Warp Speed, how fast is it?

[Ted C]

I think it's because of the "confusing/different = superior" mentality often found in bad sci-fi writing.

I think that they actually came out and said once that the warp scale is deliberately vague so that writer's don't have to worry about logistics when describing now long it takes the ship to get from place to place during a story.
"How long would it take the Enterprise to get from Earth to Romulus?"
"Who cares? Drop a high warp number into the script and leave the distance undefined. No one will care."

The same thing would work with a Warp scale that doesn't go infinite at 10 and requires absurdly long Warp 9.9999999... values to make the ships go really fast when they need to. Hell, it worked in TOS, didn't it?

It doesn't go "infinite" at 10, not matter what the Tech Manual or some other non-canon source says. We heard Riker giving orders to go Warp-13 in "All Good Things", and there's no real reason to think that the technological limits and physical laws of that alternate future are any different from those of the normal timeline. Their existing warp engines can't get past warp 10 for some reason, and Voyager's experiment did something weird, but it's clearly not "infinite" speed.

[TheDarkling]

It doesn't go "infinite" at 10, not matter what the Tech Manual or some other non-canon source says. We heard Riker giving orders to go Warp-13 in "All Good Things", and there's no real reason to think that the technological limits and physical laws of that alternate future are any different from those of the normal timeline. Their existing warp engines can't get past warp 10 for some reason, and Voyager's experiment did something weird, but it's clearly not "infinite" speed.

Or they redrew the Warp Scale so Riker wouldn't have to say "Warp 9.99999456783".

[Alyeska]

I think that they actually came out and said once that the warp scale is deliberately vague so that writer's don't have to worry about logistics when describing now long it takes the ship to get from place to place during a story.
"How long would it take the Enterprise to get from Earth to Romulus?"
"Who cares? Drop a high warp number into the script and leave the distance undefined. No one will care."

The same thing would work with a Warp scale that doesn't go infinite at 10 and requires absurdly long Warp 9.9999999... values to make the ships go really fast when they need to. Hell, it worked in TOS, didn't it?

It doesn't go "infinite" at 10, not matter what the Tech Manual or some other non-canon source says. We heard Riker giving orders to go Warp-13 in "All Good Things", and there's no real reason to think that the technological limits and physical laws of that alternate future are any different from those of the normal timeline. Their existing warp engines can't get past warp 10 for some reason, and Voyager's experiment did something weird, but it's clearly not "infinite" speed.

Warp 10 in TNG is infiite. "All Good Things" is proof that the warp scale got redrawn.

[Chris OFarrell]

THey redrew the scale. The equvilant of Warp 10 is still infinate. Its just that they probably got sick of saying 'Warp 9.9999 or Warp 9.99995'. So they redrew the scale to account for the much faster engines.

[Ted C]

Warp 10 in TNG is infiite. "All Good Things" is proof that the warp scale got redrawn.

From the script of TNG "Time Squared":

PICARD
What force or phenomenon could cause a shuttle to be thrown back in time?

RIKER
None that we have ever encountered. In theory, accelerating beyond warp ten.

PICARD
Using the gravitational pull of a star to "slingshot" back in time. Is that what happened here?

Sounds like the known method for achieving time travel involves going faster than warp 10, which would be impossible if warp 10 were "infinite speed".


From the startrek.com description of VOY "Threshold":

Following a series of holodeck simulations to reach Warp 10, Paris and the engineering team iron out the technical glitches and prepare to send Paris out on a real flight. The next day, the crew watches as Paris takes the Shuttlecraft Cochrane to Warp 10, crosses the transwarp threshold, and abruptly vanishes.

Moments later, the Cochrane emerges from subspace, and they beam Paris to Sickbay. He appears no worse for wear, weakened but exhilarated by the experience, which he likens to "being everywhere at once."

Google didn't find any online copies of the script, so I can't find any better information about the episode, but the startrek.com description again implies that it's possible to go faster than warp ten and that Paris' description of "being everywhere at once" is more perception than reality.

I stand by my claim that unless you count non-canon sources, warp 10 is not infinite speed; it's just a "barrier" that you need transwarp drive technology to exceed.

