Meaning Of “Warp Speed” (Again)

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Yeah, I’ve been reading some of the attempts at coming up with a
consistent definition, and I know there isn’t any. But I want to make a
suggestion anyway. ;)

If you need to measure numbers over a very wide dynamic range, it makes
sense to use a logarithmic scale. And leave it open-ended at both ends,
why not.

E.g. warp 0 = the speed of light, c, the most natural reference point.

warp 1 = 10× the speed of light, 10c

warp 2 = 100c

warp 3 = 1000c

etc.

Want to get to Alpha Centauri in an hour? You’ll need a speed of about
warp 16.6. Want to cross the galaxy in the same time? About warp 21. Get
to Messier 31? Warp 22.3-ish. Cross the entire known Universe? Warp 26.6
or thereabouts.

Negative values are for sublight speeds:

warp -1 = 0.1c

warp -2 = 0.01c

etc.

So for example to get from the Earth to the Moon in an hour takes a warp
speed of about -3.5. The speed of sound in the Earth’s atmosphere under
typical sea-level conditions is close to warp -6, and the open-road speed
limit of 100 km/h over most of NZ is almost exactly warp -7.

Just like warp +∞ is not physically achievable, neither is warp -∞ --
there can be no such thing as perfect stillness.

[Wouter Valentijn]

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Yeah, I’ve been reading some of the attempts at coming up with a
consistent definition, and I know there isn’t any. But I want to make a
suggestion anyway. ;)
If you need to measure numbers over a very wide dynamic range, it makes
sense to use a logarithmic scale. And leave it open-ended at both ends,
why not.
E.g. warp 0 = the speed of light, c, the most natural reference point.
warp 1 = 10× the speed of light, 10c
warp 2 = 100c
warp 3 = 1000c
etc.
Want to get to Alpha Centauri in an hour? You’ll need a speed of about
warp 16.6. Want to cross the galaxy in the same time? About warp 21. Get
to Messier 31? Warp 22.3-ish. Cross the entire known Universe? Warp 26.6
or thereabouts.
warp -1 = 0.1c
warp -2 = 0.01c
etc.
So for example to get from the Earth to the Moon in an hour takes a warp
speed of about -3.5. The speed of sound in the Earth’s atmosphere under
typical sea-level conditions is close to warp -6, and the open-road speed
limit of 100 km/h over most of NZ is almost exactly warp -7.
Just like warp +∞ is not physically achievable, neither is warp -∞ --
there can be no such thing as perfect stillness.

The most "exact" numbers I know of were mentioned in "That Which Survives".

Distance: 990.7 light years.
Time: 11.733 hours.
Warp factor mentioned: Warp 8.4. Top (save) speed.
Speed comes down to: 87.3864 light years per hour.

Due to Losira's "clone"'s sabotage the speed increased to Warp 14.1. No
numbers for time were given for that, but we can assume the voyage in
the end was shorter than those 11.733 hours.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
If you need to measure numbers over a very wide dynamic range, it makes
sense to use a logarithmic scale. And leave it open-ended at both ends,
why not.
E.g. warp 0 = the speed of light, c, the most natural reference point.

Maybe I shouldn’t call it “warp”, to avoid confusion.

How about the “SOL” (Speed Of Light) scale? That’s how they seemed to
measure the speeds of incoming invaders in the old Anderson “UFO” TV
series, though they never explained what the numbers meant.

Or, there is another meaning of “warp”, which goes with “weft” for threads
in the perpendicular direction. So how about “weft speed” ... ?

[Wouter Valentijn]

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
If you need to measure numbers over a very wide dynamic range, it makes
sense to use a logarithmic scale. And leave it open-ended at both ends,
why not.
E.g. warp 0 = the speed of light, c, the most natural reference point.

Maybe I shouldn’t call it “warp”, to avoid confusion.
How about the “SOL” (Speed Of Light) scale? That’s how they seemed to
measure the speeds of incoming invaders in the old Anderson “UFO” TV
series, though they never explained what the numbers meant.
Or, there is another meaning of “warp”, which goes with “weft” for threads
in the perpendicular direction. So how about “weft speed” ... ?

I think 'Sol' was used for 'warp' in the German language versions I saw
in the 80s.

[pH]

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Yeah, I’ve been reading some of the attempts at coming up with a
consistent definition, and I know there isn’t any. But I want to make a
suggestion anyway. ;)
If you need to measure numbers over a very wide dynamic range, it makes
sense to use a logarithmic scale. And leave it open-ended at both ends,
why not.
E.g. warp 0 = the speed of light, c, the most natural reference point.
warp 1 = 10× the speed of light, 10c
warp 2 = 100c
warp 3 = 1000c
etc.
Want to get to Alpha Centauri in an hour? You’ll need a speed of about
warp 16.6. Want to cross the galaxy in the same time? About warp 21. Get
to Messier 31? Warp 22.3-ish. Cross the entire known Universe? Warp 26.6
or thereabouts.
warp -1 = 0.1c
warp -2 = 0.01c
etc.
So for example to get from the Earth to the Moon in an hour takes a warp
speed of about -3.5. The speed of sound in the Earth’s atmosphere under
typical sea-level conditions is close to warp -6, and the open-road speed
limit of 100 km/h over most of NZ is almost exactly warp -7.
Just like warp +∞ is not physically achievable, neither is warp -∞ --
there can be no such thing as perfect stillness.

