Ron Christian > (syntax bug) Watkins-Johnson Co. > San Jose, Calif. > (...ios!wjvax!ron) The vessel's speed, v, is equal to the cube of the warp factor, w, i.e. v=w^3 . Einstein would be having kittens... George Raiche Dept. of Chemistry Dartmouth
hobbit@sunybcs.UUCP (Thomas Pellitieri) (10/22/84)
In article <2941@mit-eddie.UUCP> barmar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Barry Margolin) writes: > >According to "The Star Fleet Handbook", and possibly also "The Making of >Star Trek", when you are going warp factor N you are traveling at N^2 >times the speed of light. So, if you go at the maximum safe velocity >(during the series) of warp 8 you are going 64*c. > >Actually, this doesn't sound right for interstellar distances. Maybe >I'm remembering wrong and it is N^3. This is still really insufficient >for interstellar distances, but at least it sounds fast enough ... I think you are remembering wrong! I seem to recall in the "Star Fleet Technical Manual" a relativity graph which shows a warp/time ratio. According to that, warp N = 2^N times the speed of light. Then warp 8 is 256*c. This is still rather slow, but think! Warp 12 = 4,096*c! THAT'S FAST!! From the Headquarters of the Campaign for Real Time, -The Parker Hobbit -- decvax!sunybcs!hobbit or seismo!rochester!rocksvax!sunybcs!hobbit "'Once Upon a Time' should be in the future Storytellers keep it in the past Dreaming's what improves us, Motivates and moves us, You won't be my first love, but you might be my last!"
urban@spp2.UUCP (10/22/84)
I seem to have been here before. The fan material from Paramount that appeared while the show was still on seemed to think that the speed was c*n^3, but (due to a misprint? miscalculation?) listed Warp 3 as 24c rather than 27c. The examples given allow one to use the formula (n*(2^n))*c, which lets you cover interstellar distances in almost reasonable times at higher warp speeds. n^3 is simply too slow. Use the "units" program to convert "512c" to "lightyear/week" and you get the idea. Mike
bruhgraw@uok.UUCP (10/22/84)
Seems like I read somewhere (concordance?) that if you cube the warp number, you get the actual speed times lightspeed. I.e., Warp 1 = 1 x lightspeed Warp 2 = 8 x lightspeed Warp 3 = 27 x lightspeed Warp 4 = 64 x lightspeed etc.... bruce ctvax!uokvax!uok!bruhgraw
friedman@uiucdcs.UUCP (10/23/84)
Warp speed was indeed "officially" defined to be the cube of the warp number times the speed of light. Unfortunately, in this as in so many small details, ST was not consistent. It is certainly true that this "official" definition does not yield speeds sufficient for the distances the stories claim to traverse, in the times specified. A few years ago, I wrote a computer ST simulation game, which is when I first discovered this problem. Consequently, in my game, I adopted a warp speed formula of ten to the power (warp number minus 1) times the speed of light. This seems to produce more realistic times of flight. But this is just my personal usage, and obviously has no official standing.
bsa@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) (10/24/84)
> Article <>, from steve@calmasd.UUCP (Stephen R. Cary) +---------------- | As I remember reading my friend's Star Fleet Technical Manual... | | | apparent velocity = c raised to warp level | | Apparent velocity = (WF ** 3) * C where WF is the warp factor and C is the speed of light. For WF < 1 (i.e. Sulu's `Warp point eight... point nine...' in STTMP), the formula is simply WF * C. --bsa Brandon Allbery @ North Coast Xenix | the.world!ucbvax!decvax!cwruecmp! 6504 Chestnut Road, Independence, Ohio | {atvax!}ncoast!{tdi1!}bsa (216) 524-1416 \ 44131 | E1439@CSUOHIO.BITNET (friend's acct.) ---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------- `Confusion is my natural state.'
cs4911ay@unm-cvax.UUCP (10/24/84)
[It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a -- ] The (wf)^3 formula has long been recognized as a problem in reconciling interstellar distances with starship flight times. Those of us who purchased the Star Trek Map set awhile back, which included the Star Fleet Navigation Manual (or some similar document) discovered an interesting solution: the base formula is, indeed, (wf)^3, but the actual equation is something like D*(wf)^3, where D is a factor dependent on the local density of matter in the region of space through which ship is travelling. This factor, in relatively dense space (such as within spiral arms of the Galaxy, where there is a significant amount of interstellar dust and gas) reduces flight times to a reasonable quantity. -- Mike Conley U.N.M., Albuquerque, NM "Think of it as evolution in action."
zubbie@wlcrjs.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (10/24/84)
A warp is the speed the Enterprise must travel at to get from where it is because of: A) explosion B) starting point C) point where communications received orders to change course D) None of the above to where it must go to A) rescue kirk B) rescue spock C) save a world of people D) save the federation E) save EARTH F) perform its mission in the time allocated (1 hour less commercials) expressed as warp # = time remaining - 10 minutes Jeanette Zobjeck ihnp4!wlcrjs!zubbie live long and prosper
avolio@grendel.UUCP (Frederick M. Avolio) (10/25/84)
warp 1 = fast
warp 2 = real fast
warp 3 = very fast
warp 4 = very, very fast
and so on... anything over warp 6 or 7 is only used to get a
startled look from the helmsman. Anything over warp 9 is only
to get a call from Scotty warning about the engines blowing up or
some such terrible event. (You know.... "Cap'n, we canna take much
more o' this. She's gonna blow!")
