Warp 10...

Emperor Palpatine · Post by **Emperor Palpatine** » 2003-07-10 10:47am

Warp 10 would have a ship occupy every point in the universe, right? But... how come? You travel at infinite velocity, yes, but why do you cover every point in the universe?
I mean, if I face North and activate Warp 10 and go in the Northern direction, how the heck would I occupy points in the Southern direction, as well as Western and Eastern points? That seem to be suggested by 'every point in the universe.". You mean I would still occupy a point I am not even heading towards?

Hmm...

E.D.C.P

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2003-07-10 11:49am

Don't even attempt to rationalize the events of VOY:"Threshold"... your head might explode as the massive amount of Treknobable and stupidy floods your brain.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-07-10 12:48pm

one.. "theory" .. about warp is that subspace is like the water beneath the surface of an ocean. when you go deep down into the ocean, the vector distance between two objects is smaller and thus you dont have to go as far (similar to babylon 5 hyperspace, minus the dedicated basementverse). but because your ship stays the same size, your vector size is increasingly large the faster you go (it explains why ships stretch when they go to warp, just not why they only stretch in one direction

) at some point you would reach the dead center of the sphere, where all vector distances equal 0 and thus you "occupy" all points in the universe.

its a nice theory, and would be fine in and of itself as a method of FTL, but it doesnt fit everything trek has (for instance, the ability to interact with realspace objects while in warp despite subspace being 'down' in the 4th dimension leaving the ship completely isolated from the rest of the familiar 3D universe). It could, however explain to some degree the ability of a ship to dump energy into subspace (by radiating the energy away in the 4th dimension and thus keeping the energy in the universe, but not in the part in which we exist). it doesnt, however, explain subspace tears and shit like that.

Yogi · Post by **Yogi** » 2003-07-10 12:48pm

One of the later Voyager episodes quietly de-cannonises Threshold.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-07-10 12:48pm

Yogi wrote:One of the later Voyager episodes quietly de-cannonises Threshold.

Oh??

Death from the Sea · Post by **Death from the Sea** » 2003-07-10 01:19pm

Yogi wrote:One of the later Voyager episodes quietly de-cannonises Threshold.

huh? which one?

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 2003-07-12 11:24am

I don't care if it IS another "warp scale"... in TOS, the E-Nil reached warp 15.9

..... once....

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-07-12 11:47am

There is also the TNG "All Good Things..." where the future Enterprise achieved warp 13. Even if Q did make up that future, he would have been aware of the human warp scale and wouldn't have included something impossible, lest break the illusion.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-07-12 12:19pm

Warp 10 in Threshold was just B&B ripping off another sci-fi franchise and hoping no one would notice. Unfortunately, they didn't realize that a drive that simultaneously puts you in every point in the universe and causes you to change into animals is very recignizable for ANYONE WHO READ HITCHIKERS GUIDE.

Marc Xavier · Post by **Marc Xavier** » 2003-07-12 03:02pm

The Universe is a Big Huge Sphere.

And like those old Mario Bros games, if you go off the side of the screen you appear on the other side!

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-07-12 10:47pm

Warp 13 in AGT can be explained by a simple recalibration of the warp scale, so as average warp speeds increased, captains didn't have to order "Warp 9.9987" or some shit. There's still an absolute speed limit to the warp scale, it's just been renumbered.

As for "Threshold".....I just ignore it, and so should you.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-07-12 11:00pm

Ah, "Threshold". A fine case study for the merits of my analysis method vs those of the Trek hardliners.

My method: "Character dialogue is only as good as the credibility of the characters themselves, which is very weak. Therefore, analysis of the known events of the episode indicates that they were idiots, too stupid to recognize that their definition of warp 10 doesn't even make any sense, and that they only travelled a short distance while in some level of subspace that caused horrid mutations (ugly, but not unprecedented; see the de-evolution episode in TNG)."

Their method: "If they said onscreen that warp 10 means that they occupy every point in the universe simultaneously and that they achieved it, then this is what happened. Uhhhhhh ..... hmmmmmm .... that means ... uhhhh ..."

See what I mean?

Marc Xavier · Post by **Marc Xavier** » 2003-07-12 11:24pm

And this, unlike the Broccoli incident, would be an example of Star Trek writers doing something wrong.

apocolypse · Post by **apocolypse** » 2003-07-13 12:59am

Darth Wong, the TNG de-evolution ep, are you talking about "Genesis"? That was due to Crusher creating a "synthetic T-cell" to fight Barclay's flu and it became a virus. Something like that, I had to look it up, but all the babble involved fried a couple circuits...

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-07-13 01:07am

apocolypse wrote:Darth Wong, the TNG de-evolution ep, are you talking about "Genesis"? That was due to Crusher creating a "synthetic T-cell" to fight Barclay's flu and it became a virus.

The point is that that kind of rapid, horrific mutation is not unprecedented within Star Trek, not that the causes were the same.

apocolypse · Post by **apocolypse** » 2003-07-13 01:08am

RedImperator wrote:The point is that that kind of rapid, horrific mutation is not unprecedented within Star Trek, not that the causes were the same.

Ahh, misunderstood it then. I thought he was saying that we've seen subspace cause mutations.