# Question for Star Trek Fans **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [December 21, 2004, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-star-trek-fans/280972 "2004-12-21T14:51:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-star-trek-fans/280972/1 "2004-12-21T14:51:36Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-star-trek-fans/280972/2 "2004-12-21T14:53:25Z")
Because that wouldn’t be any fun. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-star-trek-fans/280972/3 "2004-12-21T14:57:04Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Ephemera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@Ephemera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ephemera)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-star-trek-fans/280972/4 "2004-12-21T14:57:35Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-star-trek-fans/280972/5 "2004-12-21T14:59:35Z")
> [@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? ---
**Author:** ![Ephemera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@Ephemera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ephemera)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-star-trek-fans/280972/6 "2004-12-21T15:03:17Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-star-trek-fans/280972/7 "2004-12-21T15:04:01Z")
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… ---
**Author:** ![Ephemera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@Ephemera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ephemera)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-star-trek-fans/280972/8 "2004-12-21T15:06:45Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-star-trek-fans/280972/9 "2004-12-21T15:20:12Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Ephemera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@Ephemera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ephemera)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-star-trek-fans/280972/10 "2004-12-21T15:22:28Z")
Full impulse is 0.25c and, so far as I know, that’s just ignored. ---
**Author:** ![BMalion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@BMalion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BMalion)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-star-trek-fans/280972/11 "2004-12-21T15:24:44Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Small\_Clanger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@Small\_Clanger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Small_Clanger)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-star-trek-fans/280972/12 "2004-12-21T15:26:53Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-star-trek-fans/280972/13 "2004-12-21T15:34:50Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![CynicalGabe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@CynicalGabe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CynicalGabe)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-star-trek-fans/280972/14 "2004-12-21T15:37:22Z")
[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. ---
**Author:** ![Ephemera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@Ephemera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ephemera)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-star-trek-fans/280972/15 "2004-12-21T15:44:50Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![AncientHumanoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ancienthumanoid/32/278_2.png) [@AncientHumanoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AncientHumanoid)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-star-trek-fans/280972/16 "2004-12-21T16:38:23Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Small\_Clanger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@Small\_Clanger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Small_Clanger)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-star-trek-fans/280972/17 "2004-12-21T16:38:30Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![AncientHumanoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ancienthumanoid/32/278_2.png) [@AncientHumanoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AncientHumanoid)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-star-trek-fans/280972/18 "2004-12-21T16:51:02Z")
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. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Ephemera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@Ephemera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ephemera)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-star-trek-fans/280972/19 "2004-12-21T17:08:41Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-star-trek-fans/280972/20 "2004-12-21T17:14:46Z")
I don’t care what anyone says, the cartoon is canon by any reasonable definition of the word. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-star-trek-fans/280972.md?page=2)