[TheDarkling]

I stand by my claim that unless you count non-canon sources, warp 10 is not infinite speed; it's just a "barrier" that you need transwarp drive technology to exceed.

KIM: Nothing in the universe can go warp ten. It's a theoretical impossibility. In principle, if you
were ever to reach warp ten, you'd be travelling at infinite velocity.

[Alyeska]

It sounds like the Warp scale between early TNG and VGR got rewritten. It was a minor enough rewrite that anything less then warp 10 on either scale was fairly close to the same.

All Good Things is still proof that the scale was definately rewritten. In early TNG Warp 10 would have been ungodly fast and would have gotten you through the Galaxy in an instant. But it would also have been difficult to say what speed was what using so damned many decimals for anything under warp 10. So when speeds got that fast, they redraw the scale to make identifying speeds easier.

[Stark]

Excuse my ignorance, but isn't the W13 comment in AGT from a possible future, and not the 'regular' timeline?

[Patrick Degan]

I stand by my claim that unless you count non-canon sources, warp 10 is not infinite speed; it's just a "barrier" that you need transwarp drive technology to exceed.

KIM: Nothing in the universe can go warp ten. It's a theoretical impossibility. In principle, if you were ever to reach warp ten, you'd be travelling at infinite velocity.

GEORDI LAFORGE: "Captain, we're travelling past warp ten!"

—"Where No One Has Gone Before"

[Alyeska]

Excuse my ignorance, but isn't the W13 comment in AGT from a possible future, and not the 'regular' timeline?

Yes, but it is also a likely future for the technology.

[Alyeska]

I stand by my claim that unless you count non-canon sources, warp 10 is not infinite speed; it's just a "barrier" that you need transwarp drive technology to exceed.

KIM: Nothing in the universe can go warp ten. It's a theoretical impossibility. In principle, if you were ever to reach warp ten, you'd be travelling at infinite velocity.

GEORDI LAFORGE: "Captain, we're travelling past warp ten!"

—"Where No One Has Gone Before"

Congradulations, you've just spotted a continuity error. It doesn't prove your side exclussively right.

[Patrick Degan]

KIM: Nothing in the universe can go warp ten. It's a theoretical impossibility. In principle, if you were ever to reach warp ten, you'd be travelling at infinite velocity.

GEORDI LAFORGE: "Captain, we're travelling past warp ten!"

—"Where No One Has Gone Before"

Congradulations, you've just spotted a continuity error. It doesn't prove your side exclussively right.

Uh uh —this was a canon example of an actual event as opposed to Harry Kim's spoutings from rote-learning. And as it was, Tom Paris' experience with the experimental warp-10 shuttle also destroys the "principle", since by definition it would be impossible ever to slow down from infinite velocity; nevermind attaining infinite velocity in the first place.

[Alyeska]

GEORDI LAFORGE: "Captain, we're travelling past warp ten!"

—"Where No One Has Gone Before"

Congradulations, you've just spotted a continuity error. It doesn't prove your side exclussively right.

Uh uh —this was a canon example of an actual event as opposed to Harry Kim's spoutings from rote-learning. And as it was, Tom Paris' experience with the experimental warp-10 shuttle also destroys the "principle", since by definition it would be impossible ever to slow down from infinite velocity; nevermind attaining infinite velocity in the first place.

Kim's statement was explicit. Warp-10 is infitely fast. The TNG TM and STE also explicitly state the same thing about Warp-10. Furthermore if you look at what Paris did he said that he had the choice of appearing anywhere in the Universe instantly.

[Patrick Degan]

Congradulations, you've just spotted a continuity error. It doesn't prove your side exclussively right.

Uh uh —this was a canon example of an actual event as opposed to Harry Kim's spoutings from rote-learning. And as it was, Tom Paris' experience with the experimental warp-10 shuttle also destroys the "principle", since by definition it would be impossible ever to slow down from infinite velocity; nevermind attaining infinite velocity in the first place.

Kim's statement was explicit. Warp-10 is infitely fast. The TNG TM and STE also explicitly state the same thing about Warp-10. Furthermore if you look at what Paris did he said that he had the choice of appearing anywhere in the Universe instantly.

And the actual two incidents are far more explicit. Observations trump dialogue.

