|
Post by zholud on Apr 30, 2004 5:01:07 GMT -5
To continue comparison with the forest, I give you my point of view on things: Ordinary guy are blind man in a forest – that’s why dangers of the warp and other stuff. Good advice it to stay at home or at least use ropes, etc. in any case – extremely dangerous travel. Navigator can see, and he will not drop in nearest hole or breaks leg on roots… but he is no ranger too, he just can see.
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Apr 30, 2004 6:08:03 GMT -5
Difficult to find a good metaphor for this stuff, especially if you want to find an aquatic one, since we've mostly used aquatic metaphors to describe the warp and warp travel.
I'll just come right out and say it. Calculated warp jumps are are made by warp cogitators (computers) that calculate the direction the ship needs to take in the warp in order to reach its destination. Calculated warp jumps take a long time because you have no one to navigate within the warp, and harness the warp currents to the full. Instead, you are almost at the warp currents' mercy. I would also suggest that when travelling long distances with calculated jumps, it is sometimes wise to jump from system to system, since these actually have a gravitational pull in the warp, and are thus easier to navigate by than a given spot in deep space.
Navigators have the advantage of being able to use the warp currents and navigate freely in the warp. Thank's to their third eye, they can actually see within the warp, making it far easier to reach a given system. You wouldn't see a ship with a navigator worth his salt appearing in some system and going "Huh? This isn't where we're supposed to be", because a Navigator can see where others are blind, and always has the beacons of the Astronomican to navigate by.
Warp routes are of great use to both ships with and without navigators. Ships using calculated jumps can use warp routes to increase their speed many times over, since you either have incredibly strong currents that will pull you along with little needed effort in ways of navigation, only requiring you to drop out of the warp at your destination. Warp routes also typically have beacons, which needless to say are of great advantage to both navigators and warp cogitators. I don't think I have to explain the navigators, but the cogitators can use these beacons to more accurately calculate their exit point.
If I were to use a non-aquatic metaphor it would be this; The warp is a forest at night. The warp route is a small brook running through this forest. Ships that make calculated jumps must walk or even crawl alongside the brook to follow it, constantly using their hands to accertain themselves that they are close to the brook. Navigators can see in the dark. They don't really need to use the brook (warp route), but since it's a forest with plants growing everywhere, it's faster to just run on this brook than forcing your way through all kinds of bushery.
But really, no metaphor is needed.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Apr 30, 2004 8:53:31 GMT -5
Difficult to find a good metaphor for this stuff, especially if you want to find an aquatic one, since we've mostly used aquatic metaphors to describe the warp and warp travel. Metaphors tend to break down when one comes to certain features, but they're not that hard to find. Instead, you are almost at the warp currents' mercy. With, of course, duration within the warp varying as a function of computerised prediction of the 'flow characteristcs' of the current/whatever in question. I would also suggest that when travelling long distances with calculated jumps, it is sometimes wise to jump from system to system, since these actually have a gravitational pull in the warp, and are thus easier to navigate by than a given spot in deep space. Remembering, of course, that jumps are generally restricted to 1 to 5 light years for calculated warp jumps (i.e. at most just under two parsecs or the base (ish) units of our coordinate system)... By inference some jumps are by definition going to be less than the distance between two star systems. However, it does create a system by which one has defined transit networks which would be useful... But one in which stable warp pathways are incredible common, which might not be the image that many people are comfortable with. Not sure of it myself. Transportation, ultimately, should be achievable between the subsectors and restricting this to Navigated travel would be a severe mistake. All it would have done is extended the 'castle approach' for Imperial worlds to subsectors... Not saying that is what you're suggesting, just killing that one before it comes up. Thank's to their third eye, they can actually see within the warp, making it far easier to reach a given system. Note the disprepany in the 'fluff': the warp can be viewed and imaged by computers, but they cannot react to it? Strange that... Navigators' abilities are predicated upon the vision of the warp and they can react to it? Perhaps that is why they have retained fingers unlike their inspired forms from Dune: they need fingers to push buttons and, after all, computers don't have fingers... Warp routes also typically have beacons, which needless to say are of great advantage to both navigators and warp cogitators. That's a new one on me. I know that the Tau have reference to 'beacons' but I didn't think that GW had extended this to Imperial systems, especially given the nature of 'warp beacons' they have used in the past (i.e. psychic in origin). I don't think I have to explain the navigators, but the cogitators can use these beacons to more accurately calculate their exit point. It's the equivalent of an equals sign... it's just the bit where you end the equation! Or the lighthouse... or any other number of things. But one should definitely not over-state the importance of these 'beacons'. And if one does then the subsequent implication is that they must be 'rare'... But really, no metaphor is needed. <grin> No. We all know the 'fluff' and even where it is broken. So thanks for that... Metaphors do allow us a qualitative means of modelling how the warp works. That's why I've always used the "aquatic metaphor". It is consistent with the imagery that GW has engendered with their ships rather than the "terrestrial metaphor"... But that's just me. Regardless, we're ultimately going to need to create a number of 'stable warp pathways' which will mimic the dominant trade routes of the sector. Furthermore, this ultimately is going to tie into the 'Heart of the Sector'. The lack of resolution there is becoming problematic, true, but there we go... Kage
