top 99 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 159 points 10 months ago* (17 children)

Yeah, at impulse they would still want the deflector shields, but at warp they can only remain faster than light due to power creating the warp bubble/field. Like a rubber band, you need to constantly exert force to repell the elastic forces.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    So what you're saying is, we need more rubber bands

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Good God, you've finally unlocked warp factor 10!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (9 children)

    To argue in the spirit of OP's meme:

    You can't create warp bubble/field as you go faster than light. Under relativity (to say nothing about other physical theories) "faster than light" travel is possible only if the "warp field"/"bent spcetime"/"wormhole"/etc. is already there and you're just using it to travel.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago* (8 children)

    Faster warp is probally akin to "better bubble/space time folding." Cant maintain this warp speed is akin to saying "we dont have the power right now to maintain this complex of a space time fold."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (7 children)

    My point is you can't be the one making the "fold" that you're traveling in, no matter how much energy or whatever you have. If you do that your travel would either be slower than light or it would severely violate relativity (in ways that Alcubierre drive or wormhole or whatever don't).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    An alcubierre drive is literally folding space around the ship, ST warp drives are more or less a primitive version of the concept. And do currently have an issue (as much as a theoretical technology can have issues) that we don't actually know how you would accelerate such a bubble of folded space.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago* (3 children)

    Futurama may have gotten this "correct" in that the ship doesnt move in warp as much as it lets the universe move past it. The warping ships are held outside of spacetime, and "move" based on the shape of the bubble.

    Maybe higher warp is just a more complex bubble that makes the ship more abstracted from spacetime.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (2 children)

    That doesn't fix anything. Physics doesn't care if you're the one moving or if you declare yourself to be still and the rest of the universe is moving.

    "Held outside spacetime" also makes no sense at all in the context of relativity, but if they want that to be their sci-fi sauce then that's fine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (1 child)

    I dont know why youre so set about fitting Star treks science into the framework of ours science. They either are insanely past our limited understanding of physics, or its absolute bullshit and cant be slotted together.

    We see in TNG alone that warp bubbles exist and are generated by onboard ship components. We seem them move great distances inside them, and know they require intense power to maintain. It clearly works because we see it work.

    But besides that, TNG has lots of other impossible "move fast" options. We know that there ways of travel that far exceed warp speed powered by "thoughts," and not just one "thought" based hyperspeed either. You have the "traveler sparkly warp" and the "barkley think good" wavy warp, hell you even have gumtoos "spinny warp" that tossed the enterpise and romulan ship way past their top speeds.

    Dont get me started on Q or tom paris hitting warp 10 to go "everywhere all at once."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    I dont know why youre so set about fitting Star treks science into the framework of ours science.

    It's what OP's meme is about 😉

    They either are insanely past our limited understanding of physics, or its absolute bullshit and cant be slotted together.

    Exactly. Well said.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    The answer is you don't. You (the person on the ship) can't do it. That would be incompatible with relativity. Someone else has to set up the bubble for you beforehand. Alcubierre warp works more like a highway than a magical engine.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago*

    You all are mixing your metaphors a bit. Wormholes "fold" space; imagine if the universe was a piece of paper. Now fold the paper in half and poke a pencil through it. That's folding. "Warp" engines, like the Alcubierre Drive, do just what they say - they warp spacetime itself around the ship by compressing the spacetime behind the ship and expanding the spacetime in front of the ship, essentially creating a pressure differential that naturally pulls the ship along it's new modified world line. This is what they're talking about any time you hear them mention a "warp bubble".

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 113 points 10 months ago* (25 children)

    Pretty sure the warp drives need continuous power to contract space in front of the ship and expand it behind the ship to allow faster than light travel

    The ship isn't actually moving during faster than light travel, it just bends space around it

    They can only move at impulse speed without engine output due to their being no friction and gravity in space

  • source
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 10 months ago (18 children)

    Even when the impulse drives are down, the ship always just stops 🤷‍♂️

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 10 months ago (9 children)

    My favorite bit is how when life support goes offline, it's like they're running out of oxygen within seconds. I once saw the math referencing the actual canon dimensions of the Enterprise D and its canon crew complement. It's comically large for the number of people in it. You could shut off all the CO2 scrubbers in a space that cavernous, and it would be months before the crew began noticing any ill effects. The Enterprises are god-damn ginormous.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