[Alyeska]

The VGR episode is proof ot the supposed limit because Paris could go anywhere instantly without vectoring. Had he merely been going very fast he would have had to turn at warp, actualy he would have had to point where he wanted to go before hand. This wasn't a problem for him. He apparently was "everwhere".

We have a hard statement about warp speed from Paris and Kim. In TNG they apparently go past Warp-10 and appear in another Galaxy after a minute or so of travel. Paris states at Warp-10 he can go ANYWHERE INSTANTLY. See the slight difference?

[TheDarkling]

And the actual two incidents are far more explicit. Observations trump dialogue.

What observations?

[Patrick Degan]

The VGR episode is proof ot the supposed limit because Paris could go anywhere instantly without vectoring. Had he merely been going very fast he would have had to turn at warp, actualy he would have had to point where he wanted to go before hand. This wasn't a problem for him. He apparently was "everwhere".

We have a hard statement about warp speed from Paris and Kim. In TNG they apparently go past Warp-10 and appear in another Galaxy after a minute or so of travel. Paris states at Warp-10 he can go ANYWHERE INSTANTLY. See the slight difference?

And we have the Enterprise exceeding Warp 10 and ending up 2.2 million lightyears beyond their home galaxy in "Where No One Has Gone Before". I'm sorry if that doesn't suit you, but there it is. And instantaneous translocation is not infinite velocity but an entirely different operation.

And the actual two incidents are far more explicit. Observations trump dialogue.

What observations?

The Enterprise exceeding Warp 10 and ending up 2.2 million lightyears beyond their home galaxy in "Where No One Has Gone Before" for a start. You and Alyeska can keep trying to argue around that as much as the two of you like and it doesn't alter the fact of the matter one jot.

[Alyeska]

And we have the Enterprise exceeding Warp 10 and ending up 2.2 million lightyears beyond their home galaxy in "Where No One Has Gone Before". I'm sorry if that doesn't suit you, but there it is. And instantaneous translocation is not infinite velocity but an entirely different operation.

We have the E-D exceding Warp-10 and taking TIME to get where it wants to get, not to mention manuever requirements. On the othe hand Paris can go anywhere instantly without requirement of manuevering. Not the same thing. Paris reached Warp-10 and could do this. The Enterprise-D EXCEDED what they called Warp-10 and still couldn't repeat what paris did.

The Enterprise exceeding Warp 10 and ending up 2.2 million lightyears beyond their home galaxy in "Where No One Has Gone Before" for a start. You and Alyeska can keep trying to argue around that as much as the two of you like and it doesn't alter the fact of the matter one jot.

You haven't adressed the differences in the two examples.

[TheDarkling]

And instantaneous translocation is not infinite velocity but an entirely different operation.

It is close enough for Voyager to call it so without it being a particularly big offence against science (it wouldn't even merit the biggest offence that episode), any distance they want over no time (the instant they reach warp ten they are everywhere meaning no travel time is required).

The Enterprise exceeding Warp 10 and ending up 2.2 million lightyears beyond their home galaxy in "Where No One Has Gone Before" for a start. You and Alyeska can keep trying to argue around that as much as the two of you like and it doesn't alter the fact of the matter one jot.

We only have Geordi’s word for that which is dialogue the same as Kim’s word, we don't observe anything that proves they passed Warp 10.

In Paris' case we have his word he was everywhere at once and his sensor records to back it up.

So we have two statements one way and some evidence and two statements the other.

Hell even Riker's statement contradicts Geordi's statement

RIKER
None that we have ever
encountered. In theory,
accelerating beyond warp ten.

Surely if they had accelerated beyond warp Ten (as Geordi suggests) then a) Riker would not make the statement that they hadn’t, B) they would have gone back in time or C) that theory would have been proven wrong.

Geordi's statement stands in contradiction with the other evidence, I would conclude that either something funky happened that threw off his instruments (possible given the unorthodox method of travel they were using) or the computer simply rounded 9.999999 etc up to 10.

After that point they give no further warp factor because as Data points out "we are off the scale".

[drachefly]

How hot is -1 kelvin? Really freaking hot. 'But', you say, 'that temperature doesn't exist!'.

