Let us suppose the speed of light isn’t insurmountable, would superluminal travel have increments? As in star trek ‘warp speed 9’ and so on, or would any trip at superluminal velocities be instantaneous? Using the train analogy to describe time dilation, the photon has to travel further and therefore time runs slower relative to the observer, extending this analogy, when travelling at superluminal speeds light would never catch up, hence instantaneous.

in sci-fi,

it's actually still light speed just horizontally compressed spaced at different compression rates depending the warp speed.

so Warp speed 9 would be,

speed of light * 9

edit-

time dilation * 9

Edited April 20, 201312 yr by krash661

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warp_drive

 

According to the Star Trek episode writer's guide for The Original Series, warp factors are converted to multiples of c with the cubic function v = w³c, where wis the warp factor, v is the velocity, and c is the speed of light. Accordingly, "warp 1" is equivalent to the speed of light, "warp 2" is 8 times the speed of light, "warp 3" is 27 times the speed of light, etc.

Michael Okuda's new warp scale.

For Star Trek: The Next Generation and the subsequent series, Star Trek artist Michael Okuda devised a formula based on the original one but with important differences. For warp factors 1 through 9, v = w^10/3c. In the half-open interval from warp 9 to warp 10, the exponent of w increases toward infinity. Thus, in the Okuda scale, warp velocities approach warp 10 asymptotically. There is no exact formula for this interval because the quoted velocities are based on a hand-drawn curve; what can be said is that at velocities greater than warp 9, the form of the warp function changes because of an increase in the exponent of the warp factor w. Due to the resultant increase in the derivative, even minor changes in the warp factor eventually correspond to a greater than exponential change in velocity. In the episode "Threshold", Tom Paris breaks the warp 10 threshold.

Edited April 20, 201312 yr by Moontanman

great, you found it,

I was trying to find this,

yeah the cube factor is for the compression of space

edit-

the best info for this is the star trek info,

that wikki needs citations and such.

that's why i did not post it.


here's more on this also,

NASA testing Warp Drive
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAZ5ngKC8mk

NASA is Building a Real Warp Drive
http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2012/11/27/nas...eal-warp-drive/

warp drive

Edited April 20, 201312 yr by krash661

The problem with a great idea derived in a pub is twofold, firstly, the idea is probably not that great and secondly the expression of that idea is probably not that well expressed (the odd pint or two is probably responsible). To clarify my question, the POV of the observer means increments would be measureable, my question, however, is from the POV of the traveller; wouldn’t any speed greater than c mean an instantaneous journey for said traveller?

Edited April 20, 201312 yr by dimreepr

I have to say yes,

 

but maybe define instantaneous incrementally.

 

edit-

 

but also distance is a factor for instantaneous.

Edited April 20, 201312 yr by krash661

I have to say yes,

 

but maybe define instantaneous incrementally.

 

edit-

 

but also distance is a factor for instantaneous.

 

Maybe, but don't forget, distance is relative...

Let us suppose the speed of light isn’t insurmountable, would superluminal travel have increments? As in star trek ‘warp speed 9’ and so on, or would any trip at superluminal velocities be instantaneous? Using the train analogy to describe time dilation, the photon has to travel further and therefore time runs slower relative to the observer, extending this analogy, when travelling at superluminal speeds light would never catch up, hence instantaneous.

 

 

Warp drive, whether Alcubierre type or the Star Trek universe which has co opted the same concept, time dilation is not supposed to occur within the warp bubble. Instantaneous is not part of the concept since time does pass while in transit.

According to the Star Trek episode writer's guide for The Original Series, warp factors are converted to multiples of c with the cubic function v = w³c, where wis the warp factor, v is the velocity, and c is the speed of light. Accordingly, "warp 1" is equivalent to the speed of light, "warp 2" is 8 times the speed of light, "warp 3" is 27 times the speed of light, etc.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warp_drive

 

So.. they were very slowing moving even at warp 9..

 

I rendered hypothetical travel to stars (post #4) in direction of Sirius at 44% of parsec. 1 parsec = 3.26 light years. 0.44 * 3.26 = 1.4344 light years * 3600 * 24 * 365 =~45.24 millions of c..

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73584-rendering-stars/

 

Travel to Betelgeuse (643 ly) from Earth at warp 9 (729 c) would take them 321 days..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warp_drive

 

I always thought that the original series warp factor scale was too slow. Warp factor 8 was still only 512 times the speed of light. Consider the pilot episode "Where No Man Has Gone Before" where they encounter an energy barrier at the "edge" of the galaxy. Even if we consider this edge as being as measured by the thickness of the galaxy, it would be 1000 ly away, meaning just getting there and back would take up the majority of the Enterprise's "Five year mission".

 

A better scale I think would have taken its clue from the very term "Warp factor". make it based on factorials, 1!, 2!, 3!...

 

Thus the warp factors would go:

 

1 = 1c

2 = 2c

3 = 6c

4 = 24c

5 = 120c

6 = 720c

7 = 5,040c

8 = 40,320c