# Thread: Warp 10 to Alpha Centuri

1. How long would it make me to get to A. Centauri at warp 10? I would assume that the gamma factor is around 1000, but I'm not sure about this.
Thanks.

2. Originally Posted by Jilan
How long would it make me to get to A. Centauri at warp 10? I would assume that the gamma factor is around 1000, but I'm not sure about this.
Thanks.
You are starting to post total BS .

" Warp 10 is regarded as infinite velocity, so theoretically any vessel traveling at warp 10 would exist at all points in the universe at once. "

So, not only that warp 10 doesn't exist, it cannot correspond to ANY gamma factor. You are trying to mix fiction with SR.

3. With Warp factors there is no gamma factor to consider because the ship isn't really moving with respect to space. in the original series, speed equaled the warp factor cubed times c. so warp factor 10 equaled 1000 times the speed of light and you would get to Alpha C in ~1.6 days.

However, by the time of the Next Generation series, the warp scale had been reconfigured so that it was asymptotic with warp 10 representing infinite speed (and thus unobtainable).

4. Thanks Janus, that makes sense.

5. In reply to AIP's, re: warp 10x.

You mean SR ISN'T fiction?!?! Where have I been? Remember, as Zeno tells us..."no matter where you go...there you are".

(Cheerio!)

6. We experimentally verify SR every time we use a particle accelerator. So it isn't fiction.

7. in reply to SpeedFreek, re: your #6 post.

Yes, I am aware that "all been verified" w/ regard to results of LHC's and HE particle-accelerators. (I can read quite well) Yes, I am aware that everything has been experimentally proven

with regard to SR...and that Einstein was completely ignorant of "how everything really works" and that GR is an antique relic of the past.

......

I'm still waiting for a few answers concerning gravity...but I won't hold my breath waiting.

(Thanks for reading!)

8. Originally Posted by Janus
With Warp factors there is no gamma factor to consider because the ship isn't really moving with respect to space. in the original series, speed equaled the warp factor cubed times c. so warp factor 10 equaled 1000 times the speed of light and you would get to Alpha C in ~1.6 days.

However, by the time of the Next Generation series, the warp scale had been reconfigured so that it was asymptotic with warp 10 representing infinite speed (and thus unobtainable).
There was an episode in Star Trek Voyager where the shuttle craft was reconfigured to break the warp 10 barrier, where Cpt Janeway and the helmsman ended up in prehistoric earth as rodents, starting a family.

I think it was also written into the original Star Trek motion picture series during STAR TREK IV, where they went back to the 1960s (San Francisco) to bring 2 hump back whales to the future to save the earth. At warp 10, they were everywhere and everywhen, at once. Basically, you can pop out where and when you like, somehow. Of course, it always seems to take a Vulcan 1st science officer to figure out those calculations

Thank You,
SinceYouAsked

9. Originally Posted by SinceYouAsked
There was an episode in Star Trek Voyager where the shuttle craft was reconfigured to break the warp 10 barrier, where Cpt Janeway and the helmsman ended up in prehistoric earth as rodents, starting a family.
I don't remember that episode, But ST, like any other TV show is not always consistent even with itself. (If you use the original series warp factor scale, the Enterprise could have never visited all the different star systems they did during what was supposed to be a 5 year mission even if they traveled at the safest maximum warp speed for the whole time.)

I think it was also written into the original Star Trek motion picture series during STAR TREK IV, where they went back to the 1960s (San Francisco) to bring 2 hump back whales to the future to save the earth. At warp 10, they were everywhere and everywhen, at once. Basically, you can pop out where and when you like, somehow. Of course, it always seems to take a Vulcan 1st science officer to figure out those calculations
In ST IV they went back to the '80s and they used the "slingshot" method of traveling in a hyperbolic high warp trajectory around a strong gravity source. ( in the movie they used the Sun) In one of the first season episodes "Tomorrow is Yesterday", this happens accidentally when the Enterprise gets caught in the gravity well of a black hole and needs to use warp drive to escape sending them back to the 60's. In a later episode they used the same method to return to the 60's as historical observers ( This episode was meant to launch a spin off series about Human agents trained by an advanced alien race that were looking after Earth's welfare. The series was not picked up.)

In another first season episode, a controlled implosion during a cold start of the matter-antimatter reaction caused them to revert in time a couple of days. this happens at the end of the episode and was originally going to be what threw them back to the '60s in the first episode I mentioned making a bridge between the two episodes.

There are two other episodes dealing with time travel in the original series that relied on the use of alien technology.