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Apr 30, 2004 9:20:48 GMT -5
Metaphors tend to break down when one comes to certain features, but they're not that hard to find. Well, I was thinking about a metaphor with swimming with and without goggles, but I'd end up having to explain it with fluff anyway, so I figured I'd just drop it.. With, of course, duration within the warp varying as a function of computerised prediction of the 'flow characteristcs' of the current/whatever in question. Of course Remembering, of course, that jumps are generally restricted to 1 to 5 light years for calculated warp jumps (i.e. at most just under two parsecs or the base (ish) units of our coordinate system)... By inference some jumps are by definition going to be less than the distance between two star systems. Of course This is why I wrote 'sometimes wise' instead of 'always'. However, it does create a system by which one has defined transit networks which would be useful... But one in which stable warp pathways are incredible common, which might not be the image that many people are comfortable with. Not sure of it myself. Transportation, ultimately, should be achievable between the subsectors and restricting this to Navigated travel would be a severe mistake. All it would have done is extended the 'castle approach' for Imperial worlds to subsectors... Not saying that is what you're suggesting, just killing that one before it comes up. That wasn't what I was suggesting, no. I'm just saying that travelling from system to system could facilitate navigation. Note the disprepany in the 'fluff': the warp can be viewed and imaged by computers, but they cannot react to it? Remember that the Imperium does not have very advanced computers, so it's conceivable that their warp cogitators don't have the capacity to replace navigators. If they could instantly view and image the warp, and constantly calculate the best route to their destination, they would be the same as Navigators, and there would be no purpose in exiting the warp from time to time, as we've previously suggested. Besides... I don't remember anything about warp cogitators in the fluff.. I figured this was our own invention. That's a new one on me. I know that the Tau have reference to 'beacons' but I didn't think that GW had extended this to Imperial systems, especially given the nature of 'warp beacons' they have used in the past (i.e. psychic in origin). It really shouldn't be a new one to you, considering it has been discussed on the forum before. And you have replied to those messages yourself........ Anyway, IIRC, Tau beacons are entirely mechanical creations. I'm suggesting no such thing, but rather small psyker choirs, similar to that on Earth, but obviously far less potent. It's the equivalent of an equals sign... it's just the bit where you end the equation! Or the lighthouse... or any other number of things. But one should definitely not over-state the importance of these 'beacons'. And if one does then the subsequent implication is that they must be 'rare'... Of course Regardless, we're ultimately going to need to create a number of 'stable warp pathways' which will mimic the dominant trade routes of the sector. Furthermore, this ultimately is going to tie into the 'Heart of the Sector'. The lack of resolution there is becoming problematic, true, but there we go... No one ever said this would be easy ;D
|
|
|
Post by Destecado on Apr 30, 2004 13:16:08 GMT -5
Kage, I've read through most of the information about warp space on the link you posted. Although i don't agree with everything, it is interesting. I'll PM you with my ideas on the subject rather than posting them here and taking us off the topic of warp routes and currents.
if we are looking for a metaphor to explain the movement of ships through the warp, I think we should use the one of a submarine more than a surface vessel. Surface vessels are for the most part 2 dimensional in their relationship to the fluid medium 9unless they're sinking). A submersible deals in three dimensional travel.
Currents are still important to the discussion of submersibles, the also provide us with the additional variables of depth and pressure, which when speaking of the warp can be used to represent the stress the warp can place on the outer hull of ships.
I've found an interesting article that deals with Chaos Theory which might explain the reason why the mind of a navigator allows for great control or abilities in the warp than that of a programed (calculated) jump.
This deals with the Butterfly Effect. The following is an explanation of this effect from "Does God Play Dice? The Mathematics of Chaos" by Ian Stewart.
The flapping of a single butterfly's wing today produces a tiny change in the state of the atmosphere. Over a period of time, what the atmosphere actually does diverges from what it would have done. So, in a month's time, a tornado that would have devastated the Indonesian coast doesn't happen. Or maybe one that wasn't going to happen, does.
The Butterfly Effect is also known as sensitive dependence on initial conditions. A small change in the initial conditions can drastically change the long-term behavior of a system. A small amount of difference in a measurement might be considered experimental noise, background noise, or an inaccuracy of the equipment. With a starting number of 2, the final result can be entirely different from the same system with a starting value of 2.000001.
In a calculated jump, the computer (logic engine, machine spirit) would run a predesignated program on a given set of parameters. If there were any inaccuracies in the data entered or if upon entering warp space unexpected phenomena were encountered, this could throw off the calculations of the jump.
