In any Star Trek canon, was warp technology ever used to intentionally damage something? According to physics as we know it, the ability to deliver a payload (even a relatively small one) at relativistic speeds would be devastating to virtually any target (trust me, don't stand in the way of the LHC beam). Since warp drive allows ships to travel even faster than light, one would think that would only increase the damage it could do if slammed into another ship.  Was warp drive ever used to propel a projectile (or even a full ship) into a target? If no, is there any reason given as to why not?
120891
The  entry on Memory Alpha states that photon torpedoes are warp-capable. Under the technical specs it says that photon torpedoes launched from a vehicle traveling at warp will remain at warp, but will not accelerate to warp if launched from a sub-light vehicle.   In  when it appears to ^Captain Riker that they would not be able to stop the cube he orders Acting Ensign Crusher to set a collision course with the cube at warp 9.  This is the only time I can think of a ship using their warp technology in an obviously offensive way. To me it seems like throwing objects at faster than light speeds at targets would be incredibly devastating.   Are there any other examples or weapons when someone uses warp technology as a weapon?  ^ At this time he had a field commission rank of captain.
58057
The  is a proposed propulsion mechanism for spacecraft in which some form of microwave device provides the propulsion. The consensus from the physics community, including many voices on this site, is that the proposed device would violate conservation of momentum.   Several experiments have been conducted, by three main groups: (i) , from Satellite Propulsion Research Ltd, (ii) a research group at the Northwestern Polytechnical University in Xi'an, China, and (iii) Eagleworks Laboratories at NASA's Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. However, few of these experiments have been performed in vacuum (and none of the vacuum tests has been published in a peer-reviewed journal), which means the effect of air currents around the device cannot be ruled out.  This device has been the subject of many questions on this site, including          and their many closed duplicates.  Many of these questions ask what the proposed explanations are, but then veer off into territory of the form "assuming it is true, how does it work?", so they have been (rightfully) closed as counterfactual physics. I feel this sort of bundling does a lot of harm to the discussion, and there is some scope to ask what exactly is being proposed as an explanation. So:     What do the proponents of EmDrive claim is the theoretical justification of the device's function?   Please limit answers exclusively to references, and indicate whether they are peer-reviewed or not. Please limit answers to serious attempts at explanations, as opposed to vague claims about the 'quantum vacuum' - or indicate if an experimental paper does not have any such theoretical explanation or reference.  To be clear, this is not the place to discuss whether the explanations are correct or not. If you have specific questions about any of these sources, ask it separately. (However, if your question starts with "assuming that this works", be prepared for it to be closed.) If you feel there are not enough resources on this thread, you can  but please do not post another question asking people to look for more references.
6951
During the Wolf-359 incident, 39 starships were destroyed, and 11,000 people were killed or assimilated.  Why didn’t one of the smaller ships warp into that one Borg cube? Doesn’t warping into it destroy anything?  Even if it just warps through without touching, one could program the navicom to self destruct while the ship is in the middle of Borg cube.
112949
Is there an in-universe explanation for why the Borg always move like 1950s cheap-special-effects sci-fi tin can robots?   With the advanced technology they have, you'd think they would have BETTER (faster, more graceful) movement than humans, with more advanced power sources, better motors (or augmented muscles), and better controlled software/hardware.  Instead, they have these jerky, slow motion movements that make absolutely no sense whatsoever, except possibly that "the studio people wanted to make them look 'like robots'" (on top of all the visible Borg gear) and this was the only, not-too-brilliant, idea they came up with.  Is there an explanation for this? (ideally, in-universe, or an "official" franchise out-of-universe one)?   P.S. I'm interested in an existing explanation, NOT in someone's personal theory.
55722
don't get upset but I'm a total layperson and I'm not really understanding the twin paradox and I'm just wondering: If the twin who left earth in a rocket so that he wouldn't age as fast had a walkie talkie of some kind to contact the twin on earth with, would the twin on earth hear the spaceship twin's voice talking veeeeeeery slooooowly, and would the rocket ship twin hear the other twins voice squeaky and sped up?
103087
The thought randomly occurred to me that a circular particle accelerator would have to exert a lot of force in order to maintain the curvature of the trajectory.  Many accelerators move particles at fully relativistic speeds, and I want to ask how that affects things.  Why does this matter?  Well, if I understand correctly, a particle in the LHC moving at $0.999 c$ would be dramatically more difficult to keep moving in the circle than a particle moving at $0.99 c$.  Reading Wikipedia, I was delighted to find a fully specified problem within a single paragraph.       The LHC lies in a tunnel 27 kilometres (17 mi) in circumference, as deep as 175 metres (574 ft) beneath the Franco-Swiss border near Geneva, Switzerland. Its synchrotron is designed to collide opposing particle beams of either protons at up to 7 teraelectronvolts (7 TeV or 1.12 microjoules) per nucleon, or lead nuclei at an energy of 574 TeV (92.0 µJ) per nucleus (2.76 TeV per nucleon).   I can (or Google can)  the proton case to come to $0.999999991 c$.  In order to correctly calculate the force that the LHC must exert on it, do I need to start from $F=dp/dt$, or can I get by with $v^2/r$ times the relativistic mass?  I'm not quite sure how to do the former.  Question: Say I have 2 protons, both moving so fast they're going almost the speed of light but one has twice the energy of the other.  They move side-by-side and enter either an electric or magnetic field that causes them to accelerate perpendicular to the velocity vector.  Is the radius of curvature mostly the same for the two, or is it different by a major factor (like 0.5x, 1x, or 2x)?  I want to read some comments from people who understand these physics well.  The particles beyond a certain energy are all going almost exactly the same speed.  Is it still okay for me to say they have the same "acceleration" too?  They just happen to have absurdly huge inertia compared to the same particle at a more modest fraction of the speed of light.  Is this the correct perspective?
67437
Will a machine or a technique ever be possible that allows  in interplanetary space?  And I ask out of pure curiosity. I know there is the "Vomit Comet" that allows for a non-gravity 'simulation' (for lack of a better word) on Earth, and I was thinking about if there would be a way to reverse that and rather have gravity in space.    edit: Say I was building a space shuttle because I'm dying to go to the moon (true story). Unlimited budget, the smartest people you can fathom helping me build my space shuttle.  I get motion sickness and the whole "anti-gravity" thing wouldn't really work for me.  Would there be a way to have gravity on my space shuttle? Perhaps by using a type of machine or magnets or something of the like?
106771
Many times Federation personnel beamed on board Borg Cubes, so if they were unable to destroy the Borg Cube by their torpedoes and other weapons why not simply plant a high energy destruction bomb from the inside and destroy it.   Secondly, if they were able to beam on board, where are the Borg shields?
119573
At one point in Star Trek Beyond, everyone fastened their seat belts. At last! Is this the first time in Star Trek (TV, movies) that seat belts have been used?  If not, what was the first time?
33031
Could any form of matter teleportation every really happen?  If so, what form would it take? Some science-fiction talks about literally sending the atoms from one location to another; others talk of creating a duplicate and destroying the original.  Question originally added .  Update: there are a couple of comments asking me to specify what I mean by teleportation. I'm talking about stuff of Star Trek - taking an object or person and transporting them almost instantly across great distances (thousands of KMs) by:   breaking them up at the atomic (or smaller) level transporting those atomic components (or the information, "recipe" to recreate) and (re-)assembling at the new location.
37220
The  basically boils down to: "surprise your enemy by jumping right next to him and unload all your cannons". However, Trek canon makes a bit more of a technological fuss about how it works.  Seeing that the Star Wars universe also has FTL travel, I wondered if:   the Picard Maneuver would be technically possible in SW and  if there are any references (probably by a different name) in the SW universe.
82411
I'm talking about this nonsense:   Now, I'm aware that there are problems with the practicalities (or possibilities) of methods involving exotic matter with negative mass, and that kind of thing has been addressed here:   But in this case my question is different and more specific. Sweeping all the other problems of constructing such a beast under the rug, wouldn't this violate causality?  SR says that the simultaneity and relative ordering of events is dependent on the relative motion of the observer, but that no matter how it works out, if event A causes event B, no observer will see B first. One of the many problems with FTL travel (or signals) is that if any information is sent faster than light, there will exist an inertial frame in which the signal arrives before it is sent, a blatant violation of causality. (I think we can all agree, can we not, that the threshold should be extremely high before breaking assumptions that we're in a causal universe?)  So how is any scheme to travel faster than light, even if it may locally satisfy the equations of GR, not a blatant violation causality according to SR?  Is my understanding of GR incomplete and there's something in it that obviates the causality implications of SR? Or am I correct that FTL claims should be dismissed with extreme prejudice on this basis alone? (Pending a serious replicable experiment showing causality to be breakable.)
50612
So, I'm traveling to another star 100 light years away in my spaceship. This ship has a solar sail pushed by a laser beamed from my home star system, so can achieve a velocity close to c. It's also got a robust parachute to slow down with.  I understand that if I measure light coming from my origin star, it will always still seem to be streaming past me at light speed (but will red shift as my speed increases). Light coming from my destination star also travels past me at light speed, and will become increasingly blue shifted as I gain speed.  I also understand that an observer checking on my speed at my origin or destination will always find it to be less than c.  However, will I perceive that in terms of the time it apparently takes me to reach my destination, my speed was greater than c? In other words, will it seem to take less than 100 years to reach the destination? 10 years on my watch, say. Or 1 year. Or a week?  Ie, as far as I'm concerned, while light keeps zipping past me at light speed, do I continue to accelerate unabated to an arbitrary apparent speed?  If not, how do I notice my continued acceleration being prevented?
13463
I've seen lots of answers here about the episode "Force of Nature". The episode is about scientists discovering that travelling at speeds greater than warp 5 destroys subspace. It's been stated a few times here on this website that voyager's nacelles are made in a way that negates this effect, and that the rotation of the nacelles has something to do with it. Is this actually canon, and if so, how does rotating the nacelles upwards fix the problem? The Enterprises all had nacelles that were angled up from the hull.
44668
In "First Contact" Picard kills a couple of Borg drones in the Holodeck with a holographic Tommy gun.  It would appear that while the Borg are able to adapt to become impervious to energy weapons, they are vulnerable to bullets.  This looks like a gaping logical hole: why couldn't Star Fleet replicate "primitive" assault rifles to fight the Borg, if they knew that phasers were useless against them?  Has this ever been addressed?
57739
We already have an answer why physically traveling faster than light would violate causality (the clock on board our hypothetical FTL spaceship would tick backwards to some outside observers).  However, would a wormhole-based FTL violate causality? In this case, never does an object actually move faster than light.  If this violated causality, then how could I send back information from, let's say, 2014 Earth to 2004 Earth?
90291
I just finished watching Star Trek: Voyager and it occurred to me that the Borg (especially with the transwarp hub that Voyager destroyed) could have assimilated the Alpha Quadrant with waves of ships.  In episode 26 of season 4 (Hope and Fear), Arturis mentioned how the Borg surrounded their entire system with a thousands of ships.  I thought this reference was surprising as that was really the only instance of the Borg acting collectively to assimilate a species beyond the incident with fluidic space.