Thank You,
SinceYouAsked

10. Originally Posted by Gerry Nightingale
in reply to SpeedFreek, re: your #6 post.

Yes, I am aware that "all been verified" w/ regard to results of LHC's and HE particle-accelerators. (I can read quite well) Yes, I am aware that everything has been experimentally proven

with regard to SR...and that Einstein was completely ignorant of "how everything really works" and that GR is an antique relic of the past.

......

I'm still waiting for a few answers concerning gravity...but I won't hold my breath waiting.

(Thanks for reading!)
And yet GR works! It works very well for an "antique relic".

What answers are you waiting for concerning gravity?

11. Well if you want some genuine answers, GerryN...
Originally Posted by Gerry Nightingale

I'm still waiting for a few answers concerning gravity...but I won't hold my breath waiting.

(Thanks for reading!)
...you can repost on the Personal & Alternatives 'speakeasy' section so we can discuss things more deeply than here.

TFOLZO

12. In reply to SpeedFreek, re: your #10 post.

Thanks for the reply! As for "what I'm waiting for" w/regard to gravity? I'm waiting for someone who is truly an expert in mathematical theory to "confirm or deny" the concept of "gravity as

a potential". (this is very unlikely in what time I have left, based on the axiom of "a thing not looked for is a thing not found") Too bad for me.

......

"GR" is alive and well!" Really? If it is...I'm not seeing it. All I see in modern theory is denial, due to the fact that "logic and proportion" no longer have ANY relevance at all with regard to

most accepted postulates of condition...such as "blackholes" or masses at a boundary zone moving at "c" in relation to the rest of the observable Universe.

(of course, you have to realize I'm old and stodgy and unable to understand how calculus can verify "supposition" as a "true state of condition"...I cannot accept "Steven Spielberg" type

of interpretations of "reality" because "the numbers say so")

(Thanks for reading!)

13. In reply to TFOLZO, re: your #11 post.

I would debate w/ you...as long as you leave off w/ all the "Jew" nonsense...a "true thing is a true thing" no matter who said it or when, or stole it from someone else. Yes...I have an

answer for gravity...and the "standard model" isn't it.

(Thanks for reading!) Cheerio!

14. Gerry, you do know that the GPS system is based on both Special and General Relativity, and doesn't work if they aren't taken into account?

15. In reply to SpeedFreek, re: your #14 post.

Yes, "SF", I have been made aware of this by other posters on other Sites...who absolutely maintain "nothing modern, including the transistor, the semi-conductor, the micro-processor, in

fact all of modern life is due to the analytical calculus equations of SR...I am not going to engage in a pointless debate of how "SR" created the Universe, God, and enables Santa's reindeer

to move FTL and make time standstill so as to ensure presents are delivered "on-time".

......

I'm not trying to insult you, it's just that I'm in a "different camp" w/regard to theory...and the various permutations of SR that "explain how everything works" doesn't work for me.

(please bear in mind I have been reading and studying "theoretical physics" for forty years now, and I am no closer now to understanding "causality" than I was when I was twenty...at least

not the "causalities" proposed by extrapolations of SR by the "young turks" of physics) Even Hawking's analyses leave me "dazed and confused" w/ his SR interpretations of gravity.

......

You believe what you believe based on mathematical "supposition" theory...my beliefs are based on the evidence of empirical reality, that which is tangible. To me, calculus posits a

false view is the "truth", and I am far too old to simply accept "this is true" when my mind says NO.

(Thanks for reading!)

16. Gerry, you do know that all scientific theories are simply mathematical models designed to explain the workings of the universe around us, don't you? If they work, we use them. Simple as that. They are not a search for the "truth" itself, they are simply part of a search for a way to represent the "truth" using mathematics.

17. In reply to SpeedFreek, re: your #16 post.

Very good, and I agree! But...I see no valid reason or rationale that dictates the search for "causality" is pointless. If something can be thought of, and questioned, then there IS an answer

for it...although it may seem hopeless to pursue. (reminds me of "dating")

......

I'm really confused how "best guess" translates into "absolute fact" via the mechanism of mathematics theory...and any who say "maybe this" or "maybe that" are reduced to illiterate

cranks or escaped mental patients for daring to write anything contrary to doctrine or a published work.

I have more than one "whacko idea" concerning causality factors...perhaps I am wrong for thinking independent of "what is accepted" but still my concepts can "stand on their own merit" or

I would discard them. Yes, of course I "know this and that"...if I did not know them well and understand, how or why would I be able to state anything contrary, or present something

"new?" With this line of logic, it is possible that what is accepted and my own concepts could BOTH be equally invalid!!!

Thanks for the reply!

(Thanks for reading!)

 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Forum Rules