Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ncoast.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!amd!decwrl!decvax!cwruecmp!atvax!ncoast!bsafw
From: bsafw@ncoast.UUCP (The WITNESS)
Newsgroups: net.startrek
Subject: re: Warp Drive
Message-ID: <203@ncoast.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 27-Jul-84 12:13:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: ncoast.203
Posted: Fri Jul 27 12:13:55 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 30-Jul-84 01:07:34 EDT
References: <2813@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: North Coast XENIX, Cleveland
Lines: 23


	If that's so, then they carried it a little too far in STTMP:  why
describe sublight speeds in terms of fractional space-warping quanta?  (When
the Enterprise went into warp drive and Sulu sat there saying "Warp point
eight... point nine....")

	Of course, we could get out of this one by saying that STTMP was a
mess anyway, but I'd prefer to fit even it into a ST framework.

	The novelization of STTMP had an interesting idea (which looks sus-
piciously like Roddenberry got back at Bob Shaw for "Starflight" in ORBITS-
VILLE) about warp speed:  instead of being an Einsteinian wall, c was a
force barrier of sorts -- pass through it smoothly and the universe would
seem to shrink (with a cubic relation to speed, obviously).  Pass through
it obliquely and you might find yourself trapped in the barrier (wormhole).
Somehow it doesn't seem workable... but who knows, maybe we just haven't
seen the energy needed yet and it's large but finite (just like c itself!).

-- 
		Brandon Allbery: decvax!cwruecmp{!atvax}!bsafw
		  6504 Chestnut Road, Independence, OH 44131

		  Witness, n.  To watch and learn, joyously.