Discuss Star Trek: Deep Space Nine

As was the case in some other episodes, they screwed up some speed-of-light stuff here. Supposedly the fleets would have been destroyed by a supernova, but even a supernova doesn't exceed the speed of light. So all the ships could have escaped at just Warp One.

75 replies (on page 5 of 5)

Jump to last post

Previous page

Quite so. Even the early Earth freighter ships could reach almost warp 2. Which would be either 4 or 8 times the speed of light, depending on which scale you use.

Which is why I don't understand why somebody brings up an hypothetical particle that presumably can go faster than the speed of light.

I think it was just an excuse to try and cover the it-takes-40,000-years-for-a-signal-to-travel-40,000-light-years error.

@Nexus71 said:

Which is why I don't understand why somebody brings up an hypothetical particle that presumably can go faster than the speed of light.



AND EVIDENCE also EXISTS that such CONDITIONS take place during a SUPER NOVA.

You 2 are IMPOSSIBLE whenever it comes to trying to EXPLAIN anything TO YOU.



But supernova explosions don't travel at Warp speed

The science of today will not be the science of hundreds of years from now just as the science of today is not the science of hundreds of years in our past


Einstein’s theories suggest that light can not travel faster than c, a constant equal to the speed of light in a vacuum, which is 299,792,458 metres per second (by definition) or about 186,282.4 miles per second. All of our standing physical models are based on this assumption, and so far this idea has yet to be proven wrong, despite the neutrino incident from CERN which was later found to be false (at some time neutrinos were found to travel slightly faster than photos, but this was later proven to be due an error in measuring). A study of a 25-year old supernova may lead to a revision of “c”, if its findings are found to be correct. As you might imagine, the implications are huge since the speed of light in vacuum is used as a constant in all astronomical calculations and observations.

SN 1987A was first observed in February, 1987 when it baffled some scientists with an intriguing anomaly. After a star collapses, traditionally a super nova should immediately emit a burst of neutrinos, followed by a time delayed burst of photons. In the case of SN 1987, this time delay it greater than it should have been as the optical light arrived roughly 7.7 hours after the neutrinos, or 4.7 hours late instead of the expected 3 hours delay.

Why this differences? Three scenarios have been proposed: the optical photons traveled slower than c, they were emitted later than expected, or they originated from a totally separate and irrelevant event. Typically the last scenario has been used to explain this phenomenon, but James Franson and colleagues at the University of Maryland claim they have found evidence that suggests that light doesn’t actually travel at c in a vacuum – a ...

you’d need to study at least a couple of dozen super novae to gather data of the required statistical significance to prove or disprove the paper. As almost always the case, scientists will have to wait many, many years until anything of the sorts can be done.

The paper appeared in the New Journal of Physics.


Since the 1987 explosion took place in the Andromeda galaxy which is roughly 2 milion lightyears away the photons and neutrinos could have been affected by numerous sources of strong gravity such as dark matter ,neutron stars or black holes which could account for the anomalies.

I'm sure those who published the paper would have also taken such things into account???

And we're still also faced with this PREMISE that was ORIGINALLY PUT FORTH by KNIX in the OP:

a supernova doesn't exceed the speed of light

which the paper also suggests is WRONG.


The part of the supernova that causes damage doesn't we have hardly mapped all the black holes in our Milky Way who knows how many lie hidden in the vast empty space between the Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxy because we can't directly detect them without it feeding on a neighbouring star or nebula.

Sorry but you've LOST me here.

Which part of it DOESN'T CAUSE DAMAGE???

The particles that go faster than light.

But at PLANCK TEMPERATURE there wouldn't be PARTICLES.

Just some kind of PRIMORDIAL SOUP stuff where all of the 4 FORCES would also be COMBINED again.

Even if some special effect were achieved inside the immediate "sphere" of the supernova, what reason is there to believe that the effect would continue and allow for exceeding the speed of light for something like 2 million light-years?

Also, I would point out if that supernova happened 2 millions years ago, and anything from it traveled at 4 times the speed of light, THOSE would have been here in 500,000 years, not 2 million. So although we SEE the 2-million-year-old supernova NOW, those 4c... particles, whatever... would have been here 1.5 million years ago. Good luck detecting them.

Of course, if anything of a supernova traveled at 4 times the speed of light, over enough distance to make any difference, then starships just escape it using WARP THREE. Sheesh.

I know

Can't find a movie or TV show? Login to create it.


s focus the search bar
p open profile menu
esc close an open window
? open keyboard shortcut window

On media pages

b go back (or to parent when applicable)
e go to edit page

On TV season pages

(right arrow) go to next season
(left arrow) go to previous season

On TV episode pages

(right arrow) go to next episode
(left arrow) go to previous episode

On all image pages

a open add image window

On all edit pages

t open translation selector
ctrl+ s submit form

On discussion pages

n create new discussion
w toggle watching status
p toggle public/private
c toggle close/open
a open activity
r reply to discussion
l go to last reply
ctrl+ enter submit your message
(right arrow) next page
(left arrow) previous page

Want to rate or add this item to a list?