Well, in certain cases, such as population inversion, the system does not have any single positive temperature, but if you work through the math for the derivation of temperature and you broaden your mind a little, you can analytically continue to negative temperatures, placing them above the positive numbers (- infinity being the coldest of the negative temperatures, and hotter than + infinity temperature).

But negative temperatures ARE possible (under certain constraints). UNLIKE 0 temperature, which is impossible under any circumstances.

Somewhat similarly, it may be that if warp numbers are geometrically defined by some formula, warp 10 is the one which has infinite speed -- basically arbitrary translocation -- and the higher warp numbers beyond that are really freaking fast but not actually infinite. This would also provide a nice definition for transwarp -- those warps achieved by jumping past warp 10. And if we borrow a little more from the negative temperature idea, it could be that warp a million is one of the slower transwarps, and the Enterprise going warp 13 could have slowed to warp 14, but not sped up to warp 12. After all, they shouldn't be able to approach warp 10 from above either.

Problems with this theory: the borg can use transwarp, but when chasing the Enterprise D, they used 9.9... something instead of a transwarp.

[El Moose Monstero]

Could these two problems be reconciled by Warp 10.0 being the peak of a curve, like having two 1/x graphs side by side like this (my knowledge of function curves is rusty),




so that however they got to Warp 10.0, they are literally at every point in the universe or whatever, and going past Warp 10.0 requires increasingly less energy, explaining why transwarp can be much faster without requiring massive amounts of power, and explaining why Voyager can just plug a Borg transwarp coil into their standard reactor without exhausting the warp core in seconds?

Shitty diagram I know, but just so i can show what I'm talking about. Warp 1 at 1 end of the scale, and Warp xxx at the other, warp 10 existing somewhere off to infinity or existing out of step with the rest of the graph.

I know there's a couple of flaws in that idea, as it doesnt explain how things get past warp 10 directly, unless they sort of skip past it.

Apologies if this idea is a common one and I'm just stating the blindingly obvious.

[drachefly]

Well, I didn't think that going faster would take less energy, though there is precedent for that too, in tachyons (a theoretical particle which has minimum KE at 2c, and like normal matter, as its velocity approaches C the KE approaches infinity).

I just came up with this off the top of my head, I'd never heard of it before. I was just trying to reconcile warp 10 being unattainable/infinite with faster-than-warp 10 being extremely fast but not infinite.

[Alyeska]

If that were the case there would be no incentive to go past Warp-10 and you would start slowing down. This was not the case in the TNG episode. They were going faster and faster.

Changing of the warp scale is a known fact and its a hell of a lot easier to assume that the warp scale got a minor change between TNG and VGR (relying on Geordi's statement being accurate) then anything else.

[Praxis]

Perhaps warp 10 is infinite or nonexistant, but warp 10.1 is not?

Consider, sometimes you can have a graph that exists at all points except one. Such as: y= 1/(.1x-1) . In this graph, there would be a Y for all X, except for X=10. Perhaps the warp scale is similar, where warp 10 is impossible but anything above and below is possible?

[drachefly]

If that were the case there would be no incentive to go past Warp-10 and you would start slowing down. This was not the case in the TNG episode. They were going faster and faster.

If what were the case? The graph was declared as a energy usage graph, not a velocity; and I suggested nothing of the sort you speak of.

What do we know?

1) warp 10, exactly, is very funky and normally unattainable (TNG strongly implies it; VOY goes there)
2) warp < 10 is finite velocity
2a) but the velocity can be made arbitrarily large by approaching 10 (... any canon? TNG tech manual says so)
3) warp > 10 is also finite velocity, but there is some sort of good reason to use warp 13 rather than the equivalent 9.99999... whatever it is. (All good things, TNG)

It was suggested in a technical manual that integer warp numbers are more efficient than fractional warp numbers. Perhaps the warp numbers above 10 are finer-grained, allowing one to much more efficiently get close to that special infinite velocity peak?

Another solution would be that 2a is wrong, and 10, though pathological, is not equal to the limit approaching itself. It could be that the energy usage as one approaches 10 diverges, but the speed does not.

Then 10 is an infinite discontinuity in velocity, which thereafter resumes its normal behavior with warp number. (I guess that's what Praxis said, isn't it?)

That's pretty ugly.