ron@wjvax.UUCP (Ron Christian) (10/28/84)
() Thanks to all those who answered my question 'what's a warp'. About 90% said it was v = (warp**3)*C. A couple thought it was warp squared, and one or two thought it was C**warp. That would be really clipping along. Anyway, warp cubed would make for about a one week trip to Alpha Centauri at warp 6. Since the Enterprise was equipped for voyages of months (like the old sailing ships) this seems a reasonable velocity to hold a "federation of planets" together. -- "Trivia is important." Ron Christian (syntax bug) Watkins-Johnson Co. San Jose, Calif. (...ios!wjvax!ron)
jimc@haddock.UUCP (10/31/84)
#R:wjvax:-23800:haddock:16200011:000:981 haddock!jimc Oct 30 15:56:00 1984 I'm not sure I agree, Ron. For example, let's look at one episode where the Enterprise encountered an energy bolt which drove them, and I quote, "a thousand light years across the galaxy." Since Kirk and the landing party were stranded on an asteroid with the man-eating Lee Meriwether, Spock and Scotty went zinging along back to rescue them. On both the Enterprise and the asteroid, the whole journey took only a few days. To have done the voyage in one year they would have had to average 1000 times the speed of light, which would have been warp factor ten. Now I have seen the enterprise go faster, a few times at warp 11. But, that doesn't come close -- to have done the journey in, say, two days, they would had to have averaged somewhere around 180,000 times the speed of light. If v=w**3, we're looking at something in the neighborhood of warp 56. Oh well. Not even Star Trek is perfect, a fact which we all are going to have to confront some time.
ron@wjvax.UUCP (Ron Christian) (11/01/84)
**** From: jimc@haddock.UUCP Subject: Re: so THAT'S a warp. Message-ID: <279@haddock.UUCP> >I'm not sure I agree, Ron. For example, let's look at one >episode where the Enterprise encountered an energy bolt which >drove them, and I quote, "a thousand light years across the >galaxy." Since Kirk and the landing party were stranded on an >asteroid with the man-eating Lee Meriwether, Spock and Scotty >went zinging along back to rescue them. On both the Enterprise >and the asteroid, the whole journey took only a few days. To >have done the voyage in one year they would have had to average >1000 times the speed of light, which would have been warp factor >ten. Now I have seen the enterprise go faster, a few times at >warp 11. But, that doesn't come close -- to have done the >journey in, say, two days, they would had to have averaged >somewhere around 180,000 times the speed of light. If v=w**3, >we're looking at something in the neighborhood of warp 56. >Oh well. Not even Star Trek is perfect, a fact which we all are >going to have to confront some time. **** From me: You're right, of course. That was a major blunder on the part of the scriptwriters. There were quite a few others dealing with speed. (Why don't they hire someone who knows about these things to proofread the scripts???) I was thinking of the practicality of the Star Trek universe in general, however, not looking for consistency in the television series. (An oxymoron?) A federation of planets in a volume of space that would take a few years to cross seems likely to me, considering the distances we have to deal with. I think the tendancy would be to expand until the farthest colony was an inconvienent distance from the homeworld. Or until they met something nasty. As technology advances, speed increases, and the frontiers get farther away. The federation starships would have to patrol the fringes of 'federation space', as timely response to trouble would be impossible otherwise. -- "Trivia is important." Ron Christian (syntax bug) Watkins-Johnson Co. San Jose, Calif. (...ios!wjvax!ron)