And I'm sceptical of your calculation, anyway. From Earth's unchanging perspective, if your are going at .95c in a conventional manner relative to Earth, Earthlings will see your trip as taking the same 210.52 years. Time dilation will only affect the time that passes for the people on board, which will make it seem shorter, not longer. So, really, if your warp drive can't break c, it's better from the passengers' perspective not to use one. This is explained in the StackExchange article you linked to- you put the factor of gamma in the wrong spot (http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/31105/how-to-calc...).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive#Difficulties
http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.4960
http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.5708
I'd enjoy seeing your calculation of the number of years that would have passed on Earth for a round-trip of 100 light-years out.
The post I replied to stated, "I don't know how much time would have passed on Earth though." You stated I calculated "how much time would pass on Earth."
The OP was wondering, "if a person on a ship visited a star 100ly away, how much time would have passed on Earth when they returned?"
However, the OP was wondering about time frames in terms of a warp drive, rather than a conventional almost-light-speed drive. Take my upvotes. :-)
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/timedial.html
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/31105/how-to-calc...
http://www.phy.olemiss.edu/HEP/QuarkNet/time.html
t / 2 = 100 / (1 - (0.95 * c)^2 / c^2)^(1/2)
Where t is the time for a one-way trip and c is the speed of light.