Page 1 of 1

True nature of Warp?

Posted: 2003-02-25 06:20pm
by kojikun
I've heard many many theories on how works. One common one is the conveyor belt theory. This works, so some extent, but there are also certain anomolies (subspace, warp 10 asymptote, etc) that don't make sense with a conveyor belt theory.

One theory I've seen is that the universe exists on the surface on a big hypersphere, and when you move into subspace you move towards the center of the hypersphere, and then move around that radius then transit back to the surface, which would make the trip shorter because the speed in towards the center of the hypersphere is much higher then c. This kind of works but not completely.

My theory is that the universe is indeed a 4th dimensional hypersphere, but one where we exist as four dimensional particles with no ability to move 4th dimensionally (like balls on a pool table, sort of). when you move further into subspace, you're squashing the 4th dimension of your ship (which provides the force pushing the ship back to real space) and youre also transiting to a realm where the speed of light is not the greatest possible speed. You can achieve FTL speeds by existing below the part of normal space where c IS the limit, but other objects cannot because, while they exist in the FTL regions, they also exist in the STL regions and can only go as fast as the slowest region permits.

Opinions? Other theories?

*edit*

btw, the reason i didnt like the original hypersphere version is because it didn't explain how an object in subspace can still interact with objects that are much above it. my version also explains the part where you exist in all places simultaneously because of breaching the Warp10 barrioer (you squash yourself to far into subspace that the parts of normal objects that project that deep are so small you end up occupying the same space as them.

Posted: 2003-02-25 08:20pm
by Illuminatus Primus
What is the "conveyor belt" theory?

Posted: 2003-02-25 09:47pm
by FaxModem1
the conveyor belt theory is the theory that there are conveyor belts.

Seriously though, I have no idea.

Posted: 2003-02-26 09:04am
by Vympel
Ok, I'll ask again in this thread:

Why the FUCK did they change the warp effect in Nemesis?! It looks nothing like TNG warp.

Posted: 2003-02-26 09:05am
by Vympel
Ok, I'll ask again in this thread:

Why the FUCK did they change the warp effect in Nemesis?! It looks nothing like TNG warp.

Posted: 2003-02-26 09:24am
by TheDarkling
Shouldn't the second post say you will ask yet again? :wink:

Posted: 2003-02-26 09:27am
by kojikun
conveyor belt theory is that warp is when you detach a bit of space from normal space then move that piece of space forward without actually moving the ship. because C is only a limit to objects in space, not space itself.

Posted: 2003-02-26 09:40am
by Vympel
TheDarkling wrote:Shouldn't the second post say you will ask yet again? :wink:
:D

Bugger.

Posted: 2003-02-26 07:25pm
by Uraniun235
Vympel wrote:Ok, I'll ask again in this thread:

Why the FUCK did they change the warp effect in Nemesis?! It looks nothing like TNG warp.
Er... was it really that different from what we saw in First Contact?

Posted: 2003-02-27 06:49am
by Vympel
Uraniun235 wrote: Er... was it really that different from what we saw in First Contact?
IIRC, yes. There's no stretch or flash in Nemesis.

Posted: 2003-02-27 08:43am
by Darth Fanboy
Used up what little SFX they had on the Shit-mitar?

Posted: 2003-02-27 08:00pm
by Uraniun235
This is the same studio that reused footage from TUC (the BOP exploding) in Generations... footage that even looked noticably different from the rest of the film!