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.