    It's the Vulcans. They actually respirate at 1000x the rate of humans. It's how they remain emotionless. They are too focused on breathing to get angry. The massive compression necessary to breathe that much is actually how they are constantly so full of hot air. They don't actually need to breathe that much to survive, but they are just too proud to give it up even in an emergency situation. It's all a weird power play. 🖖

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Did you steal this from Dr mccoy's Facebook?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

    Oh I'm sorry, is a ship's head medical officer with decades of experience treating a dozen or more species of crewmen and guests not a good enough source for you? Don't let those pointy eared bastards fool you. They're devious.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    I recently saw a DS9 episode where O'Brien said life support is down and it's going to be a problem in a day or sth, was pleasantly surprised at that.

    Might still not be accurate, but at least it was not a "oh shit we'll die now" kind of thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago*

    It depends. Lack of air circulation can cause problems in minutes as people can end up breathing stagnant air. Less of a problem if you have artificial gravity as then you have convection and/or the coriolis effect to help keep the air moving. As for actually running out: less of an issue.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    Wasn't there a Tom Scott guest video where some person investigated the effects of stale air with medical supervision while Tom Scott was on some sort of break

    https://youtu.be/1Nh_vxpycEA

    I think the person displaysd effects similar to being drunk after a while on stale air

    Now multiply that space for every person on the bridge

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    I think they might actually be in fluidic space and just really unobservant.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    I mean, technically all space is fluidic space. The interstellar Medium is a fluid. It transfers pressure waves, has a temperature, has a density, even a viscosity.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium

    Normally you can ignore the drag from the Interplanetary or Interstellar media, but if you had a ship that could travel at high relativistic speed, pushing past 0.9c, 0.99c, 0.999c, etc., you actually would have to consider the drag from it. Ships going that fast would have to be designed with aerodynamic principles in mind, just like atmospheric craft.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Normally you can ignore the drag from the Interplanetary or Interstellar media, but if you had a ship that could travel at high relativistic speed, pushing past 0.9c, 0.99c, 0.999c, etc., you actually would have to consider the drag from it. Ships going that fast would have to be designed with aerodynamic principles in mind, just like atmospheric craft.

    This is new and surprising to me. Do you have a source? It seems to me that if it gets to a point where you need to design your ship using aerodynamic principle, you should also be able to drive your ship using aerodynamic principle (i.e., push on stuff around the ship, instead of expelling propellant from the ship as usual spacecrafts do).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago

    I suppose if you could develop some type of sci-fi magnet ram-air funnel thingy you could make something work with the hydrogen atoms drifting around, but you'd still have to jet something out the back to keep going. Less like a rocket, more like an airplane.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago* (5 children)

    There is definitely gravity in space! It just doesn't feel that way because there's no ground so you're mostly in free fall which to you is indistinguishable from being in no gravity. (fun fact: this indistinguishability is actually the crux of General Relativity!)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    Yep, everything is in freefall orbit of something bigger.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    What if you are in the gravity center of the universe?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago*

    i think that would actually be the case most of the time.

    you don't care about anything outside the observable universe and inside that bubble, the cosmological principal would apply, stating that on a large enough scale, the universe and distribution of matter in it is considered homogeneous

    so unless you are in close proximity to some local gravitational source, i think you would be generally affected by roughly the same gravity from all directions.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 67 points 10 months ago* (10 children)

    nah, thats movement relative to space time, warp suggests bending said space time in order to, relative to your destination, move faster than light, while essentially staying motionless in spacetime.

    In this paradigm inertia is very much not a thing

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 10 months ago

    This, the power is needed to maintain the subspace bubble, being thrown from said bubble from losing power has been shown to be dangerous. Maybe you just drop out of warp, maybe you drop out too close to something and have no control.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (5 children)

    Then explain inertial dampeners buddy! (No seriously, someone please explain to me why they need inertial dampeners at warp. It's been bugging me for literally years.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    They also use "impulse", which seems to be a very high powered inertial type deal. That should follow the rules we're used to

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Oh yeah absolutely. But I'm almost certain I've heard them complain about the intertial dampeners being maxed out or something when they've been flung to crazy warp factors by one of the various near-omnipotent aliens they seem to encounter at least once a season lol.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    They're inside a bubble of newtonion rules while doing crazy things to the space around them. If something jostles them hard enough, the whole crew would stop being biology and become physics. Inertial dampers stop that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    I'd love to start making up nerdy explanations, and I mean its plausible bending spacetime all willy nilly might have some local inertial side-effects, but the concept of inertial dampers is honestly quite out there. That and the artificial gravity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    Yeah, the moment they stop maintaining the warp they're no longer cheating physics to travel faster than light.