--
Fred Avolio, DEC -- U{LTR,N}IX Support
301/731-4100 x4227
UUCP: {seismo,decvax}!grendel!avolio
ARPA: grendel!avolio@seismo.ARPAherbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong, Computing Services) (10/26/84)
Surely D*(wf^3) has D dependent on (density of matter)^-1? Of course, this
is an opinion rather than anything else. It assumes one could go faster
where there's less to run into. Several episodes had minor statements to
the effect that even in warp drive, one could run into things.
Herb...
I'm user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble....
UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!watdcsu!herbie
CSNET: herbie%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet
ARPA: herbie%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
BITNET: herbie at watdcs,herbie at watdcsulab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (10/26/84)
Even assuming warp 8 == 512C, we do face a bit of a problem...
Anybody remember "Obsession"? The home planet of the hemo-monster was
*1000* light-years away. It should have taken ~2 years, but Scotty's
baby covered it fast enough to rendez-vous with the ship containing the
medical supplies in < 48 hours.
--
The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford
{amd,decwrl,sun,idi,ittvax}!qubix!lab
You can't settle the issue until you've settled how to settle the issue.sabol@reed.UUCP (Bryan Sabol) (10/30/84)
> Heard somewhere that warp 1 is the speed of light. From > "star trek the motion sickness" this appears to be the case. > So what's warp 2? Certainly not merely 2 times lightspeed. > Galactic distances would be too great. Does anyone know the > relationship between warp numbers and velocity? O.K., Trekker, here goes: from the actual "Star Trek Manual" (or something of the sort, I just thumbed through the book; it was too expensive to buy), the actual (and simple!) formula for calculating the warp speeds of the Enterprise is to simply use the law of cubes. Ergo: WARP SPEED OF LIGHT 1 1 2 8 3 27 4 64 5 125 6 216 etcetera. You can see that the Enterprise was a quick vessel indeed! A fellow Trekker, Bryan Sabol (Reed College)
judd@tove.UUCP (Judd Rogers) (10/30/84)
<death to line eaters>
Speaking of inconsistancies in distance traveled and warp speeds (someone
was), did anyone note the amazing difference between impulse speeds in
TWOK and in TSFS? In TWOK the Enterprise leaves orbit under thrusters and
leaves the Solar system under impulse engins. one half impulse powergets
them to Jupiter in negligable time (20 min?). To realy go places they
shift to warp drive at edge of SS. In TSFS they use 1/2 impulse to get out
of the space station!
I would think that the way it was done in TWOK is more likely. This would
make manuvering thrusters some sort of chemical rocket while impulse engins
are much(!) more powerful.
--
Spoken: Judd Rogers
Arpa: judd.umcp-cs@CSNet-relay
Uucp:...{allegra,seismo}!umcp-cs!juddderek@uwvax.UUCP (Derek Zahn) (10/31/84)
All right.... I think by now we all know that the various *official*
answers to the question "What's a warp?" are not suitable. I suggest
that we either stop arguing about it entirely or else take evidence from
the shows themselves and try to work up a definition of a warp. It seems
that there are enough imaginative people out there.
derek
--
Derek Zahn @ wisconsin
...!{allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo,sfwin,ucbvax,uwm-evax}!uwvax!derek
derek@wisc-rsch.arpajimm@pecosdg.UUCP (Jim Millard) (10/31/84)
> As I remember reading my friend's Star Fleet Technical Manual... > > > apparent velocity = c raised to warp level > > > > hope this clears things up... anybody got the manual to check me on it? > > > steve cary Sorry you are wrong. See following excerpt from the STAR FLEET Techincal Manual. TO:02:06:20 Authenticated stardate 7305.14 V = Wf^3 x C So there you have it the warp factor cubed times the speed of light gives the imaginary negative velocity.
rik@gitpyr.UUCP (Rich Galloway) (11/03/84)
> Even c times the cube of the warp factor is too slow for interstellar > distances. Besides, we have some data from the series that proves the > Enterprise travels faster than that. Which just goes to show that the writers didn't read the Star Trek manual before writing their episodes. -- Rich Galloway Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,masscomp,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!rik
derek@uwvax.UUCP (Derek Zahn) (11/03/84)
> > Heard somewhere that warp 1 is the speed of light. From > > "star trek the motion sickness" this appears to be the case. > > So what's warp 2? Certainly not merely 2 times lightspeed. > > Galactic distances would be too great. Does anyone know the > > relationship between warp numbers and velocity? > > > > O.K., Trekker, here goes: from the actual "Star Trek Manual" (or > something of the sort, I just thumbed through the book; it was too > expensive to buy), the actual (and simple!) formula for calculating the > warp speeds of the Enterprise is to simply use the law of cubes. Ergo: > WARP SPEED OF LIGHT > 1 1 > 2 8 > 3 27 > 4 64 > 5 125 > 6 216 > > etcetera. > You can see that the Enterprise was a quick vessel indeed! > A fellow Trekker, > Bryan Sabol (Reed College) Please, folks, if I hear one more "official" explanation that speed = warp**3*c, I will scream. I get the point. derek -- Derek Zahn @ wisconsin ...!{allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo,sfwin,ucbvax,uwm-evax}!uwvax!derek derek@wisc-rsch.arpa