Going with the submersible analogy, I am reminded of a scene from the Hunt for Red October, where the Red October is running the trench at the bottom of the ocean because they have very good maps of it. If those maps or their calculations were off by a small degree, the submarine would have slammed into the wall of the trench.
Warp routes may be similarly mapped or consistant enough to allow forcasting of given phenonenon which would allow jumps to be made without a navigator. The jumps are usually short in distance, because if there are any errors, the longer the jump, the greater the error might become.
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Apr 30, 2004 14:36:41 GMT -5
Kage, I've read through most of the information about warp space on the link you posted. Although i don't agree with everything, it is interesting. I'll PM you with my ideas on the subject rather than posting them here and taking us off the topic of warp routes and currents. Why not post it in a new thread? If we're to agree on anything related to the warp, it's fairly important that we're working from common grounds. That's not to say that we should find an alternative that everyone agrees with 100%, since that would probably take months of discussion, but at least a basic idea that most of the primary project leaders agree with, and that Kage can stamp as 'the law'. if we are looking for a metaphor to explain the movement of ships through the warp, I think we should use the one of a submarine more than a surface vessel. Probably, but GW tends to stick with surface vessel metaphors, and it's hard to find good metaphors for submarines. For example, I don't think currents are that vital for submarines. If you're keen on a metaphor that deals with three-dimensional travel, consider a gliding aircraft or a paraglider. Currents are still important to the discussion of submersibles, the also provide us with the additional variables of depth and pressure, which when speaking of the warp can be used to represent the stress the warp can place on the outer hull of ships. Why do we need to bring depth and pressure into the equation? I don't see how this is parallel to warp travel. Would it be possible to travel "deeper" into the warp? Are there different depths in the warp, varying distances from the surface that is the physical realm? I've found an interesting article that deals with Chaos Theory which might explain the reason why the mind of a navigator allows for great control or abilities in the warp than that of a programed (calculated) jump. I don't see how the Butterfly effect is relevant either... maybe I should get more sleep Perhaps the famous line by Han Solo describing the delicate nature of light travel would be better? "We could bounce through a black hole or into a Super Nova, and that would end this little trip fast" Going with the submersible analogy, I am reminded of a scene from the Hunt for Red October, where the Red October is running the trench at the bottom of the ocean because they have very good maps of it. If those maps or their calculations were off by a small degree, the submarine would have slammed into the wall of the trench. The problem with this metaphor is that there are no warp maps. There are maps of sectors and subsectors, and I imagine that these are very, very accurate, but warp maps would be useless, considering the dynamic and chaotic nature of the warp. But I really think all this talk about metaphores and analogies is throwing us off track. Perhaps we should stick with the hard reality of the Warhammer 40,000 universe? If the only difference between navigated warp jumps and calculated warp jumps is that calculated warp jumps are normally shorter, because of the risks involved with long calculated jumps, then why would calculated warp jumps be so much slower than navigated jumps? We should be careful that we're not making Navigators close to obsolete here. One might suggest that these calculations take a long time, with the computer having to calculate patterns and currents in the warp. The longer the time spent on calculation, the safer the jump. Nonetheless, there's always a chance that the warp has changed more than the computer originally predicted, throwing the ship off course or worse. If this is all there is to it, I'm having difficulties thinking of reasons there would be warp routes....
|
|
|
Post by Destecado on Apr 30, 2004 15:56:47 GMT -5
Why not post it in a new thread? If we're to agree on anything related to the warp, it's fairly important that we're working from common grounds. That's not to say that we should find an alternative that everyone agrees with 100%, since that would probably take months of discussion, but at least a basic idea that most of the primary project leaders agree with, and that Kage can stamp as 'the law'. If you'd like, I will post the info here, but I guarantee it will give most people a headache. It has to do with fractals and chaos theory. If your interested, the following link will help to explain the basics of chaos theory and fractals. www.imho.com/grae/chaos/chaos.htmlWhy do we need to bring depth and pressure into the equation? I don't see how this is parallel to warp travel. Would it be possible to travel "deeper" into the warp? Are there different depths in the warp, varying distances from the surface that is the physical realm? The following link comes from one of Kage's earlier posts. It is his interpretation of the topography of the warp as well as its different layers. www.geocities.com/ka_ge2020/rtwarpfr.htmI don't see how the Butterfly effect is relevant either... maybe I should get more sleep Perhaps the famous line by Han Solo describing the delicate nature of