Question for Star Trek Fans

[Nobody]

I'm sure most or all of you have heard of the "Twins Effect" or "time dilation" where if one twin were to travel in space at a speed that approached the speed of the light while the other twin remained on Earth, the astronaut, upon returning to Earth, would find his twin brother much older than himself.

So why doesn't this occur in the Start Trek universe? Why doesn't the Enterprise, after leaving, say, Earth, come back and find that everyone there has aged 60 years or so while the crew only aged a year or two?

[Zebra]

Because that wouldn't be any fun.

[Alessan]

Originally Posted by Master Control

I'm sure most or all of you have heard of the "Twins Effect" or "time dilation" where if one twin were to travel in space at a speed that approached the speed of the light while the other twin remained on Earth, the astronaut, upon returning to Earth, would find his twin brother much older than himself.

So why doesn't this occur in the Start Trek universe? Why doesn't the Enterprise, after leaving, say, Earth, come back and find that everyone there has aged 60 years or so while the crew only aged a year or two?

Because that only happens when you approach the speed of light. The Enterprse goes faster than the speed of light, which is physically impossible and thus can have whatever side effects its inventors choose.

[Ephemera]

FTL travel in Trek isn't relativistic.. it's done via shunting into subspace, a different dimension of the space-time continuum. It's more akin to traveling via wormholes than by going really, really, really f'n fast.

[Nobody]

Originally Posted by Aesiron

FTL travel in Trek isn't relativistic.. it's done via shunting into subspace, a different dimension of the space-time continuum. It's more akin to traveling via wormholes than by going really, really, really f'n fast.

Didn't the concept of Worm Holes first appear in DS9?

[Ephemera]

No. There was one in The Motion Picture in 1979 and another one in TNG in or around Season Three, a year or two before DS9 premiered.

It's just an analogy though. They aren't actually travelling via wormhole but it's the best way to put it in layman's terms as most people know that they allow instantaneous travel without relativistic results. At least in theory.

[Nobody]

I just looked it up and Alessan is right. Warp speed is a multiple of light speed. How can you have a space ship going warp 2, faster than the speed of light, but yet, it's not traveling fast, it's going into subspace?
If speed isn't the key, why measure......oh never mind.....

[Ephemera]

Because the laws of subspace allow FTL velocities whereas our normal four dimensions don't. Think of it in terms of the ocean. On the surface, you can only swim so fast but if you dive under and hit the undertow, it can drag you along faster than you could ever actually swim.

Make more sense now?

[Otto]

But how about when a ship is travelling at impulse speeds? It's been a while since I did any serious reading about ST tech, but isn't impulse a fraction of c? So if one is going at 1/2 impulse one is going at 0.5c? Wouldn't relativistic effects manifest then?

[Ephemera]

Full impulse is 0.25c and, so far as I know, that's just ignored.

[BMalion]

Impulse engines, as I understand it, is only be for short distances, say from one planet in a system to another, thus, any time dilation effects would be minimal.

[Small Clanger]

Just to stir things up.

Isn't warp 10 supposed to be infinite velocity?

In that case what is trans warp travel?

And what kind of speed was it that the Traveller moved Enterprise in TNG?

Real life physics is not relevant, but I don't think we're seeing a coherent picture here. Infinite improbability drive is the way to go, or maybe Bistromath.

[Alessan]

Time dilation only starts kicking in in a significant way at (IIRC) 0.95c or so anyway, so even 0.5c wouldn't make much of a difference.

[CynicalGabe]

[quote]
Isn't warp 10 supposed to be infinite velocity?

In that case what is trans warp travel?

And what kind of speed was it that the Traveller moved Enterprise in TNG?
[/quote

Plot devices. Are you posting a question about ST in the hope that millions of trekkies won't give you long winded replies exhaustively citing ST bibles and The Physics of Star Trek?

I'll save you the trouble. They are all convenient plot devices.

[Ephemera]

Originally Posted by Small Clanger

Just to stir things up.

Isn't warp 10 supposed to be infinite velocity?

In that case what is trans warp travel?

And what kind of speed was it that the Traveller moved Enterprise in TNG?

Real life physics is not relevant, but I don't think we're seeing a coherent picture here. Infinite improbability drive is the way to go, or maybe Bistromath.

Transwarp just means it's significantly faster than ordinairy warp drive. The TNG warp scale would be transwarp to TOS era ships, for example.

[NoClueBoy]

The fun thing about Warp scales is that even if you consider the change from TOS to TNG scales, our Trekaverse is riddled with canon viloations. Apparantly it's hard to keep up with a gross or of writers over several hundred eps and movies. We won't even touch the books.

And that's another thing: Just because it's in a Guide or Encyclopedia about Trek written by a Trek insider (or even Gene himself), it's not canon. Only what has been in the eps and movies (and 3? books, Aes will tell), is canon. Even the eps (save one) of TAA aren't considered canon.


As for the OP's original Q, the relatavistic changes don't occur because warp is not "normal" space. (As has been explained). Plus, we "suspend belief" in order to enjoy our fictional world. So, even high STL speeds have no effect in our fictional worldview. Until someone writes it into an episode, that is.

[Small Clanger]

Originally Posted by CynicalGabe

Are you posting a question about ST in the hope that millions of trekkies won't give you long winded replies exhaustively citing ST bibles and The Physics of Star Trek?