    I also gotta imagine it's a controlled process and just abruptly dropping is gonna be... harsh on the hull and crew.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 63 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Not quite. The warp drive doesn't actually provide any thrust, its purpose is to create the warp bubble and then "squish" the space in front of the starship.

    Thus the "warp engines" do actually need to get constantly fed energy in order to work. Feed more energy equals get more squish equals go faster.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 57 points 10 months ago (37 children)

    In every ST series, they only ever say that in warp. And nobody has no idea how warp works.

  • source
  • hideshow 37 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    But for some reason they keep dropping out of orbit around planets.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago

    I can only remember occasions where they had atmospheric drag, dropping out of orbit is much more of a Star Wars thing.

    But I can believe one of the new shows fucked the entire thing up.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 10 months ago (30 children)

    I just know if you go faster than Warp 9 you're fucked

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 10 months ago (23 children)

    Warp 10. The Enterprise C regularly surpassed 9.5.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    The D. We only saw The C once. That was the ship Tasha went to with Shooter McGavin.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago

    IIRC the in universe reason for the E’s long ass nacelles was to allow it to achieve 9.95. I am pretty sure I remember part of the expanded universe going into experimental refits of the USS Sovereign that allowed it to hit 9.995.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (20 children)

    Didn't rikers enterprise go to warp 13?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (17 children)

    Writers are not physicists, and the TOS Enterprise also had a few minutes above warp 10 at some point. It's whatever a set of 2-4 writers and 3-5 producers decided that week, and retconning the awkward bits later.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago* (10 children)

    It’s whatever a set of 2-4 writers and 3-5 producers decided that week, and retconning the awkward bits later.

    it is actually not, they had detailed manual for that. star trek was inconsistent or vague about lot of stuff (for example how their economic utopia works), but they usually tried to have their technobabble consistent.

    they changed how the warp speed works between TOS and TNG.

    https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Warp_factor#Star_Trek:_The_Original_Series

    (not saying there weren't exceptions, for example there were some really random numbers flying in the equinox double episode.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (9 children)

    Then tell me what Tom Paris did in the Cochrane shuttlecraft ;)

    That's my point. It's a standard until it's not for a convenient plot reason.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago* (8 children)

    TOS:

    Warp factor 	speed (c) 	travelled in 24 hours (ly) 	Earth to Alpha Centauri
    
    9 	729 	1.996 	52.07 hours
    10 	1000 	2.738 	37.96 hours
    11 	1331 	3.644 	28.52 hours 
    

    from TNG forward:

    9 	1516 	4.15 	25.03 hours
    10 	∞ 	∞ 	0 
    

    the lizard babies episode, however absurd, is in line with this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (7 children)

    Cool.

    Now tell me about all the newfangled quantum slip stream, etc. that varied writers came up with since TNG in Disco and whatever. Ones that avoid the TNG warp 10 limit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (6 children)

    not relevant to your original claim, which was answered and set straight.

    warp number higher than 10 in the TOS is not a proof of "set of writers doing whatever they felt like". (shown above). whatever technology other than warp someone came up with 30 years later can hardly have an effect on the warp number in TOS.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (5 children)

    No, you're not understanding. Warp 10 is a symptom of the overall issue.

    The rare occasional exception meant that despite the Warp 10 "limit," writers still wrote exceptions because "woah, too fast!" is still a solid Trek plot. Eventually, even the Warp system proved too confining. Wormholes were suddenly everywhere. DS9 was based on that premise. Voyager especially are where writers really pushed back against 1987 made up rules based on what seemed to make sense at the time.

    So, to get back to the losey-goosey TOS era of self-defined techno babbel, the entire warp system was effectively depreciated and new systems brought in with new shows. Magical tardigrades making ad hoc wormholes and the like.