light travel would be better? "We could bounce through a black hole or into a Super Nova, and that would end this little trip fast" That is pretty much the point, if the calculations are off, you could find yourself exiting the warp in the heart of a sun or be thrown off course. The problem with this metaphor is that there are no warp maps. There are maps of sectors and subsectors, and I imagine that these are very, very accurate, but warp maps would be useless, considering the dynamic and chaotic nature of the warp. This is where the discussion of chaos theory comes in. Chaos, or what we think of as chaos is not completely random. There is an underlying patter that can be identified. To take an example from the above link on chaos theory, let us discuss the flipping of a coin. There are two variables in a flipping coin: how soon it hits the ground, and how fast it is flipping. Theoretically, it should be possible to control these variables entirely and control how the coin will end up. In practice, it is impossible to control exactly how fast the coin flips and how high it flips, but it is possible to put the variables into a certain range. Warp currents can be thought of as more stabilized areas of the warp or ares that flow in specific patterns that help to minimize the variables necessary to make a jump. By traveling on the warp routes, the probabilities for deviation in the variable can be lessesen, there by lessening the risk inherrant in calculated jumps. You can therefore forecast how the coin will land based on the input data. It does not always come up the way that has been forecast, just like all ships that enter the warp don't always come out where (if at all) or when they expect. If the only difference between navigated warp jumps and calculated warp jumps is that calculated warp jumps are normally shorter, because of the risks involved with long calculated jumps, then why would calculated warp jumps be so much slower than navigated jumps? We should be careful that we're not making Navigators close to obsolete here. Navigators can travel off of the normal warp routes our outside of the warp currents that calculated jump rely upon. It is theorized that the brain functions using some of the priciples of chaos theory. If this is the case then perhaps the third eye also access parts of the brain or functions in the brain that the normal human does not use. It allows them to make corrections or changes in the war, where a logic engine does not have the capability. This enters into the realm of intuition and fuzzy logic, which I do not beleive imperial machines would be equiped with. They may have been found in the more advance A.I.s of the Dark Age of Technology, but they are long gone in the current 40k universe.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Apr 30, 2004 18:21:01 GMT -5
Well, multiple posts to reply to so I'm guessing it's back to the Portent method of quoting... It wouldn't do any harm... and is that navigation or Navigation? I didn't really mention the replacement of navigators, just pointed out the 'fluff' is glitchy. Imperial technology can abstractly represent the warp and display this. It also uses this information to make a 'calculated' warp jump which, if my quick skim read, is ultimately how Destecado's "Butterfly effect" comes into play, i.e. precipitation causes a change to the system limiting the level of calculations that can be made. With reference to the Imperial computers, I would imagine that they are significantly in advance of anything that we can currently imagine. Well, that might be over-stating it a bit... How about anything that we could currently produce. Retro-tech imagery only goes so far when one considers what the Imperium is capable of. The 'fluff' only states that this is the process that it takes before it is in the warp. The simple solution is that one can only look into the system, not through the system... But that is yet another glitch in the 'fluff': they say that it can be artificially represented in the 'fluff' (although only a minor reference)... Personally I'd go for non-viewal of the system when you're in it unless you happen to be a Navigator who have been vision systems rolled into one... Well, there is this... Might be useful... I would have imagined in the context of extension of the Astronomican and as a sub-Astronomican form, not as an endemic feature of stable warp pathways. On major pathways perhaps, but even then one could question the need or desire given the presence of the Astronomican... but there we go. Which are fascinating in and of themselves... especially given the 'fluff'. And I'm merely pointing out redundancy at this juncture. [/b][/quote] I don't agree with everything either... it was written quite some time ago. The information on Webway interaction and the sub-manifold is glitchy, if nothing else. Plus, it was pretty much shooting in the dark given the glitchy 'fluff' and the lack of cohesive imagery from GW. (It goes from being a sea of energy to being composed, essentially, of 'daemons'... Okay, not entirely but kind of...) A new thread or continuation in this one seems the easiest. After all, we can fairly safely suppose that only two or three people will respond to it! As CELS later points out, though, surface ship activity is an incredibly big imagery draw for GW. Furthermore, the reference to 'currents' splits between the subsurface and the surface concepts. I would say that as best as possible we work with both... Agreed, though I wouldn't want to get too far into the 'deep=pressure' concept, though it has been suggested as a means of explaining the discrepancy between Tau and Imperial warp travel (though 'fan 'fluff'')...
