> doesn't match any definition of super-luminal that I have ever seen

I didn’t say it’s physically super-luminal. The undefined term is “warp drive.”

Given the ship’s occupants would subjectively travel super-luminally, it would seem to tick the boxes for warp. If it worked, you or I could travel to the other side of the galaxy. Hundreds of thousands of years would have elapsed outside the bubble. But we’d be alive.

Typically we think of "speed" as observed from outside the moving [object], but I guess "typically" it doesn't matter.

I think it's an interesting point and you're not wrong to say it ticks at least one of boxes. It just doesn't match the concept that people have in mind, so an otherwise interesting discussion ends up rat-holing on semantics.

> Typically we think of "speed" as observed from outside the moving

Is it? We don’t colloquially consider the Earth’s rotation or revolution.

This isn’t a Star Trek warp drive. But dismissing it as “hardly a warp drive” seems categorically wrong.

> We don’t colloquially consider the Earth’s rotation or revolution.

Wasn't this choice of reference frame the basis for that whole drama with Galileo, or am I misunderstanding?

We discovered a couple of centuries later that there's more than one reference frame, you can choose, and the choice matters. It's been a pretty interesting development!

Sub luminal speeds are in an entirely different category than super luminal speeds. It's hard to overstate how different it is, so the original objection is completely appropriate. You can argue about the wording, but what's the point in that? Everyone with half a brain agrees on the facts.

I don't recall having considered this point before, though granted I will call half a brain a good day.

I don’t think it’s a “warp drive”.

It’s a “warp stasis” bubble or field: you’ve effectively suspended (or considerably slowed) the people inside to preserve them for the future — stasis.

I think you’re running into objections because while it is warp technology, it’s not a drive in that it’s not providing atypical propulsion (ie, Star Trek warp drives, Star Wars hyperspace drives, Babylon 5 subspace jump drives, etc).

You’re correct that we’re trying to define “warp drive”, but each of “warp” and “drive” are used independently — and your usage of “warp drive” doesn’t respect their independent usage. That you have a 1:1000 slowdown in perceived time to real time as your example suggests at some level you recognize this isn’t a drive.

I think warp stasis is a super cool technology all on its own, though.

> it’s not a drive in that it’s not providing atypical propulsion (ie, Star Trek warp drives,

AIUI in Star Trek, Cochrane's "space warp generator" and descendants are essentially the Alcubierre design: I don't seem to understand that the warp bubble provides any propulsion by itself (although grav waves could be surfed)

Instead AIUI actual movement is created by a secondary mechanism, which I'm unclear about from a cursory search. Maybe impulse engines? Or maybe those are inefficient/incompatible with warp and it's using a secondary system that comes as a (intentional by design) byproduct of nacelles, like a ramjet engine airplane essentially has two propulsion systems since requires forward speed so you gotta have regular engines.

In Star Trek it's the warp bubble doing all the work, impulse engines are sub-FTL.

> subjectively travel super-luminally

It’s not really subjectively super-luminal either. The travellers could look behind them and see light catching up with them. A signal that left at the same time they left would be to their destination first. Relative to them, light always travels at light speed.

What is subjective is not light, but time.