    Star Trek does not have to obey laws of physics. Everything is whatever humans want it to be. Because it's scifi. It's a story, not science.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (4 children)

    No, you’re not understanding.

    you are the one who don't understand. you said something, it was not true, i showed you why. end of story.

    there could be warp above 10 in TOS and it did not contradict anything, because it was within the parameters they set.

    they decided to change that in TNG and they stayed withing the changed parameters. they made one bad warp 10 story in voyager that was still within these parameters - it still did not contradict anything.

    they introduced some other means in the future, like slipstream and fucking fungi drive, which are just irrelevant to the warp factor.

    in fact the only one i can think of that was out of line was the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_No_One_Has_Gone_Before - but again - not really relevant to my comment "warp 10+ in TOS was fine and not a contradiction"

    if you are arguing just for the sake of arguing, go find another sparring partner

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (3 children)

    I'm not arguing. Everything you've just listed were invented by ST writers. Meaning that it's all fungible, regardless of the "rules" of continuity set by producers and writers. You just seem unable or unwilling to admit that human whims can wipe it all away or change it all.

    Like...tell me about Klingon makeup consistency and why Disco went bananas about that. Where was the thoughtful consistency then?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (2 children)

    I’m not arguing.

    of course. you are not arguing 5 levels deep in this discussion 😆

    Everything you’ve just listed were invented by ST writers.

    well, no.

    in TOS, it was under direct control of roddeberry, since TNG, there was literal technical manual for writers to refer to.

    You just seem unable or unwilling to admit that human whims can wipe it all away or change it all.

    for some strange reason, you are desperately trying to prove something that did not happen.

    Like…tell me about Klingon makeup consistency and why Disco went bananas about that. Where was the thoughtful consistency then?

    because bunch of parasites were allowed to parasite on something they knew nothing about. you do understand we are talking about warp speed in TNG, not klingons, and that you are like 30 years and the whole topic off with this argument, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    My friend, you seem to have forgotten this part:

    It’s whatever a set of 2-4 writers and 3-5 producers decided that week, and retconning the awkward bits later.

    We are not takling about warp 10. You are taking about warp 10. I'm taking about the fact that humans write scifi and so there are no hard and fast rules. Warp 10 is just one example. That's the point of the comment i wrote.

    Which is why I'm not arguing, I'm trying desperately to get you to understand that you've been missing the point of the conversation the whole time. Which I've corrected you on repeatedly.

    So, again, I can't help but think you are unable or unwilling to hold a real conversation. Even chatbots do better at this. You are welcome to think whatever you want. All I can think is that the reason you can't understand this is by choice, or by disability. Sorry if it's the later, but there's no point in beating the dead horse into paste any more than it already is. Have a good evening.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    I’m trying desperately to get you to understand that you’ve been missing the point of the conversation the whole time. Which I’ve corrected you on repeatedly.

    you got that backward. you are the one who is missing the point.

    i am talking about warp 10 because guess what:

    i have replied to specific point and explained why you are wrong. yes, i have noticed your desperate attempts to steer the conversation away from the point where you have been proven wrong and trying to replace it with some general "it is all relative". i am not interested, you will not succeed.

    All I can think is that the reason you can’t understand this is by choice

    yes, this is by choice. i hope you finally understand.

    disability

    oh, my unwillingness to let you steer the discussion is a disability. finally losing the nerve, are we? fuck off, sea-lion.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    I never was making that claim, just that the person I replied to say going above 10 was dangerous

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    At some point in the cannon they decided warp 10 is the transwarp limit. They ignored it a couple of times.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    The Delta Flyer went above Warp 10.

    But that was Voyager, and Voyager frequently is not considered cannon.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (2 children)

    Warp 10 was how they got back, wasn't it?

    But it's also at the end of the Star Trek timeline, so they're allowed to advance the tech curve a little bit

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago

    Warp 10 was how they got back, wasn’t it?

    no, warp 10 is how paris and janeway made their lizard babies, left them stranded somewhere and then never talked about them again. worf is parent of the year compared to these two.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago*

    less so in nutrek, old trek usually has some techno-babble included. i wonder if they think the viewers will get bored to death from a pseudo-explanation of how warp works, eventhough they sorta explained it over the franchise as (contracting and expanding space using a subspace field).

    transwarp, vortex, slipstream kinda sidesteps the speed of light in our own universe, by interdimensional travel, hence why its faster than warp.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 41 points 10 months ago

    It's a different kind of space. They're going faster than light.

  • source
  • [–] 39 points 10 months ago* (1 child)

    It depends. Impulse engine? Sure. Warp? Nope. Also, you need shielding.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›