Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site spp2.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwspp!spp2!brahms From: brahms@spp2.UUCP Newsgroups: net.startrek Subject: ST III novalization, warp speed and reaching Andromeda Message-ID: <207@spp2.UUCP> Date: Fri, 2-Nov-84 15:44:34 EST Article-I.D.: spp2.207 Posted: Fri Nov 2 15:44:34 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 5-Nov-84 19:52:02 EST References: <3971@cbscc.UUCP> Reply-To: brahms@spp2.UUCP (Bradley S. Brahms) Organization: TRW, Redondo Beach CA Lines: 31 Summary: [}{] > As Zefram Cochrane pointed ou in 2053, actual warp speeds relative >to the speed of light may be calculated by multiplying the warp factor >cubed by a variable that accounts for the curvature of space in a fourth >dimension by the presence of mass; subspace, a continuum in which a vessel >under warp drive travels, is not curved in a fourth spatial dimension, >and therefore offers a linear "short cut" between points in our galaxy. >This variable, called Cochrane's factor and sometimes indicated by the greek >letter chi (X) [which I can only use a capital X for it], can be as high as >1,500 in dense dust and gas clouds and as little as 1 in intergalactic >void. It is larger neat massive objects such as star and black holes, as >space is curved around such as objects to an even greater extent. For >practical reasons, warp drive is not used in the vicinity of massive objects, >as the disproportionately high warp speeds tend to produce a "slingshot >effect," catapulting a starship out of this space-time continuum altogether. >Between galaxies, where negligible matter exists, space is not perceptibly >curved, and the short cut afforded by Cochrane's factor disappears. Warp >speeds attain their "ideal" (W^3) * c = v values, and the transit time to >the Andromeda galaxy becomes thousands rather than hundreds of years. Here is my question: In the ST-III Novelization, there are reports of a ship that has reached the Andromeda galaxy. With the above formula, which seems much more reasonable than (W^3)c=v, this would not be possible. Any ideas or should we just ignore this at not being true ST? -- Brad brahms usenet: {decvax,ucbvax}!trwrb!trwspp!brahms arpa: Brahms@usc-eclc