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Apr 30, 2004 18:21:50 GMT -5
Exactly. But as variation is introduced into those parameters, with extension of calculation by function of journey time, there is an increasing probability of break-down in said calculations. You'll have dendritic probability branches which rapidly approach incredibly large numbers... Hadn't thought of that one before. Intriguing. Interesting, although then we get into considerations of lift, buoyancy, etc. Isn't it weird how there are problems with every analogy... It has been suggested, partially by myself to an extent. Of course, one has to question the dimensional nature of 'depth' in the Warp. Some have it as time, though the concept of analogous position in spacetime makes this problematic. Only that by making an action within the system one can change the dynamics of that system. I'm not overtly keen on introducing the concept that ship A in Castellan making a jump to Anargo creates a warp storm that devastates Cruciatine, however... Hmmn... seems partially erroneous. Not only does Abaddon maintain an "archaeotech" device capable of indicating warp reality over a given area, but the Navigator in Farseer also has an "ancient map" of pathways into the Eye of Terror, of all things... (And with regards to the Abaddon device, the fact that calculated jumps can do this is yet another example of where GW go "cool" without actually thinking that they have already created this as a standard technology! ) With the entirely ridiculous nature of that comment as an aside (i.e. 'hard reality' of a 'fantasy game'), once again I would suggest that a good working description of the warp is necessary, and this is best achieved through analogy to the 'fluff' as much as possible. I'm sorry, but there really is so little consistent information on the warp and warp travel for it to be useful. (Of course, some would argue that is the point...) Navigators are never going to be obsolete. To use a surface ship analogy, Navigators allow trans-oceanic travel. They're like the invention of accurate clocks. Everyone else is left with land hugging unless you're lucky enough to live on an archipelago! Now that is something that I agree with... remembering that it also has to be able to see the warp to make those calculations. Again an older interpretation with it's own set of glitches... Although there really is no point getting too bogged down in the science as long as we understand some of the broad concepts. Chaos Theory is useful but can lead to some problems... The simple solution to this is to go back to the 'fluff': the stable warp pathways and other such features are the 'remains' of the so-called harmonious warp... privileged communication routes extended into the warp or whatever. Over that is the skein of chaos... Yep, wishy washy, but a basis... I would suggest that saying all travel occurs along stable warp pathways could be problematic, especially since it removes the possibility of "people going where they shouldn't". That's one of the reasons that I created the 'Torison Distortion Factor' as a limiting means of travel (though it doesn't quite work like that): past a certain threshold the 'science' breaks down and you move into art. Depends on who you listen to, but then again I'm all for having MIs (Machine Intelloigence as opposed to AI=PI which is 'created' intelligence) as limited to a level of technology beyond that of the current Imperium! Kage
|
|
|
Post by CELS on May 1, 2004 4:50:44 GMT -5
This long posts with a billion quotes are just too damn tiresome, so I'm gonna try and make my reply a bit more coherent. If I've missed anything, let me know. 1) Warp routes have formed over the millennia as Imperial astronomers have mapped out the fastest routes based warp currents, and to a lesser degree, beacons. 2) Warp routes considerably increase speed because of the strong and (relatively) stable warp currents which facilitate Navigation and calculated warp jumps. 3) Some warp routes do not have stable warp currents, but are so vital that Astronomican beacons are placed, consisting of choirs of psykers. Though these cannot compare to the Astronomican choir on earth (like comparing a candle to the moon), they do help ships to home in on their locations, acting as a point of reference in especially turbulent areas of the warp. (If no one has ever heard of Imperial beacons, perhaps we should just drop them. I just thought I rememberd reading about them, and though I can't find the source, zholud seemed to remember them too...) 4) Most ships with warp drives have built-in computers that can make short distance warp jumps without the need of Navigators. These warp jumps are made by first spending a great period of time analysing the warp in the chosen direction, to form a safe route. There is no set period of time needed to make an un- Navigated jump, but the more time is spent analysing and calculating, the safer the jump. 5) Navigators are preferable over computers because they don't have to spend ages analyzing and calculating, but can just hop into the warp and find a safe route as they go along. This enables them to make longer jumps, because they don't have to drop out of the warp every few light years to make new calculations. In addition, the Navigators sometimes have superior speed even over short distanses, since they are able to react to the changes in the warp, and don't have to rely on a certain plan or route. If a better route opens up, they can just change course. 6) I'd still argue that there are no warp maps. There might be maps of warp routes, which are by definition relatively stable. I'm thinking that the Farseer had a map of warp routes, and that Abaddon just has a fancy warp computer, which is similar to the normal ones in principle, but many, many times better. PS: The "hard reality" comment was tongue-in-cheek, Kage
|
|
|
Post by Destecado on May 1, 2004 8:46:38 GMT -5
I think what CELS is refering to is a Telepathica Matrix. A Telepathica Matrix boosts the psychic Astropath signal for intragalactic communication. It was mentioned in the fluff about the first tyranic war. Inquisitor Kryptman tried to send a warning to the Imperium from the matrix on Thandros. these stations are more of a method of sending messages quickly across the Imperium rather than actual homing becons for warp travel. I guess they can serve that purpose as well, but additional information about these stations may be found on the following link. www.criticalhit.co.uk/w40krp/wd140_adeptus_astra_telepathica.shtmlI'm also attaching three links that provide information about the Navigator families, the Adeptus Astronomica and the canon fluff on warp travel which should aid in our discussion. www.criticalhit.co.uk/w40krp/wd140_navis_nobilite.shtmlwww.criticalhit.co.uk/w40krp/wd140_adeptus_astronomica.shtmlwww.criticalhit.co.uk/w40krp/wd139_interstellar_travel.shtmlIf we compile the fluff information from the disparate sources, we may be able to come up with a more cohesive explanation of warp space or at the least a beter explanation of that part of warp space that ships travel through.
