cushner@ttidcb.UUCP (Jeffrey Cushner) (10/25/84)
Now that we've basically run the warp speed question into the ground (with everyone giving a different "definitive answer" it's time for a new question that's been bugging me for some time: How do stardates work? It seems to me that in the early episodes they were down at about 1600 or so and then later on they got up to 6500 quickly. If this were the case they would get into Astronomic [:-)] numbers very fast. Does anyone have any info on this?
bsa@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) (10/29/84)
> Article <>, from cushner@ttidcb.UUCP (Jeffrey Cushner) +---------------- | Now that we've basically run the warp speed question into the ground | (with everyone giving a different "definitive answer" it's time for | a new question that's been bugging me for some time: | | How do stardates work? | In STI/II (but not III, they never even *mentioned* stardates :-) they were in the `Fan form', i.e. yymm.dd (you did notice that, didn't you? :-) I guess they were desperate and used the film dates; maybe we'll be able to tell the filming sequence by listening to the stardates :-) There's one small problem with correcting for relativity etc. in stardates: you *can't*. Time is passing at wildly different rates everywhere in the galaxy, and you can't correct for that without instantaneous radio communications (we know they lack those). Einstein gets us coming and going :-} Now I have a question: in one episode, the following dialogue occurs: Kirk: "Space-normal speed, Mr. Sulu." VIP: "SPACE-NORMAL!?" No idea what episode or who the VIP was(n't); but my question is, what is space-normal speed? I think he sped up to Warp 2 later on, but warp 1 is easier to say than "space-normal", so it's either (a) one and a fraction, or (b) sublight (!). I think I can rationalize (b), but would prefer not; any other suggestions? --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.'
jonab@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Jonathan Biggar) (11/02/84)
In article <444@ncoast.UUCP> bsa@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) writes: >There's one small problem with correcting for relativity etc. in stardates: >you *can't*. Time is passing at wildly different rates everywhere in >the galaxy, and you can't correct for that without instantaneous radio >communications (we know they lack those). Einstein gets us coming and >going :-} Actually, you can adjust for relativity. The scalar value 2 2 2 2 x + y + z - (ct) is a constant for all observers, where x, y, and z are the rectangular coordinates from an agreed upon reference point, c is the speed of light, and t is the measured time of an observed event. Throw the appropriate scale and offset factors in and Voila!, you have a stardate. Jon Biggar {allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,sdccsu3}!sdcrdcf!jonab
raiche@dartvax.UUCP (George A. Raiche) (11/03/84)
> > Article <>, from cushner@ttidcb.UUCP (Jeffrey Cushner) > +---------------- > | Now that we've basically run the warp speed question into the ground > | (with everyone giving a different "definitive answer" it's time for > | a new question that's been bugging me for some time: > | > | How do stardates work? > | > > In STI/II (but not III, they never even *mentioned* stardates :-) they > were in the `Fan form', i.e. yymm.dd (you did notice that, didn't you? :-) > I guess they were desperate and used the film dates; maybe we'll be able > to tell the filming sequence by listening to the stardates :-) > > There's one small problem with correcting for relativity etc. in stardates: > you *can't*. Time is passing at wildly different rates everywhere in > the galaxy, and you can't correct for that without instantaneous radio > communications (we know they lack those). Einstein gets us coming and > going :-} > > Now I have a question: in one episode, the following dialogue occurs: > > Kirk: "Space-normal speed, Mr. Sulu." > VIP: "SPACE-NORMAL!?" > > No idea what episode or who the VIP was(n't); but my question is, what > is space-normal speed? I think he sped up to Warp 2 later on, but warp > 1 is easier to say than "space-normal", so it's either (a) one and a > fraction, or (b) sublight (!). I think I can rationalize (b), but would > prefer not; any other suggestions? > > --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.' The dialogue is from "The Galileo 7", and the respondant is Lt. Sulu, not Federation High Commisioner Ferris(?). "Space-normal speed" is a good question. We have seen the Enterprise warp out of orbit consistently (which has always seemed like a pretty dangerous practice to me--there's usually a lot of junk floating around an advanced planet, and at 1c it wouldn't take much of a collision to put a hole clean through your hulls) so that doesn't seem to be the explanation. You will recall that Kirk was stalling for time. Perhaps Kirk was referring to a departure under full acceleration of the impulse drive--presumably occurring in "normal" (i.e. non-warped) space. Under those conditions it is easier to select an acceleration (a function of engine power) than a speed (which becomes constant only when the acceleration is zero i.e the drive is off). That's my best guess, I'm afraid. George Raiche Dept. of Chemistry Dartmouth
ee173xcj@sdcc3.UUCP (David Johnson) (11/03/84)
> Now that we've basically run the warp speed question into the ground > (with everyone giving a different "definitive answer" it's time for > a new question that's been bugging me for some time: > > How do stardates work? > > It seems to me that in the early episodes they were down at about 1600 > or so and then later on they got up to 6500 quickly. If this were > the case they would get into Astronomic [:-)] numbers very fast. > Does anyone have any info on this? There are two methods on how stardates work, and a third one, my method. One: Stardates varied according to base time at the central navigation beacon (330 degrees and 50 light years from Earth) and the speed traveled and the location in space, to get a virtually incomprehensible bit of data. Two: For the later books based on the startrek characters, some used the method of using the current date for the stardate, thus November 2, 1984 would be stardate 8410.2. I'm not sure which books used this. Three: Stardates were a meaningless number created to fill a lexical void in the logs. (the realistic version). Krako owns a cool diner. David Johnson UCSD