Without low-effort, low quality trolls it might go back to being nearly as good as ?off

how long would it take

At the speed of light?
Impractical Economist
April 24th, 2007 10:36pm
Heh-heh.  I assume it would take 20.5 years?  Or do light years translate that way?
sharkfish
April 24th, 2007 10:39pm
That's pretty much how it works.

I think time for you would slow down for you or even stop.

Goddamnit woman, I'm an Impractical Economist, not a Theoretical Physicist.
Impractical Economist
April 24th, 2007 10:43pm
" It is the total distance that a beam of light, moving in a straight line, travels in one year."

After having expressed my woeful ignorance, I then Googled the answer to my question.

Sigh.  Even in warp drive, I wouldn't get there fast enough.

Now to look up the highest speeds you can travel in "warp drive"...
sharkfish
April 24th, 2007 10:44pm
"he warp factors above warp 10 in the TOS, such as the one above, were slower than warp 10 on the new scale. According to The Star Trek Encyclopedia, warp 6 (new scale) is equal to 392c (392 times the speed of light, c) and about warp 7.3 on the old scale, whereas warp 9.2 new, to about 1649c and warp 11.8 on the old scale."

Impractical Economist
April 24th, 2007 10:48pm
Thank you.  I am satisfied.
sharkfish
April 24th, 2007 10:55pm
Hey, if it's answers to fake physics questions, I'm all over it.
Impractical Economist
April 24th, 2007 10:57pm
From Earth's point of view, or the travelers?

Once you get over about 50% C, time and relativity factors enter into play.  If you COULD do it close to the speed of light, your clock would slow down to the point where it wouldn't be 20 years for you.

Of course, there's all that tedious speeding up and slowing down, those take some time.
SaveTheHubble
April 24th, 2007 11:10pm
Doesn't warp bend space rather than make you move through it? So you would not have the relativistic time dilation effects.
Practical Economist
April 24th, 2007 11:58pm
Also, don't fall for that 'habitable' planet stuff. Planet with that length year is not going to have an atmosphere - they are just trolling for links.
Practical Economist
April 25th, 2007 12:00am
Not that there is a planet there anyway. It's not like they have ever actually seen a planet. They just look at minute periodic fluctuations in light intensity and claim that means they've discovered a planet.
Practical Economist
April 25th, 2007 12:02am
> Doesn't warp bend space rather than make you move through it?

That was the explanation in the pilot episode that went unaired, but the explanations changed after that.
Impractical Economist
April 25th, 2007 1:05am
Here's some warp drive ideas NASA is thinking about:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/research/warp/ideachev.html
Practical Economist
April 25th, 2007 1:41am
More of the same: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/research/warp/possible.html

Those Zero-Point Modules (ZPMs) from Star Gate are a real thingy sort of.
Practical Economist
April 25th, 2007 1:43am
ZPMz are pretty bad ass motherfuckers:

"there is enough energy in the volume the size of a coffee cup to boil away Earth’s oceans" - NASA
Practical Economist
April 25th, 2007 1:45am