Maybe I should have framed them with [rhetorical-question] tags. I was trying make the point that none of it makes sense, and maybe they could throw in some HHG technology to keep it interesting. Why does every space travelling species have to use warp drive? Why don't some of them have engines based on a really hot cup of tea?*

If people want to tie themselves in knots explaining nonsense that's their lookout.


*This is a rhetorical question people, an answer is not required.

[NoClueBoy]

Warp technology is central to the Trek Universe because it's the Trek Universe. Plain and simple.

I urge you to consider the wirting guide for Sci-Fi titled The Number of the Beast for any further explanation.

[Ephemera]

Originally Posted by NoClueBoy

And that's another thing: Just because it's in a Guide or Encyclopedia about Trek written by a Trek insider (or even Gene himself), it's not canon. Only what has been in the eps and movies (and 3? books, Aes will tell), is canon. Even the eps (save one) of TAA aren't considered canon.

Mosaic and Pathways, two Voyager novels, used to be considered canon since they were written by one of its original producers, Jeri Taylor, but they no longer are.

Also, Yesteryear, the TAS episode that is/was canon, can now be ignored again since the recent Vulcan trilogy made on-screen reference to most, if not all, of its major points and thus made its important parts canon.

Plus, we "suspend belief" in order to enjoy our fictional world. So, even high STL speeds have no effect in our fictional worldview. Until someone writes it into an episode, that is.

Indeed. It may amuse you to think that we're like the aliens (or fans) in Galaxy Quest that think our favorite show is real and that it wounds us deeply every time we're reminded that it isn't but that says more about you than it does us. We're well aware that it's fake and I don't see anyone writing ten and twelve page posts on the issue.

[Otto]

I don't care what anyone says, the cartoon is canon by any reasonable definition of the word.

[Ephemera]

Gene Roddenberry disagrees. It's considered a promotional tie-in, just like the novels, games, specials, comic books, and everything else not produced specifically by Paramount and/or Desilu Studios.

[Nobody]

Originally Posted by Otto

But how about when a ship is travelling at impulse speeds? It's been a while since I did any serious reading about ST tech, but isn't impulse a fraction of c? So if one is going at 1/2 impulse one is going at 0.5c? Wouldn't relativistic effects manifest then?

From The FADD:Warp Chart Impulse power is .25 sublight.

[Nobody]

Originally Posted by Master Control

From The FADD:Warp Chart Impulse power is .25 sublight.

OOps, make that PADD

[Otto]

Originally Posted by Aesiron

Gene Roddenberry disagrees.

Yeah, well, Gene Roddenberry's dead.

It was broadcast under the auspices of Paramount, Paramount owns it and markets it (or marketed it; it's out of print on VHS and unreleased on DVD), they don't get to declare it non-canon. Nor, frankly, should the fans be able to declare it non-canon. There are all kinds of Trek-crap I'd declare non-canon (*cough*ST5*cough*) but there it is on the screen anyways.

[Ephemera]

Roddenberry's death doesn't invalidate his edict and as creator of the series, his word on the matter -- that all live-action Trek is canon -- is final unless eventually turned over by Berman, which I don't expect.

Making TAS canon is too much of a headache with its inconsistancies and contradictions with modern -- including movie-era -- Trek. I much prefer the way it is now, where it's being mined for its better ideas, i.e., sehlats, Vulcan's Forge, ShiKahr, et al, and leaving all its more ludicrous ideas buried. Having to put up with "God" in ST:V was bad enough, I don't want to have to give creedence to Satan, or "Lucien", too.

[NoClueBoy]

::: sigh :::

The owners of the Star Trek franchise, Paramount, have given a definitive answer.

What is canon?

As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live action episodes and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts. Story lines, characters, events, stardates, etc. that take place within the fictional novels, the Animated Adventures, and the various comic lines are not canon.

When in doubt, ask the people in charge.

[NoClueBoy]

The official exceptions:

There are only a couple of exceptions to this rule: the Jeri Taylor penned novels "Mosaic" and "Pathways." Many of the events in these two novels feature background details of the main Star Trek: Voyager characters. (Note: There are a few details from an episode of the Animated Adventures that have entered into the Star Trek canon. The episode "Yesteryear," written by D.C. Fontana, features some biographical background on Spock.)

I don't see any statements from Paramount taking that back, btw. So it seems to still stand.



A good site with further discussion

[Ephemera]

I seem to remember reading somewhere that they were decanonized when Taylor left Voyager but I could be wrong.

I'll try to find a cite.

[Ephemera]

While these aren't necessarily correct, they synch up with what I've read about the novels.

According to current editors at Pocket Books, current rights holders for publishing Star Trek fiction, no novels or other printed stories are considered canon by Paramount Pictures, owners of Star Trek. This includes the Voyager novels Pathways and Mosaic (both by the series producer Jeri Taylor) which were, for a time, considered canon but stopped being so after Taylor left her position with the series.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_(fiction)

And a thread about the books, including Mosaic and Pathways, at TrekBBS.

[rjung]

As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live action episodes and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts. Story lines, characters, events, stardates, etc. that take place within the fictional novels, the Animated Adventures, and the various comic lines are not canon.

This is why the Trek franchise largely sucks these days.

[Ephemera]

It sucks because Branon Braga is a hack, not because the novels aren't canon. As much as I love The New Frontier (which is what I assume you are referencing), making them canon would just be ... goofy. They're awesome books but they're also irreverent and more than a little satirical, which would jive well with established canon at all.

The DS9 Relaunch books, on the other hand, are some of the best Trek ever.