File talk:Warp field.png

Isn't this some fan made image on what if star trek warp would be like alcubierre warp... Delete, if so. --Pseudohuman 13:17, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall seeing an image similar to this in one of the shows. Which would make it a non-public domain image.  I'd prefer to keep it non-licensed at the moment. -- sulfur 13:41, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

I dont see how it could be, because warp fields don't work like this in star trek. --Pseudohuman 14:03, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Says who? This seems to line up with whats said on the warp field page. - 14:12, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

It's from pages like this Alcubierre warp is a real world science, not in-universe. --Pseudohuman 14:18, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, that exact image is on that page: http://www.andersoninstitute.com/images/alcubierre-warp-drive-top-view.jpg -- Renegade54 15:16, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * The most likely source for that image is still Wikipedia, which uses it on two pages for the in-universe warp drive and not on the page for the . - 15:27, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Warp drive in star trek does not contract and expand space as far as i know :D it submerges mass into subspace. This for example is a canonical actual screen capture image of the same thing. --Pseudohuman 15:58, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yet this canonical warp field image at Trekcore (left side) looks far more like a contraction and expansion that a submergence into subspace. Also, it has been stated in dialog that warp drive works by "warping" space around the ship, I don't remember anyone ever saying that they were submerging into subspace. - 16:15, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Okay so maybe the submerging mass into subspace is from tng tech manual, but dialoque from "Deja Q": "if we wrap a low level warp field around that moon, we could reduce its gravitational constant. Make it lighter..." and then they reduce the moons inertial mass so they can move it with a tractor beam. Same as in DS9 pilot "Emissary" when they lower the inertial mass of the station with a subspace field to move it with thrusters. That at least is canon, Alcubierre warp is not. Or please say which TNG episode this graphic is from that suggests they had alcubierre warp in mind proposed in may 1994 when the last episodes of TNG aired. lol. --Pseudohuman 17:25, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * That image is from and was on the set for seven years. If anything, the Alcubierre drive came from Star Trek, not the other way around. -  17:32, August 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * Either way, I'd prefer to see a rationale behind this image and a proper source, and if it's used on the AndersonInstitute page, then is it really Public Domain by the uploaded on Wikipedia? If it truly was used on TNG, then it needs proper attribution, because it certainly would not be Public Domain then. -- sulfur 17:40, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on the images, I would say the AndersonInstitute got their image from Wikipedia, where the copyright info says it's in the pd. As for if this was used in TNG, I would say this exact image wasn't, though I would swear something very similar was at some point, I just can't remember where. - 17:55, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

The image from "Where no one has gone before" and other eps is just an image of the forward and aft lobes of the tng-style warp field. They are identified in the screen graphics and dialogue of Deja Q as such. " I've been putting together a programme to extend the forward lobe of the warp field." --Pseudohuman 00:29, August 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's another line from (from here), Q: "And if you're wrong, the moon will crumble due to subspace compression." If correct, this pretty much says that the warp field is compressing subspace in front of the ship. (Update: Just checked the episode, that line is legit.) -  01:10, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

And that proves what? The wikipedia warp-article even talks about the Alcubierre warp in that part where the image is at "The idea of warping space as a means of propulsion has enjoyed theoretical study by physicists such as Miguel Alcubierre, who has designed his own hypothetical drive. So far, an approach that may be facilitated by our present level of technological advancement has yet to be proposed." and the image caption reads "The ship rests in a bubble of normal space." just as it would in an alcubierre warp field. And that page doesnt claim that has been adopted by trek producers. Are you seriously suggesting this should be a precedent for allowing us to add what is basically fan fiction into in-universe segments. Should i add images ghosts and images of ufos to ma too or info about quantum teleportation to the transporter article and state that that is how it was originally really meant to work in star trek. --Pseudohuman 09:17, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Pseudohuman, the only thing I think it proves you're overly obsessed with the real world theory. I'm not the one here that has been drawing conclusions from wikipedia text, other websites, and the tech manual. I'm not speculating that the Alcubierre drive is what Star Trek uses, you are. Everything I've said is straight from canon.
 * A warp field is "a subspace displacement which warps space around the vessel, allowing it to "ride" on a distortion".
 * Objects not entirely encompassed by the forward end of the field may be destroyed by "subspace compression".
 * There are visual displays from TNG season one to ENT season four showing several "lines" in, or around, the field, tightly spaced in front of a starship while spread out behind it.
 * These are the facts, whether you like them or not. I don't have a problem with this being moved into the background section of the article, since this particular image wasn't actually used in the show and is a conclusion based on citable canon facts, but I have not suggested we start adding fan fiction to articles. If you want to talk about reinterpreting canon to conform to fan speculation, I'll be more than happy to meet you back here, but I'm done with this. - 14:01, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

I like all the facts. This image however is not canon nor is it from a bg source or from apocrypha. Why insist on using it at all when there are canonical images available. Net is full of fanmade accurate cgi-models of ships that allow better images of some more obscure vessels, and we dont even use those. --Pseudohuman 15:41, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

To summarize my thoughts on this matter I would say that the main reason for removal should be that this image in my view belongs in the category of Fan-made blueprints and specifications which is an invalid resource in our canon policy. And as it contains several bits of fan speculation it is misleading to the reader. According to the STTNGTM the lines on the warp field graphics represent several layers of warp fields, so interpreting them to represent spatial expansion and contraction is pretty much fan speculation in contradiction of bg-material, also subspace compressions and displacements are not necessarely automatically the same thing as these localized spatial distortions in front and behind the ship. If it was i would expect to see these visual lensing effects in front and behind the vessel every time they go to warp. Those arent there so this is even contradicting canon in that way. Also there is the very fact that star trek warp drive is based on the fictional subspace and the alcubierre warp which is what this image represents is not. --Pseudohuman 15:19, September 19, 2010 (UTC)