From: cosc1871@rosie.uh.edu (92F06787)
Subject: Re: Trans Warp Drive (in defense of...)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 04:55:00 GMT

In article <92Nov08.225300.19098@acs.ucalgary.ca>, jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell) writes...
>In article <8NOV199213555604@rosie.uh.edu> cosc1871@rosie.uh.edu (92F06787) writes:
>>In article <92Nov08.104438.28658@acs.ucalgary.ca>, jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell) writes...
>>>No. The first writer is saying that TransWarp can "*exceed* Warp
>>>10 limit". Given that BY DEFINITION in TNG, Warp 10 is INFINITE
>>>in speed, this writer is babbling.
> 
>>You do not complete the sentence by saying INFINITE in speed in the normal
>>/sub-space universe.  Mr. Pitas had the right idea of what I was suggesting.
>>I will keep my suggestion straight if you keep your TNG DEFINITION straight :)
> 
>Okay. Lets assume TransWarp lets you get to incredibly high
>speeds in the 'TransWarp' universe (which was kinda the point of
>TransWarp). How the schmoo does this exceed Warp 10 in _our_
>universe?
> 
>I enter TransWarp at point A, move incredibly fast, and return to
>our 'normal' universe at point B. I've travelled slower than Warp
>10 to get from A to B. If you don't plan on returning to our
>universe, of course, this is meaningless. But any trip, starting
>and ending in our inverse, and not travelling backward on the
>time axis, can be given a velocity < Warp 10.
> 
>And if you're not using normal Warp, then technically you're not
>travelling at any Warp speed - so while your _velocity_ can be
>measured according to a Warp scale (0 < WF < 10), you're
>certainly not gonna be using an _actual_ Warp factor greater than
>10 either. If TransWarp uses different peak transition
>frequencies (or whatever) then you can be rocking along at
>TransWarp 17, but thats still < Warp 10.

Well, that's where Transwarp is kinda fuzzy, since one's ship would be
warping through that 'other' dimension. 

>Ug. That sentence is convoluted. Basically, you can do whatever
>you want with TransWarp physics, but you can't exceed Warp 10 in
>our universe (or get somewhere faster than another ship
>travelling 'at' Warp 10). If we agree on that, this is all fine
>and dandy. :)

Whew.  All fine and dandy :)
p.s. Given that, what happens when someone leaves from point-a to point-b
at Warp 10 (TNG), but it turns out that point-b is actually farther away
than the universe allows...  That would mean someone at Warp 10 would
never get there :)  Just a possibility some writer might dream of...

>>Your math is correct, so far as real/sub-space.  I suggested operating
>>*outside* of that region.  Fictionally, I can suggest whatever I'd like
>>to say, I still maintain that *mathematically* nothing outside the normal
>>real/sub-space realm has to be the same, or obey anything just for 
>>appearance sake to satisfy the general audience...  
> 
>If you go from Point A to Point B in a positive time, your
>velocity is 0 < WF < 10, in our universe. What you do in the
>meantime is really irrelevant to this discussion. :)

As long as it is in our universe...  It might be relevant somewhere else :)

> 
>>>Yes, its all fiction. But, no matter where you are in the galaxy,
>>>1+1=2. :)
> 
>This was a play on a TOS quote by Spock, actually.

I was actually thinking about Buckaroo Banzai and the Excelsior.

>>Actually, if you're willing to get into math and physics, the farther one
>>gets away from the center of the theoretical 'Big Bang' the slower the
>>speed of light apparently gets :)  1+1 doesn't always =2 (except for your
>>frame of reference which by your statement would be correct since you
>>suggest 'in the galaxy' not the universe.)
> 
>Well, I was talking mathematics, but dropping back to physics
>'except for your frame of reference' ? Uh-huh. Things are equally
>valid in all reference frames.

Whoops, my fault.  Subst "frame of reference" for "point of view"

>>  But since this brings up the
>>validity of absolutes, then does Warp 10 for TNG stay constant throughout
>>the universe since not even our faithful lightspeed might not be
>>as predictable as scientists onc thought?  
> 
>Light Speed is a 'universal constant' (doesn't mean it doesn't
>vary, just that its one of those things like Planck's Number,
>etc). Warp 10 is a mathematical definition. Admitedly, a
>definition derived from physical quantities, but still a
>definition. 

If the constant of light is x long in one part of the universe and then
somewhere else farther away it is compared directly and turns out to be
x-5, then something is wrong with that constant in my opinion.  Warp 10
here might be faster than Warp 10 there :)  Of course in each individual
frame of reference it's still Warp 10.  

> 
>If there's somewhere in the universe where pi <> 3.141592....
>thats fine, but pi is still the ratio of the circumference of a
>circle to its diameter.

And so long if something that uses energy occurs faster than nature can
keep track of doesn't have to obey energy conservation...  And yes, the
ratio of circumference to a circle's diameter is fine, but when that 
value changes, its going to play havoc on any poor engineer's calculations.

Take care :)

"We'll catch Kirk on our way back."
-paraphrased from Capt Styles, USS Excelsior, STIII .The Search for Spock.

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech