XPost: alt.startrek, rec.arts.startrek.current, rec.arts.tv   
   From: Post@invalid.net   
      
   David Johnston wrote:   
   > On Fri, 19 May 2006 19:35:03 +0200, "Wouter Valentijn"   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >> ANIM8Rfsk wrote:   
   >>> in article 446db797$0$31642$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl, Wouter Valentijn   
   >>> at liam@valentijn.nu wrote on 5/19/06 5:18 AM:   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >>    
   >>   
   >>>>>> Either way... Those 'warp scales' don't seem to account for much.   
   >>>>>> Those formulas were never even mentioned on screen afaik.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Well, there are a few very close mentions, but they are quite rare.   
   >>>> Can you cite an example of that?   
   >>>>   
   >>> ENTERPRISE used the classic TOS warp scale (from the Whitman book)   
   >>> which is what placed the Klingon homeworld within .8 light years (or   
   >>> whatever it was).   
   >> Yeah...   
   >> Err, an example in canon, *on screen* actually saying warp such and such   
   >> equals X times c, plus the formula used.   
   >> Did Enterprise specifically mention that?   
   >   
   > Actually they did give the time that Enterprise would take to go from   
   > Earth to, what was it, Neptune?  However they never established that   
   > warp speed is a constant so that warp 5 inside the Solar System is the   
   > same speed as warp 5 in interstellar space.   
   >   
   Also, there might be a short period while the warp field "accelerates".   
   If that were the case a departing ship might be covering less distance   
   for each of the first several seconds. A ship might not be all the way   
   to Warp 5 until it is nearly past Neptune's orbit.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)