I think I recall from reading "The Making of Star Trek" that Gene
Roddenberry said the warp speed was calculated as 2^warp factoer.

But that would make Warp 1 2x C, Warp 3 would be 2^3 eg: 8C

Going off my shakey memory...it's been a long time. (but I remember I didn't
like that at the time)

Evan at 100C it would still take a long time to get anywhere...thank
goodness for Hollywood...you don't have to worry about reality.

pH in Aptos, CA

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Post by pH
I think I recall from reading "The Making of Star Trek" that Gene
Roddenberry said the warp speed was calculated as 2^warp factoer.

In other words, a logarithmic scale, as I proposed?

That is really the only logical way to do it. For a base of 2 rather than
10, the numbers just become about 3.3× bigger.

Another interesting base is e = 2.71828 ...

One thing about this base is, ratios close to 1 correspond to percentage
changes close to what you get from subtracting 1 and multiplying the
result by 100.

Post by pH
Evan at 100C it would still take a long time to get anywhere...

“Space is big. You just won’t believe how vastly, hugely,
mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it’s a long way
down the road to the chemist’s, but that’s just peanuts to space.”
-- Douglas Adams, “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”

(I know: don’t cross the memes. But hey...)

[Daniel70]

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by pH
I think I recall from reading "The Making of Star Trek" that Gene
Roddenberry said the warp speed was calculated as 2^warp factoer.

In other words, a logarithmic scale, as I proposed?
That is really the only logical way to do it. For a base of 2 rather
than 10, the numbers just become about 3.3× bigger.
Another interesting base is e = 2.71828 ...
One thing about this base is, ratios close to 1 correspond to
percentage changes close to what you get from subtracting 1 and
multiplying the result by 100.

Post by pH
Evan at 100C it would still take a long time to get anywhere...

“Space is big. You just won’t believe how vastly, hugely,
mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it’s a long way down
the road to the chemist’s, but that’s just peanuts to space.” --
Douglas Adams, “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”
(I know: don’t cross the memes. But hey...)

Hmm! Aren't you 'crossing the memes' by even suggesting one shouldn't
'Cross the memes'?? ;-P .... 'Ghostbusters' -> HHGTTG -> RL!!

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Post by Daniel70
Hmm! Aren't you 'crossing the memes' by even suggesting one shouldn't
'Cross the memes'?? ;-P .... 'Ghostbusters' -> HHGTTG -> RL!!

Now picture every cultural reference in your mind exploding outwards at
the speed of light ...

[Wouter Valentijn]

Post by pH

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Yeah, I’ve been reading some of the attempts at coming up with a
consistent definition, and I know there isn’t any. But I want to make a
suggestion anyway. ;)
If you need to measure numbers over a very wide dynamic range, it makes
sense to use a logarithmic scale. And leave it open-ended at both ends,
why not.
E.g. warp 0 = the speed of light, c, the most natural reference point.
warp 1 = 10× the speed of light, 10c
warp 2 = 100c
warp 3 = 1000c
etc.
Want to get to Alpha Centauri in an hour? You’ll need a speed of about
warp 16.6. Want to cross the galaxy in the same time? About warp 21. Get
to Messier 31? Warp 22.3-ish. Cross the entire known Universe? Warp 26.6
or thereabouts.
warp -1 = 0.1c
warp -2 = 0.01c
etc.
So for example to get from the Earth to the Moon in an hour takes a warp
speed of about -3.5. The speed of sound in the Earth’s atmosphere under
typical sea-level conditions is close to warp -6, and the open-road speed
limit of 100 km/h over most of NZ is almost exactly warp -7.
Just like warp +∞ is not physically achievable, neither is warp -∞ --
there can be no such thing as perfect stillness.

I think I recall from reading "The Making of Star Trek" that Gene
Roddenberry said the warp speed was calculated as 2^warp factoer.
But that would make Warp 1 2x C, Warp 3 would be 2^3 eg: 8C
Going off my shakey memory...it's been a long time. (but I remember I didn't
like that at the time)
Evan at 100C it would still take a long time to get anywhere...thank
goodness for Hollywood...you don't have to worry about reality.
pH in Aptos, CA

Officially it was a cubed factor. To the power of 3. So Warp 1 was 1c,
Warp 2 was 8c, Warp 3 was 27c etc.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Post by Wouter Valentijn
Officially it was a cubed factor.

Boring. Logarithmic is way cooler.