|
|
|
Post by CELS on May 1, 2004 9:07:42 GMT -5
Actually, it was not what I was referring to, but I'm starting to doubt if these "beacons" are the result of my constructive memory rather than something from the fluff... Time will tell. The beacons aren't really important anyway. We'll do fine with just the current-based warp routes. Good to have all these links up though. But let's focus on warp travel and warp routes in this thread, and discuss the nature of the warp in a seperate thread, if you please. Did you agree with my points, 1, 2, 3 and 5? Btw, Destecado, you wrote one comment I failed to reply to; "If this is the case then perhaps the third eye also access parts of the brain or functions in the brain that the normal human does not use. " Are you referring to the popular myth that humans use only 10% or 50% of their brain capacity? *cracks knuckles and waits for a chance to flaunt his basic knowledge of psychology*
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on May 1, 2004 9:12:38 GMT -5
This long posts with a billion quotes are just too damn tiresome... <grin> They can be, but so can catching up. I've also found that synopses, while useful, can often obfuscate what is being said. In nearly all examples that I've encountered, including my own... Numbered bullet points have a way of quickly getting out of hand unless care is taken. So, here's a go. Point 1.0 - Formation of warp routesWarp routes - presumably you're talking about stable warp pathways - seem to be formed both naturally and, with the Pendulum Tide phenomenon but also general opinion, xenopogenically. Thus the idea that stable warp pathways will mimic established routes formed over time by constant activity... As the 'forest analogy' shows, walk along a route long enough and you're going to wear a rut. But that doesn't mean that ruts cannot form naturally (heavy rains causing minor channels) or if the flow is strong and constant enough, cutting streams, becks and even rivers. It would therefore seem reasonable that warp routes are formed as a 'natural' process of the warp itself, as well as from xenogenesis (i.e. Pendulum Tide, 'trade routes'). One might find a reasonable explanatory mechanism in the concept of the harmonised warp, i.e. they are the patterned skein of interaction between the natural warp interlaced with the 'chaotic manifestation' which is rife as a result of the Chaos Powers etc. One might also consider the warps supposed atemporality in this regard (i.e. stable warp pathways can exist through xenogenesis before the xenons are there... though that gets into temporal paradox and, as pointed out before, perhaps to be avoided for that reason). Point 1.1 - BeaconsAny form of beacon - regardless of the source - is not going to form a stable pathway, but perhaps mark one. And this is also a point of debate in some regards. Point 2.0 - Relative travel speed in 'stable warp pathways' It is not strictly necessary for speed to be increased within a 'stable warp pathway' since, in many ways the displacement of distance is only partially analogous to transit time. One must always consider the temporal nature of the warp (i.e. the difference between journey time and transit time; another feature that some have attributed to 'depth'). One thing is clear, however: they ameliorate the supposed danger of non-pathway Warp travel, a reasonable assumption given the above comments about the dendritic probabilities resulting from precipitatoin and the resultant problems of Destecado's "start point conditions" (paraphrased). By normalising the flow characteristics of the warp into reasonable predictable conditions/parameters, the journey becomes safer and, in such way, faster. I would still say that the established limit of 1-5 light years would still hold out, at least at this point. Point 2.1 - Conflicting imagery on 'stable warp pathways'At present I see the 'stable warp pathway' as, well, a stable artefact, one that should not be strictly be considered to be the same as a 'warp current'. The Sargassos Gulf would seem, ultimately, to tie into this non-equation: an area can be stable without strictly having 'currents' or 'eddies'. The current assumption seems to be, however, that they act as 'super safe current tunnels', the equivalent of lava moving rapidly and safely down, erm, lava tunnels... or even the imagery of the 'surfing turtles' form Finding Nemo... I'm fairly sure that this might not be the most appropriate image. Point 2.2 - Facilitation of NavigationI would not read too much into this. They facilitate navigation as much as, say, road signs. But that doesn't mean following a road is true navigation... (Ick, horrible analogy.) Point 3 - Warp Routes and "Sub Choirs" Important trade routes that do not have a 'stable warp pathway' already have a beacon: the Astronomican. While the Astronomican gives you bearing to Terra it really does little else, but supposedly it is mean to be an aid to navigation everywhere else. This, I feel, is more to do with limitations in the 'fluff' than a poor concept... But beyond the Astronomican, or where the light of the Astronomican cannot reach for various reasons, "Sub Choirs" could be used... They are not, however, the norm. Or seemingly so. In the 'fluff' they are used as a means of extending the range of 'civilisation' (=Imperium) rather than delineating specific trade routes. Point 4 - Duration of Time in "Warp Analysis" There is no information upon the length of time required to 'analyse' the warp. Indeed, the 'fluff' about indicates that it is done constantly through some means. (Remembering that the implications of the technology are not something that was ever explored by GW: they're good with concepts, not for extending them and integrating them.) The analysis of the warp does not create a 'safe route' by any stretch of the imagation, but rather works of localised conditions to get them from point A to A' to B' to B (where A, B are real points and A', B' are warp points, though A,B are not necessarily origin/destination). The waiting time might be considered a function of the analysis done by computers, or simply waiting for favourable conditions to hope on: waiting for that one wave that the surfer can ride into the shore. Would increasing the length of analysis (observation, anyway) make a safer warp jump? I would suggest not. Rather that would lie upon the local conditions of the warp at the time. Hmmn, might be slightly contradicting the above, but there we go. I'll leave it here at the moment. Point 4.1 - Warp 'Sensors' and Warp DrivesDo all ships have 'warp sensors' which allow them to make calculated warp jumps? Well, unless they have Navigators then this must be the case... If they don't have Navigators and they don't, then there is no point in them having a warp drive... Thus it would seem reasonable that all ships with warp drives have 'warp sensors'. If you're of the opinion that the adeptus mechanicus are of the form "Adeptus Me-can't-icus" (i.e. they have no or little understanding of the technologies they operate with) then unity between warp drive and warp sensors would seem logical: how can the simply copy a previous STC system that does not include 'warp sensors' when pre-Age of Strife ships could travel without a Navigator? If the suggestion is that non-warp sensor warp drive STC are utilised then it would create problems with established 'fluff' about calculated jumps... (Of course, one could argue that different Forgeworld maintain different 'warp technologies', but this is always something that has always struck me as inherently contradictory.) It is therefore 'safer' to conclude that all ships are capable of making calculated warp jumps, but that having a Navigator is preferable. Point 5.0 - Are Navigators Quicker? By definition, though how much this has to do with 'analysis time' is debateable. Again I see it as more waiting for favourable conditions (observation) then analysis, since the descprancy between the two can kill you... Navigators are preferred since they are able to inuitively act to specific conditions, allowing them to shift currents, move within one, or precipitate if conditions are right: it is just as much art as science, and perhaps more the former than the latter. The computers that perform a calculated warp jump create a program which reacts to predicted circumstances based upon observed start conditions (which is why it's not good to spend too long making the calculations; conditions can change too much). The number of calculations necessary mean that it does take a time, however. Thus the more turbulent the conditions the less likely the computer is going to be at making a 'safe calculation'. While I would argue that the computers are heuristic, based loosely on neural net technology, the problem here is that the times that you get to learn you get slapped on the head for your trouble (the warp is not a good teacher). Point 6 - Lack of Warp Maps It is not possible to build up a complete map of the warp and, say, publish it in "The Spaceshipmaster's Association Guide to the Warp" or whatever. It is, however, perfectly within the 'fluff' - both the implicit statement and the explicit interpretation - to have localised maps. Indeed, digitised and temporary images make more for more sense than the references in Farseer to an "ancient map of forbidden routes". Again, it sounds cool but doesn't make sense. On the other hand, if there are stable pathways that have been stable for a heck of a long time, that there might be maps and calculations of 'tau factor' this makes a whole lot of sense to codify. Indeed, these are mentioned in another one of the BL novels, though I cannot remember which one at the moment... probably Execution Hour. As to the nature of the map vs. Abaddon, I know what Abaddons device was... merely pointing out that if you wanted a superficial example, there would be one. As to tongue-in-cheek comments, it is often difficult to tell! Kage
|
|
|
Post by Destecado on May 1, 2004 10:10:37 GMT -5
Good to have all these links up though. But let's focus on warp travel and warp routes in this thread, and discuss the nature of the warp in a seperate thread, if you please. Did you agree with my points, 1, 2, 3 and 5? Your right, Ill make a seperate topic for discussing the nature of the warp. As to your points, I'll need a little more time to post a full response. Btw, Destecado, you wrote one comment I failed to reply to; "If this is the case then perhaps the third eye also access parts of the brain or functions in the brain that the normal human does not use. " Are you referring to the popular myth that humans use only 10% or 50% of their brain capacity? *cracks knuckles and waits for a chance to flaunt his basic knowledge of psychology* No, I agree that humans use more than 10% of their brains. My phraising above was poor. I was typing the idea while I was still trying to fully conceptualize it. (This is why I want more time before responding to all of your points). The part of the brain I was referring to were the glial cells. I read an interesting article in Scientific America that discussed this little studied part of the brain, that might have a major impact on the cognative power of the brain. The full article may be downloaded here. the article opens with a discussion of an autopsy of Albert Einstien's brain. the autopsy found nothing unusual about the number or size of the neurons (nerve cells) in his brain, but in the association cortex, responsible for high-level cognition, a surprisingly large number of nonneuronal cells known as glia were discovered. they were present in a much greater concentration than that found in the average brain. It is beleived that they may have played a part in his ability to conceptualise and create the theory of relativity. I was hypothesizing that navigators may have similarly structured brains, that allow them to better conceptualize warp space. The thrid eye acts as a focus or conduit. Sorry, I know this is a bit off topic
|
|
|
Post by CELS on May 1, 2004 10:14:19 GMT -5
Numbered bullet points it is! I'm sure we'll end up discussing 1.1.1.78 in no time at all, but that's just the nature of this forum ;D Point 1.0 - Formation of warp routesYes, I agree that warp routes can be formed both "naturally" and as a result of events and emotions in the "physical universe". The forest analogy explains this perfectly. (What's a good name for our universe, btw?) Point 1.1 - BeaconsI agree that beacons would not form stable pathways. If it seems as if that's what I was saying, I must have expressed myself poorly. What I was saying was that in regions where there are no stable pathways, the beacons make up for that fact. Using a surface vessel metaphor; Consider an island constantly surrounded by shifting currents and bad weather. Building a lighthouse on this island won't have any effect on the sea or the weather, but it'll still make it easier to reach the island. Point 2.0 - Relative travel speed in 'stable warp pathways' Are you suggesting that travel speed is increased for calculated jumps (since less time is spent calculating), but not Navigated jumps? Point 2.1 - Conflicting imagery on 'stable warp pathways'Erm... I'm not sure where you get the term 'stable warp pathway' from, but... 'Warp routes' are usually stable, because of of fairly predictable warp currents. The surfing turtles from Finding Neo use something that is, unfortunately, very close to my idea of warp routes, though a bit too extreme. The Sargassos Gulf is stable, but does not have currents, so it's not a popular pathway, and it's pretty much the exact opposite of a warp route. Point 2.2 - Facilitation of NavigationLoL! Yes, horrible indeed The reason I'm bringing system into this, as you might have guessed, is that I'm trying to make sense out of GW's subsector maps, rather than just ignore them. Point 3 - Warp Routes and "Sub Choirs" You say that "sub choirs" are used as a means of extending the range of 'civilisation' in the fluff, therefore I assume you've read about them too, and that they're not just a figment of my imagination. I agree that they're far from the norm. I can't think of anyone who would have them, except the Frost Bringers. I think it would be interesting for some important world to have them, like Proteus or Torres. How would everyone feel about this? Point 4 - Duration of Time in "Warp Analysis" If the fluff indicates that analysis of the warp is done constantly (where, out of interest?) I suggest that we just ignore it. Or change it, if you will. I really insist that the analysis of the warp creates a 'safe route'. To use the Chaos Theory coin-flipping example, you can't calculate exactly how far the coin will go, or how much time it will be in the air, but you can create a certain estimate. The more you enter into the equation (air pressure, temperature, etc), the more accurate estimate, but you can still never be certain. The same would hold true for calculated jumps. If you do a sloppy job (if you're under attack and need to make good your escape, for example) you can end up "bouncing into a black hole or supernova" At least that's how I see it. If someone can produce a counter-argument that makes sense and conforms to the fluff as much as possible, go right ahead! Point 4.1 - Warp 'Sensors' and Warp DrivesIt is conceivable that there are ships with warp drives that don't have "warp sensors", because they were designed to be Navigated by Navigators (as you might guess, I'm not of the opinion that EVERYTHING is built using STC data). But this is a minor point, so let's not waste time discussing it untill we have a reason (such as someone with a concept about a ship that is lost because its Navigator dies). As a rule of thumb, I agree that all ships have 'warp sensors' that allow for calculated jumps. Point 5.0 - Are Navigators Quicker? I completely disagree with the view that calculated jumps are slower just because time is spent waiting for favourable conditions, and to be honest, I just don't think it's cool. Still, I think we're basically saying the same, but giving different explanations. To the question "Are Navigators Quicker", my answer is still "Yes! Because A) They don't have to wait around for a calculated jump and B) When in the warp, they are able to improvise much better than computers, which gives them greater speed over long distances" Point 6 - Lack of Warp Maps Temporary warp maps? Well, temporary ones, yes. Otherwise, it'd be difficult to make calculated jumps. But they are temporary and in no way comparable to the maps in the Red October example, because of the dynamic nature of the warp. The maps in the Red October movie were old and obviously used everytime they went through that pass. Using the same map twice when making warp jumps would be risky business indeed. That there are "stable pathways" and warp routes that have been stable for a long time is a given though, which is why we're drawing them on the warp map of the Anargo sector. PS: Destecado, I didn't get the link to work, but if I recall correctly (and if my sources are correct), Einstein's brain was actually slightly smaller and lighter than normal brains. He also had fewer nerve cells than most people, but they had more (and stronger) synaptic connections. The glial cells actually "clean up" and contribute glucose to neurons. One major type of glia also form myelin around neurons' axons, which effectively speeds up the signals. I don't presume to know much about the brain, but it seems to me that Einstein's brain was just "faster" than normal brains, with a greater ability to associate stimuli.
Getting back to your suggestion, I would say that Navigators' brains would have to be completely different in nature, and though they might have a slightly different composition (more glial cells, more myelin sheats, etc), there should also be something truly unique about their brains, in my humble opinion.
|
|