I do know about that one.
But I do LOVE the explanation in Solo.
It made alot of sense, even if it sucks for the Millenium Falcon repair bill when you go the "Faster/Shorter Route".
Warp 10 barrier
- Thread starter someone74
- Start date
But I do LOVE the explanation in Solo.
It made alot of sense, even if it sucks for the Millenium Falcon repair bill when you go the "Faster/Shorter Route".
I think Rick Sternbach served more or less in that capacity during the Berman era. I remember a story in which he laid out the speed limitations of a Warp 5 ship in ENT, but he was overruled by the producers, who found it too restricting for storytelling purposes, I guess. You can have a technical lore staff, but they ultimately don't have the final say in what makes it onscreen.
-_-
Actually, I believe the other poster was just playing along as well. His parsecs comment came directly from the Family Guy Star Wars lampoon episodes lol.
3.26158 light years = one Parsec, for reference...
May be different in a GFFA...
May be different in a GFFA...
To quote an anecdote from Firefly, "we're going for the funny" in one episode instead of Wash's usual calm demeanor.
Tech adviser sounds great until drama becomes more important. Probably why we got the absurd dialog in Voyager over "infinite velocity being very fast" as described by Neelix.
If you are never 'in' (including your electron orbitals?) one place long enough, on the journey, anyway - then there's not really time OR space for a collision to occur, potentially.
Or at Planck Time...?
That said - I tend to have a developing sense of space-time as very coordinate based (including Lorentz contractions...)
Let alone his completely bs description of how nebulas form. That one had me so mad. There’s making stuff up because it’s convenient and fits the story, and there’s making stuff up because you can’t be bothered to open a frickin book or Google something.
Not even sure why it would follow I would be 'everywhere at once' when I was moving along a line with 'infinite speed'. Unless perhaps the universe is supposed to fold in on itself and it returns me to the same general neighborhood, just in a slightly different spot each time. A bit like this except for the entire universe rather than just the earth.
Of course, that would only true in a very loose, intuitive manner of speaking.
After all, the unspoken assumption starting with the regular polyhedrons is that we'd only use straight lines, which is no longer true for a circle. But, yes, for all practical intents and purposes a regular googolhedron would be indistinguishable from a circle. And weirdly enough, it would also be a figure impossible to accurately draw, since the observable universe doesn't even carry that amount of elementary particles.
But yes, many intuitive notions go out of the window when speaking about infinity. Our brains simply are not geared up for that. For example, an infinitely large hotel can be completely occupied, yet always allocate new rooms for more guests (Hilbert's hotel paradox). In fact in mathematics there are many levels of infinity (of which the 'countable infinity' ('Aleph-0') is merely the lowest, smallest one).
Depending on the size of the segments in your polyhedrons, at 20 sides, a Icosagon starts getting hard to distinguish from a circle w/o looking real hard.
Once you get to the 257-gon, you have a VERY hard time telling it apart from a real circle.
We don't need to go all the way to a "Google" to start becoming nearly indistinguishable from a circle.
Perhaps my standards are simply a little more exacting
Nah, just joking, you're right. That 257-gon is already virtually indistinguishable.
Would've been better though if they'd drawn a 'real' cirle too in that picture, just for comparison (strictly speaking that'd be impossible, too).
If you had the free time, a large sheet of paper, some compasses, some other writing tools, you can do a "Real Circle".Perhaps my standards are simply a little more exacting
Nah, just joking, you're right. That 257-gon is already virtually indistinguishable.
Would've been better though if they'd drawn a 'real' cirle too in that picture, just for comparison (strictly speaking that'd be impossible, too).
But given the limits of a standard PC monitor and 2D Displays via standard 2D Pixels, this is the best we can get.
I think the consensus is that the universe is “closed” such that if you go far enough in a straight line you eventually end up coming all the way around back to your starting point. But i guess also since everything’s in motion, and there’s therefore no way to completely halt your own movement in relation to the entire universe’s reference frame, that “line” you travel would precess through/across a large range of angles — at infinite speed, it would go through -all- possible angles, so I guess carry you through everywhere in the universe. But this (aside from the universe being closed) I’m just making up as a feeble imaginary explanation I don’t actually buy.
That's what I would imagine the explanation would be, a closed universe and looping around when you leave the edge of it. It's like someone porting Star Trek into the Asteroids or Space Wars game.
Similar threads
