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: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 19:55:00 GMT

In article <92Nov08.104438.28658@acs.ucalgary.ca>, jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell) writes...
>In article <1992Nov6.152204.28936@ctp.com> bpita@ctp.com (Bob Pitas) writes:
>>In article <2NOV199209402835@sigma.tamu.edu> mrh0631@sigma.tamu.edu (Mark Hesidence) writes:
>>>In article <30OCT199221452551@rosie.uh.edu>, cosc1871@rosie.uh.edu (92F06787) writes...
>>>>>>As far as speed is concerned, well, it is suppose to be faster
>>>>>>than what any conventional warp engine can muster.  In other words
>>>>>>this puppy can *exceed* Warp 10 limit in TNG and *not* exactly
>>>>>>do a time travel bit.
>>>
>>>   No matter how much you try to explain it below you said, "...this puppy
>>>   (TrasWarp) can *exceed* (the) Warp 10 limit in TNG and *not* exactly
>>>   to the time travel bit."
>>>
>>>   Please explain how you *exceed* an infinite speed?  
>[snip]
>>>
>>>    So either:
>>>    a) Explain how to exceed infinity
>>>    b) Or admit your mistake
> 
>>Isn't this a little strange to say that he needs to explain how to exceed
>>infinity??? 
> 
>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 :)

>Give me any velocity you want. Anything. Zip around the universe
>10 times in one second. I can represent that velocity as a speed
>on the TNG Warp scale as a number LESS THAN 10.

Now continuing my 'babbling' I further suggest that real/sub-space to
be an infinitely small (I love playing with absolutes :) ) imaginary point
inside a dimension.  Now you zip around at Warp 10 (TNG) and you are
going to be everywhere at once in the real/sub-space arena where common
warp drive goes through.  Still, the ship would be crawling along in that
other dimension since it is an infinitely small point.  That's where I 
base my statement.  I haven't stepped outside of that critical absolute
set by the TNG DEFINITION.

> 
>> By current theory, you can't exceed the speed of light, and
>>yet the writers of ST explain it by saying that spacecraft can be suspended
>>in a sub-space bubble.  You believe this without question, even though
>>it's currently impossible.  And yet you won't believe that by suspending
>>a ship in a 'transwarp bubble' or somesuch, that you can exceed the limits
>>of warp speeds.  Give the guy a break!
> 
>The writer stated that you could go faster than an infite speed.
>If he stated you could get to higher speeds _more efficiently_
>than Warp, by using Transwarp, thats okay. The writer was not. He
>stated something _mathematically_ balderdash. Physics, either
>realistic or fictional, have no bearing on the matter. What was
>stated was akin to saying 'Transwarp can generate a number less
>than zero in the equation y=1/x, x>0, by picking a larger value
>than x.'
> 


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 the writers of ST can say the
>>warp-bubble can skirt the laws of physics as we currently know them, then
>>the guy from UH can explain transwarp as a new dimensional technology,
>>or a deeper subspace where warp-bubble physics don't apply, or whatever!
>>Remember, it's ALL fiction, until someone crosses the light-barrier!
> 
>Yes, its all fiction. But, no matter where you are in the galaxy,
>1+1=2. :)

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.)  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?  

Before anyone jumps on this, I based this off of the 'expanding Big-Bang'
theory.  And before anyone jumps on the validity of that, keep in mind
theory :)  Just to keep any flame-wars to a low-intensity :)
> 

When a Romulan Warbird decloaks off of the port side one does not
  wave hello...  Unless one was a Romulan.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech