|
|
Science Fiction » alt.startrek » trek
| trek [message #292309] |
Do, 29 Juni 2006 19:42 |
|
About a month ago the UKian Channel 5 showed "How William Shatner
Changed the World", presented by William Shatner, about how Star Trek
inspired scientists and engineers (e.g. the inventor of the mobile
phone) and broke racial boundaries on television. He acted a lot like
his Denny Crane character.
I also noted this from the Merriam-Webster Word of the Day
on 10 June:
--> warp speed \WORP-SPEED\ noun
--> : the highest possible speed
-->
--> Example sentence:
--> When Mario saw Helen enter the elevator, he grabbed his
--> laptop and vaulted down the stairs at warp speed to get to
--> the meeting room ahead of her.
--> Did you know?
--> "Warp speed" is an example of a phrase that entered the
--> public consciousness through science fiction and eventually
--> gained enough popularity to end up in the dictionary. The
--> expression was popularized on the science-fiction show _Star
--> Trek_ in the 1960s. On the show, "warp speed" referred to a
--> specific concept, namely the idea of faster-than-light
--> travel. Within a relatively short period of time, _Star
--> Trek_ gained a devoted and intense following. Fans were soon
--> discussing the fictional concepts of the show, including
--> warp speed, with great enthusiasm. Eventually, the term
--> "warp speed" was adopted by the general population. In the
--> process, however, it lost its specific fictional meaning and
--> came to mean simply "the highest possible speed."
--
Vielen Dank
|
|
|
| Re: trek [message #292311 ] |
Do, 29 Juni 2006 22:28 |
|
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 18:42:57 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061 [at] yahoo.com>
wrote:
<snip>
>--> Did you know?
>--> "Warp speed" is an example of a phrase that entered the
>--> public consciousness through science fiction and eventually
>--> gained enough popularity to end up in the dictionary. The
>--> expression was popularized on the science-fiction show _Star
>--> Trek_ in the 1960s. On the show, "warp speed" referred to a
>--> specific concept, namely the idea of faster-than-light
>--> travel. Within a relatively short period of time, _Star
>--> Trek_ gained a devoted and intense following. Fans were soon
>--> discussing the fictional concepts of the show, including
>--> warp speed, with great enthusiasm. Eventually, the term
>--> "warp speed" was adopted by the general population. In the
>--> process, however, it lost its specific fictional meaning and
>--> came to mean simply "the highest possible speed."
IOW, it lost its original fictional meaning and acquired another one.
I watched Star Trek when it was originally broadcast, and reruns were
popular when I was in college. I don't remember anyone discussing the
Star Trekian concept of "warp speed" with any enthusiasm at all.
Kibo will now prove that I'm wrong and people did discuss it with
great enthusiasm.
BW
|
|
|
| Re: trek [message #292312 ] |
Fr, 30 Juni 2006 02:31 |
|
barbara [at] bookpro.com wrote:
> I watched Star Trek when it was originally broadcast, and reruns were
> popular when I was in college. I don't remember anyone discussing the
> Star Trekian concept of "warp speed" with any enthusiasm at all.
FWIW, people discuss warp speed with enthusiasm at alt.startrek all the
time, and have for as long as I can remember. It's one of the favorite
topics. I personally am tired of it, but nobody else seems to be.
|
|
|
| Re: trek [message #292313 ] |
Fr, 30 Juni 2006 04:33 |
|
barbara [at] bookpro.com wrote:
> I watched Star Trek when it was originally broadcast, and reruns were
> popular when I was in college. I don't remember anyone discussing the
> Star Trekian concept of "warp speed" with any enthusiasm at all.
>
> Kibo will now prove that I'm wrong and people did discuss it with
> great enthusiasm.
Hell, *I* can prove you wrong.
I am of a certain age, too, and I remember reading several fan
anthologies in the lean years before The Motionless Picture came out,
when all there was was watching the reruns and publishing zines. There
was a speculative article where someone figured out that warp factors
and time needed to reach various destinations mentioned in the original
episodes weren't matching up... the Enterprise in general was getting
there faster than it was supposed to.
The article proposed some weird distortion of time as well as space,
but that idea met some resistance, so someone published *a sequel* that
speculated about jump points that allowed ships to take a few
shortcuts.
There were also a few discussions about warp drives in Starlog, as I
recall.
|
|
|
| Re: trek [message #292314 ] |
Fr, 30 Juni 2006 04:55 |
|
On 29 Jun 2006 19:33:35 -0700, "Talysman the Ur-Beatle"
<talysman [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>barbara [at] bookpro.com wrote:
>
>> I watched Star Trek when it was originally broadcast, and reruns were
>> popular when I was in college. I don't remember anyone discussing the
>> Star Trekian concept of "warp speed" with any enthusiasm at all.
>>
>> Kibo will now prove that I'm wrong and people did discuss it with
>> great enthusiasm.
>
>Hell, *I* can prove you wrong.
Thank you. Your panache is different from Kibo's but just as welcome.
>I am of a certain age, too, and I remember reading several fan
>anthologies in the lean years before The Motionless Picture came out,
>when all there was was watching the reruns and publishing zines. There
>was a speculative article where someone figured out that warp factors
>and time needed to reach various destinations mentioned in the original
>episodes weren't matching up... the Enterprise in general was getting
>there faster than it was supposed to.
>
>The article proposed some weird distortion of time as well as space,
>but that idea met some resistance, so someone published *a sequel* that
>speculated about jump points that allowed ships to take a few
>shortcuts.
Is this where the "wormhole" concept originated?
BW
|
|
|
| Re: trek [message #292317 ] |
Fr, 30 Juni 2006 07:21 |
|
barbara [at] bookpro.com <barbara [at] bookpro.com> wrote:
>"Talysman the Ur-Beatle" <talysman [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>>The article proposed some weird distortion of time as well as space,
>>but that idea met some resistance, so someone published *a sequel* that
>>speculated about jump points that allowed ships to take a few
>>shortcuts.
>
>Is this where the "wormhole" concept originated?
No ("Doc" Smith wrote about things which were recognizable later on as
wormholes, for one), but I have to say I did work with Matt Visser.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd [at] vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
|
|
|
| Re: trek [message #293612 ] |
Sa, 01 Juli 2006 21:08 |
|
On 2006-06-29, barbara [at] bookpro.com <barbara [at] bookpro.com> wrote:
>>--> "Warp speed" is an example of a phrase that entered the
>>--> public consciousness through science fiction and eventually
>>--> gained enough popularity to end up in the dictionary. The
>>--> expression was popularized on the science-fiction show _Star
>>--> Trek_ in the 1960s. On the show, "warp speed" referred to a
>>--> specific concept, namely the idea of faster-than-light
>>--> travel. Within a relatively short period of time, _Star
>>--> Trek_ gained a devoted and intense following. Fans were soon
>>--> discussing the fictional concepts of the show, including
>>--> warp speed, with great enthusiasm. Eventually, the term
>>--> "warp speed" was adopted by the general population. In the
>>--> process, however, it lost its specific fictional meaning and
>>--> came to mean simply "the highest possible speed."
>
> IOW, it lost its original fictional meaning and acquired another one.
This reminds me of Fowler's "popularized technicalities":
--> Two general warnings will suffice: first, that the popular
--> use more often than not misrepresents, and sometimes very
--> badly, the original meaning; and secondly, that free
--> indulgence in this sort of term results in a tawdry style.
--> It does not follow that none of them should ever be used;
--> many are valuable in their proper places.
[Modern English Usage, second edition]
--
Vielen Dank
|
|
|
| Re: trek [message #293619 ] |
So, 02 Juli 2006 13:53 |
|
Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2006-06-29, barbara [at] bookpro.com <barbara [at] bookpro.com> wrote:
>
>>> --> "Warp speed" is an example of a phrase that entered the
>>> --> public consciousness through science fiction and eventually
>>> --> gained enough popularity to end up in the dictionary. The
>>> --> expression was popularized on the science-fiction show _Star
>>> --> Trek_ in the 1960s. On the show, "warp speed" referred to a
>>> --> specific concept, namely the idea of faster-than-light
>>> --> travel. Within a relatively short period of time, _Star
>>> --> Trek_ gained a devoted and intense following. Fans were soon
>>> --> discussing the fictional concepts of the show, including
>>> --> warp speed, with great enthusiasm. Eventually, the term
>>> --> "warp speed" was adopted by the general population. In the
>>> --> process, however, it lost its specific fictional meaning and
>>> --> came to mean simply "the highest possible speed."
>> IOW, it lost its original fictional meaning and acquired another one.
I'd question just how much of the general population was influenced by
this, and I'd also question the history related by the person whose name
has disappeared from the attributions above. My impression is that it
was _Star Trek_ itself that dumbed down the term. I'm not sure which
author first introduced the concept of the warp drive, and I don't have
the patience to search through old books, but I seem to recall that the
term came into use in SF in the 1930s. At some stage, some authors
adopted the convention that "Warp 1" meant light speed, "Warp 2" meant
twice the speed of light, and so on. That notion was falling out of
fashion by about 1950, when quantum theory was starting to enter the
mental radar of SF readers and writers. The newly fashionable notion was
that hyperdrive allowed only a fixed speed. The concepts became more
sophisticated as time went on, with some authors suggesting that there
were several quantum levels of warp speed. I gather that _Star Trek_
ignored all the modern SF and went back to the 1930s concepts. This was
perhaps inevitable. You can't really do hard SF on television, because the
potential audience is too small.
But how many people did this influence? To be frank, the above posting
was the very first time I encountered the claim that warp speed could
mean "the highest possible speed". I've been reading SF for a long time,
but I only saw a small sampling of the _Star Trek_ episodes, and perhaps
that's the reason that I've never encountered that usage. I'm tempted to
suggest that it's a meaning known only to fans of _Star Trek_.
> This reminds me of Fowler's "popularized technicalities":
>
> --> Two general warnings will suffice: first, that the popular
> --> use more often than not misrepresents, and sometimes very
> --> badly, the original meaning; and secondly, that free
> --> indulgence in this sort of term results in a tawdry style.
> --> It does not follow that none of them should ever be used;
> --> many are valuable in their proper places.
> [Modern English Usage, second edition]
No argument with that. It seems to me that, in just about every field
with a specialised vocabulary, the specialists in that field continue to
use their terms in the original way, and simply ignore the existence of
the dumbed-down version. That means that abuse of those terms is largely
confined to those who don't know what they're talking about.
Upon re-reading the above, I noticed the reference to dictionaries, so I
took a quick look through OneLook. The definitions are quite varied. Two
of them (I forget which) cited a book that had nothing to do with SF.
One claims that the term originated in _Star Trek_, which is just plain
wrong. The Wikipedia article is amazing: it discusses the concept
entirely in terms of _Star Trek_, without a single mention of the fact
that _Star Trek_ borrowed the concept from science fiction.
Anyway, there is only *one* dictionary in the OneLook set, namely
Merriam-Webster Online, that mentions "the highest possible speed", and
it does so in a rather silly way. The relevant part is
"Etymology: from the use in science fiction of space-time warps
to allow faster-than-light travel : the highest possible speed"
Now, I have no argument with the first part, but what is the colon
supposed to imply? To me, the use of a colon suggests that the second
part is a consequence of, or a more precise definition of, the first
part, and obviously that's not so. It looks very much to me as if that
dictionary entry was written by someone who didn't have a clear idea of
the concept, and who therefore didn't notice the bad punctuation.
Evidently someone has told the lexicographer that light speed was
(according to currently accepted theories) the highest possible speed,
but that a warp drive allows that theoretical maximum to be exceeded;
and somewhere along the line those two ideas became merged into one,
introducing an error into the dictionary.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
reliably receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses.
The optusnet address still has about 2 months of life left.
|
|
|
| Re: trek [message #293620 ] |
So, 02 Juli 2006 19:30 |
|
On 2006-07-02, Peter Moylan <peter [at] DIESPAMMERSozebelg.org> wrote:
> No argument with that. It seems to me that, in just about every field
> with a specialised vocabulary, the specialists in that field continue to
> use their terms in the original way, and simply ignore the existence of
> the dumbed-down version. That means that abuse of those terms is largely
> confined to those who don't know what they're talking about.
One that annoys me is "quantum leap" (and I'm not even a physicist) in
the sense of "big leap".
--
Vielen Dank
|
|
|
| Re: trek [message #293630 ] |
Mo, 03 Juli 2006 07:09 |
|
Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2006-07-02, Peter Moylan <peter [at] DIESPAMMERSozebelg.org> wrote:
>
> > No argument with that. It seems to me that, in just about every field
> > with a specialised vocabulary, the specialists in that field continue to
> > use their terms in the original way, and simply ignore the existence of
> > the dumbed-down version. That means that abuse of those terms is largely
> > confined to those who don't know what they're talking about.
>
> One that annoys me is "quantum leap" (and I'm not even a physicist) in
> the sense of "big leap".
Quantum Leap: In the language of physicis, the smallest possible
distance. In the minds of advertising executives, the largest possible
distance. There is no contradiction.
|
|
|
| Re: trek [message #293632 ] |
Mo, 03 Juli 2006 08:04 |
|
Peter Moylan wrote:
[...]
> Anyway, there is only *one* dictionary in the OneLook set, namely
> Merriam-Webster Online, that mentions "the highest possible speed", and
> it does so in a rather silly way. The relevant part is
>
> "Etymology: from the use in science fiction of space-time warps
> to allow faster-than-light travel : the highest possible speed"
>
> Now, I have no argument with the first part, but what is the colon
> supposed to imply? To me, the use of a colon suggests that the second
> part is a consequence of, or a more precise definition of, the first
> part, and obviously that's not so. It looks very much to me as if that
> dictionary entry was written by someone who didn't have a clear idea of
> the concept, and who therefore didn't notice the bad punctuation.
> Evidently someone has told the lexicographer that light speed was
> (according to currently accepted theories) the highest possible speed,
> but that a warp drive allows that theoretical maximum to be exceeded;
> and somewhere along the line those two ideas became merged into one,
> introducing an error into the dictionary.
The colon, which is in boldface type, precedes the _definition_ of the
term. It should not be confused with the etymology. MWCD11 dates the
term "warp speed" to 1979. It seems to me likely that the definition
refers to non-science-fiction uses of the term, and the date makes it
likely that *Star Trek* was indeed the inspiration for the term.
As I've heard "warp speed" used in non-science-fiction contexts, it
means "a very great speed" (often *not* having to do with travel, but
instead referring to a great speed in the unfolding of events) but the
writers of the definition appear to think that people using it intend
it to mean the greatest speed possible for whatever is being discussed.
Perhaps their corpora led them to that conclusion. In any case, I see
nothing in the entry which justifies believing that the definition
writer was confused.
If I am correct, it should be possible to find "warp speed" used prior
to 1979, but only in the context of science fiction--and perhaps only
in Star Trek-related works. Such a usage might very well be eligible
for an unabridged dictionary, but it would be sufficiently obscure that
there would be no real justification to put it in the Collegiate or
similar-sized dictionary, unlike the non-science-fiction usage.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray [at] yahoo . com
|
|
|
| Re: trek [message #293637 ] |
Mo, 03 Juli 2006 12:39 |
|
On 2006-07-03, Talysman the Ur-Beatle <talysman [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> Quantum Leap: In the language of physicis, the smallest possible
> distance. In the minds of advertising executives, the largest possible
> distance. There is no contradiction.
Ha! That's the most ingenious use of an ambiguous prepositional
phrase I've seen for quite a while.
--
Vielen Dank
|
|
|
| Re: trek [message #293642 ] |
Mo, 03 Juli 2006 19:14 |
|
On 2 Jul 2006 22:09:01 -0700, "Talysman the Ur-Beatle"
<talysman [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>Adam Funk wrote:
>> On 2006-07-02, Peter Moylan <peter [at] DIESPAMMERSozebelg.org> wrote:
>>
>> > No argument with that. It seems to me that, in just about every field
>> > with a specialised vocabulary, the specialists in that field continue to
>> > use their terms in the original way, and simply ignore the existence of
>> > the dumbed-down version. That means that abuse of those terms is largely
>> > confined to those who don't know what they're talking about.
>>
>> One that annoys me is "quantum leap" (and I'm not even a physicist) in
>> the sense of "big leap".
>
>Quantum Leap: In the language of physicis, the smallest possible
>distance.
But, of course, that's notwhat a quantum jump is.
>In the minds of advertising executives, the largest possible
>distance. There is no contradiction.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen [at] cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
|
|
|
| Re: trek [message #293643 ] |
Mo, 03 Juli 2006 19:22 |
|
Hatunen wrote:
>>
>>Quantum Leap: In the language of physicis, the smallest possible
>>distance.
>
>
> But, of course, that's notwhat a quantum jump is.
>
>
Doesn't language evolve, and the very meaning of words change?
Didn't aweful once have a positive conotation, the equivelent of awe
inspiring? Same with the the word artificial. I understand that word
actually described 'a work of art' positively.
It would seem that quantum jumps are indeed quite tiny in scale, but a
quantum leap is now a large thing.
JOE
|
|
|
| Re: trek [message #293646 ] |
Mo, 03 Juli 2006 19:30 |
|
On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 13:22:36 -0400, joetaxpayer
<joetaxpayer [at] nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>Hatunen wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>Quantum Leap: In the language of physicis, the smallest possible
>>>distance.
>>
>>
>> But, of course, that's notwhat a quantum jump is.
>>
>>
>
>Doesn't language evolve, and the very meaning of words change?
Not in physics. Isn't that the point here, that technicela terms
are misused?
>Didn't aweful once have a positive conotation, the equivelent of awe
>inspiring? Same with the the word artificial. I understand that word
>actually described 'a work of art' positively.
But it's not a scientific term for a very specific phenomenon.
>It would seem that quantum jumps are indeed quite tiny in scale, but a
>quantum leap is now a large thing.
What's "quantum" about it?
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen [at] cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
|
|
|
| Re: trek [message #293647 ] |
Mo, 03 Juli 2006 19:58 |
|
Hatunen wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 13:22:36 -0400, joetaxpayer
> <joetaxpayer [at] nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>It would seem that quantum jumps are indeed quite tiny in scale, but a
>>quantum leap is now a large thing.
>
>
> What's "quantum" about it?
>
Nothing, my friend.
So when the CEO of my company stands in front of the press and
employees, announcing "this next product we are introducing is a quantum
leap forward in [blah blah], should I be the one to shout "hey, do you
realize that expression doesn't mean what you intend?" or do we accept
the fact that while we cringe inside (I resist this mis-use as well) we
need to realize that when an expression is used, right or wrong, it
becomes part of the language.
|
|
|
| Re: trek [message #293649 ] |
Mo, 03 Juli 2006 20:10 |
|
Hatunen wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 13:22:36 -0400, joetaxpayer
> <joetaxpayer [at] nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Hatunen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Quantum Leap: In the language of physicis, the smallest possible
>>>> distance.
>>>
>>>
>>> But, of course, that's notwhat a quantum jump is.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Doesn't language evolve, and the very meaning of words change?
>
> Not in physics. Isn't that the point here, that technicela terms
> are misused?
>
>
>> Didn't aweful once have a positive conotation, the equivelent of awe
>> inspiring? Same with the the word artificial. I understand that word
>> actually described 'a work of art' positively.
>
> But it's not a scientific term for a very specific phenomenon.
>
>> It would seem that quantum jumps are indeed quite tiny in scale, but
>> a quantum leap is now a large thing.
>
> What's "quantum" about it?
OED:
"quantum jump, an abrupt transition between one stationary state of a
quantized system and another, with the absorption or emission of a quantum;
also transf., a sudden large increase or advance; quantum leap, a sudden
large advance; cf. quantum jump;"
But of course "quantum" was in use hundreds of years before Prof Planck and
his chums.
--
John Dean
Oxford
|
|
|
| Re: trek [message #293650 ] |
Mo, 03 Juli 2006 20:24 |
|
"John Dean" <john-dean [at] fraglineone.net> wrote
>>> It would seem that quantum jumps are indeed quite tiny in scale, but
>>> a quantum leap is now a large thing.
>>
>> What's "quantum" about it?
>
> OED:
>
> "quantum jump, an abrupt transition between one stationary state of a
> quantized system and another, with the absorption or emission of a quantum;
> also transf., a sudden large increase or advance; quantum leap, a sudden large
> advance; cf. quantum jump;"
>
> But of course "quantum" was in use hundreds of years before Prof Planck and
> his chums.
Thousands of years. It's Latin.
--oTTo--
|
|
|
| Re: trek [message #293651 ] |
Mo, 03 Juli 2006 20:44 |
|
On 2006-07-03, joetaxpayer <joetaxpayer [at] nospam.com> wrote:
> So when the CEO of my company stands in front of the press and
> employees, announcing "this next product we are introducing is a quantum
> leap forward in [blah blah], should I be the one to shout "hey, do you
> realize that expression doesn't mean what you intend?" or do we accept
> the fact that while we cringe inside (I resist this mis-use as well) we
> need to realize that when an expression is used, right or wrong, it
> becomes part of the language.
In an ideal world, the CEO would be blindfolded and employees would be
allowed to throw rotten fruit at him for five minutes.
|
|
|
| Re: trek [message #293655 ] |
Di, 04 Juli 2006 00:23 |
|
Otto Bahn wrote:
> "John Dean" <john-dean [at] fraglineone.net> wrote
>
>>>> It would seem that quantum jumps are indeed quite tiny in scale,
>>>> but a quantum leap is now a large thing.
>>>
>>> What's "quantum" about it?
>>
>> OED:
>>
>> "quantum jump, an abrupt transition between one stationary state of a
>> quantized system and another, with the absorption or emission of a
>> quantum; also transf., a sudden large increase or advance; quantum
>> leap, a sudden large advance; cf. quantum jump;"
>>
>> But of course "quantum" was in use hundreds of years before Prof
>> Planck and his chums.
>
> Thousands of years. It's Latin.
>
Je me tiens debout corrigé.
"But of course "quantum" was in use in English hundreds of years before Prof
Planck and his chums."
How's that?
Of course, it would be more accurate to say "quantus" is Latin and "quantum"
is one of its cases. And the Romans didn't, IIRC, use it as a noun as we do.
--
John Dean
Oxford
|
|
|
| Re: trek [message #293666 ] |
Di, 04 Juli 2006 07:02 |
|
John Dean wrote:
> Otto Bahn wrote:
> > "John Dean" <john-dean [at] fraglineone.net> wrote
> >
> >>>> It would seem that quantum jumps are indeed quite tiny in scale,
> >>>> but a quantum leap is now a large thing.
> >>>
> >>> What's "quantum" about it?
> >>
> >> OED:
> >>
> >> "quantum jump, an abrupt transition between one stationary state of a
> >> quantized system and another, with the absorption or emission of a
> >> quantum; also transf., a sudden large increase or advance; quantum
> >> leap, a sudden large advance; cf. quantum jump;"
> >>
> >> But of course "quantum" was in use hundreds of years before Prof
> >> Planck and his chums.
> >
> > Thousands of years. It's Latin.
> >
>
> Je me tiens debout corrig=E9.
> "But of course "quantum" was in use in English hundreds of years before P=
rof
> Planck and his chums."
> How's that?
> Of course, it would be more accurate to say "quantus" is Latin and "quant=
um"
> is one of its cases. And the Romans didn't, IIRC, use it as a noun as we =
do.
It might be more accurate to say that, but ...
I hate Quantus.
Please give me my eucalyptus leaves.
|
|
|
| Re: trek [message #293686 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 00:04 |
|
Peter Moylan wrote:
My impression is that it was _Star Trek_ itself that
dumbed down the term. I'm not sure which author first
introduced the concept of the warp drive, and I don't have
the patience to search through old books, but I seem
to recall that the term came into use in SF in the 1930s.
At some stage, some authors adopted the convention
that "Warp 1" meant light speed, "Warp 2" meant
twice the speed of light, and so on.
You might like this post made when we discussed this in 2002.
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usage.english/
msg/eaa29bd069d2134d>
The OED science fiction site mentioned has some of your info,
but a cursory search did not show info on "Warp 2".
-- ---------------------------------------------
Richard Maurer To reply, remove half
Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also.
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------
|
|
|
| Re: trek [message #293688 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 00:24 |
|
On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 13:58:36 -0400, joetaxpayer
<joetaxpayer [at] nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>Hatunen wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 13:22:36 -0400, joetaxpayer
>> <joetaxpayer [at] nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>It would seem that quantum jumps are indeed quite tiny in scale, but a
>>>quantum leap is now a large thing.
>>
>>
>> What's "quantum" about it?
>>
>
>Nothing, my friend.
>
>So when the CEO of my company stands in front of the press and
>employees, announcing "this next product we are introducing is a quantum
>leap forward in [blah blah], should I be the one to shout "hey, do you
>realize that expression doesn't mean what you intend?" or do we accept
>the fact that while we cringe inside (I resist this mis-use as well) we
>need to realize that when an expression is used, right or wrong, it
>becomes part of the language.
Whether it's a good idea to correct your boss, particularly in
front of other people, is a totally different subject.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen [at] cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
|
|
|
| Re: trek [message #293689 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 00:25 |
|
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 19:10:12 +0100, "John Dean"
<john-dean [at] fraglineone.net> wrote:
>Hatunen wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 13:22:36 -0400, joetaxpayer
>> <joetaxpayer [at] nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hatunen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Quantum Leap: In the language of physicis, the smallest possible
>>>>> distance.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But, of course, that's notwhat a quantum jump is.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Doesn't language evolve, and the very meaning of words change?
>>
>> Not in physics. Isn't that the point here, that technicela terms
>> are misused?
>>
>>
>>> Didn't aweful once have a positive conotation, the equivelent of awe
>>> inspiring? Same with the the word artificial. I understand that word
>>> actually described 'a work of art' positively.
>>
>> But it's not a scientific term for a very specific phenomenon.
>>
>>> It would seem that quantum jumps are indeed quite tiny in scale, but
>>> a quantum leap is now a large thing.
>>
>> What's "quantum" about it?
>
>OED:
>
>"quantum jump, an abrupt transition between one stationary state of a
>quantized system and another, with the absorption or emission of a quantum;
>also transf., a sudden large increase or advance; quantum leap, a sudden
>large advance; cf. quantum jump;"
>
>But of course "quantum" was in use hundreds of years before Prof Planck and
>his chums.
So was the word "electron", but we don't use it the old way these
days.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen [at] cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
|
|
|
| Re: trek [message #293691 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 01:09 |
|
mplsray [at] my-deja.com wrote:
> MWCD11 dates the
> term "warp speed" to 1979. It seems to me likely that the definition
> refers to non-science-fiction uses of the term, and the date makes it
> likely that *Star Trek* was indeed the inspiration for the term.
>
> If I am correct, it should be possible to find "warp speed" used prior
> to 1979, but only in the context of science fiction--and perhaps only
> in Star Trek-related works. Such a usage might very well be eligible
> for an unabridged dictionary, but it would be sufficiently obscure that
> there would be no real justification to put it in the Collegiate or
> similar-sized dictionary, unlike the non-science-fiction usage.
What Dave Wilton says at his website (see post below) confirms
everything I was able to find searching the archives of ADS-L:
http://p211.ezboard.com/fwordoriginsorgfrm7.showPrevMessage? topicID=71.topic
"...the earliest any linguist has been able to trace the term "warp
speed" is 1976. Surprisingly, no one has been able to find a use of
that term in the original Star Trek series ("warp factor" yes, "warp
speed" no)..."
|
|
|
| Re: trek [message #293706 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 16:07 |
|
"John Dean" <john-dean [at] fraglineone.net> wrote
>>> But of course "quantum" was in use hundreds of years before Prof
>>> Planck and his chums.
>>
>> Thousands of years. It's Latin.
>>
>
> Je me tiens debout corrigé.
> "But of course "quantum" was in use in English hundreds of years before Prof
> Planck and his chums."
> How's that?
> Of course, it would be more accurate to say "quantus" is Latin and "quantum"
> is one of its cases. And the Romans didn't, IIRC, use it as a noun as we do.
Yeah well their understanding of physics was a tad behind.
--oTTo--
|
|
|
| Re: trek [message #293707 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 16:11 |
|
"Hatunen" wrote:
> "John Dean" wrote:
>>Hatunen wrote:
>>> joetaxpayer wrote:
>>>> Hatunen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quantum Leap: In the language of physicis, the smallest possible
>>>>>> distance.
>>>>>
>>>>> But, of course, that's notwhat a quantum jump is.
>>>>>
>>>> Doesn't language evolve, and the very meaning of words change?
>>>
>>> Not in physics. Isn't that the point here, that technicela terms
>>> are misused?
>>>
>>>> Didn't aweful once have a positive conotation, the equivelent of awe
>>>> inspiring? Same with the the word artificial. I understand that word
>>>> actually described 'a work of art' positively.
>>>
>>> But it's not a scientific term for a very specific phenomenon.
>>>
>>>> It would seem that quantum jumps are indeed quite tiny in scale, but
>>>> a quantum leap is now a large thing.
>>>
>>> What's "quantum" about it?
>>
>>OED:
>>
>>"quantum jump, an abrupt transition between one stationary state of a
>>quantized system and another, with the absorption or emission of a
>>quantum;
>>also transf., a sudden large increase or advance; quantum leap, a sudden
>>large advance; cf. quantum jump;"
>>
>>But of course "quantum" was in use hundreds of years before Prof Planck
>>and
>>his chums.
>
> So was the word "electron", but we don't use it the old way these
> days.
Thou mayest not, sirrah, but some of us have no truck with such newfangled
ways.
|
|
|
| Re: trek [message #293736 ] |
Do, 06 Juli 2006 02:12 |
|
Otto Bahn wrote:
> "John Dean" <john-dean [at] fraglineone.net> wrote
>
>
>>>>But of course "quantum" was in use hundreds of years before Prof
>>>>Planck and his chums.
>>>
>>>Thousands of years. It's Latin.
>>>
>>
>>Je me tiens debout corrigé.
>>"But of course "quantum" was in use in English hundreds of years before Prof
>>Planck and his chums."
>>How's that?
>>Of course, it would be more accurate to say "quantus" is Latin and "quantum"
>>is one of its cases. And the Romans didn't, IIRC, use it as a noun as we do.
>
>
> Yeah well their understanding of physics was a tad behind.
Could they really be "behind", when they were there first?
--
Rob Bannister
|
|
|
| Re: trek [message #293748 ] |
Do, 06 Juli 2006 07:52 |
|
The joetaxpayer entity posted thusly:
>So when the CEO of my company stands in front of the press and
>employees, announcing "this next product we are introducing is a quantum
>leap forward in [blah blah], should I be the one to shout "hey, do you
>realize that expression doesn't mean what you intend?" or do we accept
>the fact that while we cringe inside (I resist this mis-use as well) we
>need to realize that when an expression is used, right or wrong, it
>becomes part of the language.
Sure, but it's a steep learning curve.
|
|
|
| Re: trek [message #296424 ] |
Do, 06 Juli 2006 15:42 |
|
"Robert Bannister" <robban [at] it.net.au> wrote
>>>>>But of course "quantum" was in use hundreds of years before Prof
>>>>>Planck and his chums.
>>>>
>>>>Thousands of years. It's Latin.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Je me tiens debout corrigé.
>>>"But of course "quantum" was in use in English hundreds of years before Prof
>>>Planck and his chums."
>>>How's that?
>>>Of course, it would be more accurate to say "quantus" is Latin and "quantum"
>>>is one of its cases. And the Romans didn't, IIRC, use it as a noun as we do.
>>
>>
>> Yeah well their understanding of physics was a tad behind.
>
> Could they really be "behind", when they were there first?
What's on second?
--oTTo--
|
|
|
| Re: trek [message #299126 ] |
Do, 13 Juli 2006 12:06 |
|
OED:
>>
>> "quantum jump, an abrupt transition between one stationary state of a
>> quantized system and another, with the absorption or emission of a quantum;
>> also transf., a sudden large increase or advance; quantum leap, a sudden
>> large advance; cf. quantum jump;"
>>
>> But of course "quantum" was in use hundreds of years before Prof Planck and
>> his chums.
>
> So was the word "electron", but we don't use it the old way these
> days.
>
In what way do "we" use electron these days that is different to the old
day?
Negatively charged particle to me, although I might accept that the
electron is actually just a construct to explain the effect/behaviour of
three or four sub-particles of matter.
Daniel
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
|
| Re: trek [message #299127 ] |
Do, 13 Juli 2006 12:27 |
|
Peter Moylan wrote:
> Adam Funk wrote:
>> On 2006-06-29, barbara [at] bookpro.com <barbara [at] bookpro.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> --> "Warp speed" is an example of a phrase that entered the
>>>> --> public consciousness through science fiction and eventually
>>>> --> gained enough popularity to end up in the dictionary. The
>>>> --> expression was popularized on the science-fiction show _Star
>>>> --> Trek_ in the 1960s. On the show, "warp speed" referred to a
>>>> --> specific concept, namely the idea of faster-than-light
>>>> --> travel. Within a relatively short period of time, _Star
>>>> --> Trek_ gained a devoted and intense following. Fans were soon
>>>> --> discussing the fictional concepts of the show, including
>>>> --> warp speed, with great enthusiasm. Eventually, the term
>>>> --> "warp speed" was adopted by the general population. In the
>>>> --> process, however, it lost its specific fictional meaning and
>>>> --> came to mean simply "the highest possible speed."
>
>>> IOW, it lost its original fictional meaning and acquired another one.
>
> I'd question just how much of the general population was influenced by
> this, and I'd also question the history related by the person whose name
> has disappeared from the attributions above. My impression is that it
> was _Star Trek_ itself that dumbed down the term. I'm not sure which
> author first introduced the concept of the warp drive, and I don't have
> the patience to search through old books, but I seem to recall that the
> term came into use in SF in the 1930s. At some stage, some authors
> adopted the convention that "Warp 1" meant light speed, "Warp 2" meant
> twice the speed of light, and so on. That notion was falling out of
> fashion by about 1950, when quantum theory was starting to enter the
> mental radar of SF readers and writers. The newly fashionable notion was
> that hyperdrive allowed only a fixed speed. The concepts became more
> sophisticated as time went on, with some authors suggesting that there
> were several quantum levels of warp speed. I gather that _Star Trek_
> ignored all the modern SF and went back to the 1930s concepts. This was
> perhaps inevitable. You can't really do hard SF on television, because the
> potential audience is too small.
>
> But how many people did this influence? To be frank, the above posting
> was the very first time I encountered the claim that warp speed could
> mean "the highest possible speed". I've been reading SF for a long time,
> but I only saw a small sampling of the _Star Trek_ episodes, and perhaps
> that's the reason that I've never encountered that usage. I'm tempted to
> suggest that it's a meaning known only to fans of _Star Trek_.
>
>> This reminds me of Fowler's "popularized technicalities":
>>
>> --> Two general warnings will suffice: first, that the popular
>> --> use more often than not misrepresents, and sometimes very
>> --> badly, the original meaning; and secondly, that free
>> --> indulgence in this sort of term results in a tawdry style.
>> --> It does not follow that none of them should ever be used;
>> --> many are valuable in their proper places.
>> [Modern English Usage, second edition]
>
> No argument with that. It seems to me that, in just about every field
> with a specialised vocabulary, the specialists in that field continue to
> use their terms in the original way, and simply ignore the existence of
> the dumbed-down version. That means that abuse of those terms is largely
> confined to those who don't know what they're talking about.
>
> Upon re-reading the above, I noticed the reference to dictionaries, so I
> took a quick look through OneLook. The definitions are quite varied. Two
> of them (I forget which) cited a book that had nothing to do with SF.
> One claims that the term originated in _Star Trek_, which is just plain
> wrong. The Wikipedia article is amazing: it discusses the concept
> entirely in terms of _Star Trek_, without a single mention of the fact
> that _Star Trek_ borrowed the concept from science fiction.
>
> Anyway, there is only *one* dictionary in the OneLook set, namely
> Merriam-Webster Online, that mentions "the highest possible speed", and
> it does so in a rather silly way. The relevant part is
>
> "Etymology: from the use in science fiction of space-time warps
> to allow faster-than-light travel : the highest possible speed"
>
> Now, I have no argument with the first part, but what is the colon
> supposed to imply? To me, the use of a colon suggests that the second
> part is a consequence of, or a more precise definition of, the first
> part, and obviously that's not so. It looks very much to me as if that
> dictionary entry was written by someone who didn't have a clear idea of
> the concept, and who therefore didn't notice the bad punctuation.
> Evidently someone has told the lexicographer that light speed was
> (according to currently accepted theories) the highest possible speed,
> but that a warp drive allows that theoretical maximum to be exceeded;
> and somewhere along the line those two ideas became merged into one,
> introducing an error into the dictionary.
>
I think Albert Einstein (sp??) determined that travel at the speed of
light required the use of sooooo much energy that, for all intents, it
was impossible to go that fast. Later, scientists theorised that it may
be possible to warp (bend) space and so achieve effective speeds of
greater than the speed of light, e.g.:-
You're thirsty and want to get to the bar which is one mile from your
present location. If the maximum speed possible is one mile per hour, it
will take you at least one hour to get there. But if you were able to
bend space, then travelling at one mile per hour, it might be possible
to get to the bar in half an hour (warp two), bend space further and you
might get to the bar in twenty minutes (warp three) or a quarter of an
hour (warp four), etc.
The figures used in Star Trek:NG, DS9, etc., the warping factors are
greater, so that Warp 10 is millions of times the speed of light, and,
in one of the ST:Voyager episodes, the pilot guy takes an experimental
craft to Warp 10 and is considered to have been at all places in space
at the one instant in time.
Daniel
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
|
| Re: trek [message #299128 ] |
Do, 13 Juli 2006 12:52 |
|
On 2006-07-13, Daniel <dxmm [at] nospam.albury.net.au> wrote:
>> So was the word "electron", but we don't use it the old way these
>> days.
> In what way do "we" use electron these days that is different to the old
> day?
The OED gives citations from 1856 and 1877 for the sense "electrum"
(an alloy of silver and gold) and from 1891 onwards for
"A stable elementary particle which has an indivisible charge of
negative electricity .... Orig. the name of the magnitude of the
electronic charge."
> Negatively charged particle to me, although I might accept that the
> electron is actually just a construct to explain the effect/behaviour of
> three or four sub-particles of matter.
The 1891 citation is for the charge ("A charge of this amount is
associated in the chemical atom with each bond... These charges, which
it will be convenient to call electrons..."). The next ones (1902)
are I think also for the charge, although arguably for the particle.
Citations from 1927 onwards definitely refer to the particle.
|
|
|
| Re: trek [message #299129 ] |
Do, 13 Juli 2006 13:19 |
|
Daniel wrote:
> OED:
>>>
>>> "quantum jump, an abrupt transition between one stationary state of
>>> a quantized system and another, with the absorption or emission of
>>> a quantum; also transf., a sudden large increase or advance;
>>> quantum leap, a sudden large advance; cf. quantum jump;"
>>>
>>> But of course "quantum" was in use hundreds of years before Prof
>>> Planck and his chums.
>>
>> So was the word "electron", but we don't use it the old way these
>> days.
>>
>
> In what way do "we" use electron these days that is different to the
> old day?
>
> Negatively charged particle to me, although I might accept that the
> electron is actually just a construct to explain the effect/behaviour
> of three or four sub-particles of matter.
>
It was used as a term for the magnitude of an electronic charge before it
was used as a term for a negatively charged particle.
Before that it was used by the Greeks as the word for "amber"
--
John Dean
Oxford
|
|
|
| Re: trek [message #299132 ] |
Do, 13 Juli 2006 16:12 |
|
John Dean wrote:
> It was used as a term for the magnitude of an electronic charge
> before it was used as a term for a negatively charged particle.
> Before that it was used by the Greeks as the word for "amber"
The connection being, of course, one of those very important discoveries
that were made long before that business of frogs' legs. If you rub a
cat with amber, its hair stands on end. This proves that cats do not
like being rubbed with amber.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
reliably receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses.
The optusnet address still has about 2 months of life left.
|
|
|
| Re: trek [message #299133 ] |
Do, 13 Juli 2006 16:26 |
|
Daniel wrote:
> The figures used in Star Trek:NG, DS9, etc., the warping factors are
> greater, so that Warp 10 is millions of times the speed of light,
> and, in one of the ST:Voyager episodes, the pilot guy takes an
> experimental craft to Warp 10 and is considered to have been at all
> places in space at the one instant in time.
You can do that merely by travelling at the speed of light. At that
speed your mass becomes infinite, so the entire universe collapses onto you.
Indeed, it's true that according to special relativity it would take
infinite energy to get up to that speed. Bending space doesn't help
here, it only changes the direction of your trajectory. Wormholes would
work, except that wormholes are unstable; it's possible that they could
be stabilised with the aid of exotic matter, but that could be beyond
our capabilities for many millennia to come. For the present, the only
feasible way of reaching light speed is with the aid of thiotimoline.
Of course, once you pass light speed you're home and hosed. From then
on, it takes negative energy to accelerate. The only problem is that you
can't slow down once you've reached your destination. No brakes.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
reliably receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses.
The optusnet address still has about 2 months of life left.
|
|
|
| Re: trek [message #299134 ] |
Do, 13 Juli 2006 16:29 |
|
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 00:26:15 +1000, Peter Moylan
<peter [at] DIESPAMMERSozebelg.org> wrote:
>Of course, once you pass light speed you're home and hosed. From then
>on, it takes negative energy to accelerate. The only problem is that you
>can't slow down once you've reached your destination. No brakes.
I guess that's what the parachutes were for on the starships, huh?
Paul.
--
.. Bill Maher: "Tulips aren't flowers, they're gay onions"
.. A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
.. Is there a moron carrot above? Have you replied to it? Are you sure?
.. EMail: Unless invited to, don't; it's likely to be automatically deleted.
|
|
|
| Re: trek [message #299136 ] |
Do, 13 Juli 2006 16:54 |
|
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 20:27:55 +1000, Daniel <dxmm [at] nospam.albury.net.au>
wrote:
>I think Albert Einstein (sp??)
Um . . . spelling, indeed. That would be "Alfred Einstein."
An understandable mistake, though, given the similarity of the two
names.
--
"Danked," the past participle of "dank", is used to refer to someone
who replies to his own post on an online forum posing as another person
(see "Internet sock puppet") but forgetting to change his username . . . .
This was an act of stupidity meriting a name of its own, and because the hapless
contributor's username was Danks, the term "dank" or "danked" emerged.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danked
|
|
|
| Re: trek [message #299137 ] |
Do, 13 Juli 2006 18:37 |
|
Peter Moylan wrote:
> John Dean wrote:
>
>> It was used as a term for the magnitude of an electronic charge
>> before it was used as a term for a negatively charged particle.
>> Before that it was used by the Greeks as the word for "amber"
>
> The connection being, of course, one of those very important
> discoveries that were made long before that business of frogs' legs.
> If you rub a cat with amber, its hair stands on end. This proves that
> cats do not like being rubbed with amber.
Nor do they like being rubbed with frogs' legs. In fact, cats are largely
averse to being rubbed with objects not designed for the purpose or not
capable of opening tins.
--
John Dean
Oxford
|
|
|
| Re: trek [message #299144 ] |
Do, 13 Juli 2006 22:45 |
|
Daniel wrote:
> The figures used in Star Trek:NG, DS9, etc., the warping factors are
> greater, so that Warp 10 is millions of times the speed of light, and,
> in one of the ST:Voyager episodes, the pilot guy takes an experimental
> craft to Warp 10 and is considered to have been at all places in space
> at the one instant in time.
>
> Daniel
>
That's where I got the notion that warp 10 was infinite speed,
unattainable!!
JOE
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: So Feb 5 15:46:57 CET 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,04040 Sekunden |
