The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Off Topic Discussions > Warp Drives Might Be More Realistic Than Thought
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 09-21-2012, 01:43 PM
Captain Tom Coughlin's Avatar
Captain Tom Coughlin Captain Tom Coughlin is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USS Meadowlands
Posts: 10,989
Default

Very true sir, very true
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-21-2012, 03:35 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin View Post
Whether or not warp drive is possible is still at best an open question. These are little more than interesting intellectual exercises at our current level of technology. There is nothing here in practical terms that could lead to the production of warp drive. Let's not get ahead of ourselves here.

And if it is possible, it's a very long way off.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
The article clearly points out this remains theoretical with several hurdles to be overcome even if the theory was moved along to 'practical' stages. We remain unpossessed of all the understanding to make it work.

Like it says, in the 'far future'.................maybe.
It's like you two are communicating in another language.
It said more "realistic" & a "possibility" as in within the power or ability of someone or something. As opposed to Impossible. Not only is this exactly what I said before by means of demonstration of a quantum singularity it's an upgrade in thought and concept that radically reduces the power requirements from stellar to terrestrial. This is more than just being negative or miss reading the article. This is miss-comprehension and opposition to the idea itself. Doors are opening, information is expanding and yet our minds are tenaciously against it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Akula2ssn View Post
More hypothetical than theoretical. Not a naysayer myself, but there's far too many missing pieces in the theoretical aspect. Even if there weren't, it still remains little more than academic. Even with 100% efficiency, powering such a thing isn't even practical. Generally speaking, we aren't even within the ballpark of 25% energy efficiency. Thermal dynamics is kind of a b***h in that regard.
It's been hypothetical since Alcubierre broke the pseudo science barrier by applying mathematical logic to the problem. As a result the unanswered variables were:

Power
Field Creation Method
Field Termination Method

Artificially speaking this developing idea has just brought the concept to not just a possibility (which it always was possible if not by humans) then to a human probable concept. And likely progressing our understanding of the universe such as we have with the Higgs Field and expectantly solving the problems of missing matter and energy will continue to update this concept. Time is really the only obstacle. So remember nothing is feasible by contemplating how it can't be done. We've gotten this far by imagining the impossible and devising possibilities. That's how flight was achieved that how nuclear power was achieved and that is how landing on other worlds were achieved.
__________________


Last edited by Saquist : 09-21-2012 at 04:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-21-2012, 06:23 PM
Captain Tom Coughlin's Avatar
Captain Tom Coughlin Captain Tom Coughlin is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USS Meadowlands
Posts: 10,989
Default

I understood it perfectly. Perfectly enough to know this is all theoretical. What is or what is not possible can only be known once it is tested. There is no practical application here to test yet. So, we don't really know whether it's possible or not. An assertion is not a fact.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-21-2012, 07:10 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin View Post
I understood it perfectly. Perfectly enough to know this is all theoretical. What is or what is not possible can only be known once it is tested. There is no practical application here to test yet. So, we don't really know whether it's possible or not. An assertion is not a fact.
It's not all theoretical.
The Math is Theoretical and that's it.
The Demonstration is a reality. It is a phenomenon (Just like electricity is to lightning)
The Concept for practical use is Hypothetical.

All you were really telling us is that you're against something either in my post or in the article and my guess is that it's in my post. But you didn't come out and say it you made a vague negation. I oppose that. I can understand if you were attempting to verbalize your boredom with the information as irrelevant or obvious. Perhaps you're a brilliant scientific mind and you knew this before all the rest of us, but rather you and Kev rather just rolled in and said the equivalent of, "That bird will never Fly". Literally as though you were (and have before) against the concept of exploring these possibilities.

You said, "Lets not get ahead of ourselves" and "It's a "far off possibility". No one said it could happen in our life times, nor did anyone ever say lets dump a wad of cash on this project and get out there. NCC-73515 and myself were quite simply expressing what is normally called enthusiasm. Omegaman expressed a certain level of interest and enthusiasm just by posting it. Isn't enthusiasm in Exploration and Science normally encouraged rather than shot down or as NCC-73515 said...ridiculed? If the only thing there is to contribute about a positive step forward for all us is something negative or a shut down don't you have to doubt whether you care or like the progress that you saw? And doesn't that question the desire of a sociological strengthening through the positive information?

Sociology has never been my area but is it not the rules the rest of you live by and create (or apparently) destroy relationships? If you understood the article then what is this passive opposition to the enthusiastic discussion of the impact of it's possibility or entertaining the hope that one day we will travel among the stars? You guys watched it for entertainment but was it really just so much nonsense to you?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-21-2012, 07:57 PM
Captain Tom Coughlin's Avatar
Captain Tom Coughlin Captain Tom Coughlin is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USS Meadowlands
Posts: 10,989
Default

You are taking this way too personally. I expressed my opinion on the topic, I did not go after you personally or anyone else. I simply have a different outlook on the subject. That's it. And when I say an assertion is not a fact, I'm not talking about anyone here. I'm talking about assertions made in the article.
__________________


Last edited by Captain Tom Coughlin : 09-21-2012 at 08:06 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-21-2012, 08:04 PM
Captain Tom Coughlin's Avatar
Captain Tom Coughlin Captain Tom Coughlin is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USS Meadowlands
Posts: 10,989
Default

I'm also quite certain Omega has no problem with my voicing my thoughts on the subject here.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-21-2012, 09:34 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin View Post
You are taking this way too personally...
There is nothing personal about how I'm taking it.
It's annoyance.
It's ME speaking, not Omegaman.

I enjoy these whether or not someone else comments on them.
You guys have the right to comment how you like.
Yet it would be nice that on the rare times you show an interest in the scientific curiosities (whether or not they're related to Trek) that you could muster a bit more positive commentary with the "that Bird don't fly comments".

,at least a balance of some sort.
__________________


Last edited by Saquist : 09-21-2012 at 09:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-21-2012, 09:45 PM
Captain Tom Coughlin's Avatar
Captain Tom Coughlin Captain Tom Coughlin is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USS Meadowlands
Posts: 10,989
Default

You are taking it personally, I did nothing but share my opinion on the article. Quite frankly, it had nothing to do with you at all. I'm not telling you how you should feel about this article, why are you telling me how I should?

And I am very interested in this. I would not have read it or commented on it if I wasn't. My assessment differs from yours, so what?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-21-2012, 09:51 PM
Captain Tom Coughlin's Avatar
Captain Tom Coughlin Captain Tom Coughlin is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USS Meadowlands
Posts: 10,989
Default

And if you haven't noticed, I'm not the only person here expressing doubts.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-21-2012, 09:53 PM
Captain Tom Coughlin's Avatar
Captain Tom Coughlin Captain Tom Coughlin is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USS Meadowlands
Posts: 10,989
Default

And you brought Omegaman's name into this, not me.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:54 PM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.