Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech?

[Vympel]

When I was reading this thread. If I had watched the episode in question I would have made the same connection as well, considering all the other things that are in the script that ties it to Genesis.

Well, I never did, and I highly doubt anyone but a pretty hardcore Trek nerd would think about the Genesis device when they heard 'let there be light' either.

Here's where you and I disagree then, I wouldn't consider stuff that is off-screen to be crap i.e. not counted. Even if it isn't part of Paramount's policy.

Lit analysis has more to do with 'what's onscreen' than you give it credit for. The difference is that it doesn't stay onscreen forever. There is stuff that goes on behind the scenes, stuff that is inter-textual (like between show references, like genesis in WoK and a similar thing turning up in DS9). For what it's worth, literary analysis doesn't and never has depended on author's intent. In most cases, it is irrelevant - why? Because 9 times out of 10 the author is deliberately being ambiguous and most are also reluctant to say what their intentions are because they want the reader or the audience to figure it out for themselves. There are other reasons too. But if say, the writer were to explicitly say 'this is what I intended when I wrote this book/play/script' then that's something different.

I wouldn't say that's lawyering about canon. Frankly, I don't give a shit what is or is not canon in Star Trek. There are so many things that are inconsistent between shows and even inside shows that it is easier for me to ignore what's canon than it is to try and explain those inconsistencies. One of the biggest problems with the canon literalists here is that there are somethings that cannot be explained by any other method than out-of-universe contexts. Stuff like vfx gaffes or things like Data getting a scientific unit wrong. If you try to explain it in-universe, it comes off as lame. Like 'Data is obviously a moron lol'. What's the benefit of an explanation like that, when it violates suspension of disbelief? (the ACTUAL meaning of that literary term)

But then how do you choose? See: the Rodenberry example- how do you come up with a decent argument to respond to someone who dismisses TOS evidence because the Great Bird hated TOS? You know for example that as far as Rodenberry was concerned, whenever there was a conflict between TOS and TNG, TNG wins. You can't argue with that unless you have an objective policy.

The problem with 'lit analysis' approach and just pulling in whatever feels good at the time to explain things is that there's no consistent standard. To some, its perfectly reasonable to say Data is fallible and can say dumbassed things (because he so transparently is. Take for example his stupid "computer, is growth actually occuring" question from that Season 2 episode that Chuck recently reviewed). The advantage is you can objectively identify what is and isn't dumbassed and you don't need to worry about what the intent was.

Why not? The genesis device itself may be lost, but what's the reason that the Federation can't simply start again?

What's the reason that they can? There needs to be positive evidence of this capability. Heck, it always seemed obvious to me that one of the main purposes of ST2 (Khan wiping Regula One's databanks, etc) and ST3 was to close the book on Genesis. Maybe that's a writer's intent argument, I dunno.

Actually metahive brings up an interesting point about how the Founders are pretty resilient. The original planet they were living on was M-class but wasn't in a solar system. It's quite possible that the fleet in 'TDiC' surmised that its biosphere was wholly artificial and could counteract such a device as the one employed in 'The Chase'.

Besides, people bash Trek all the time for [TECH] solutions, when in 'TDiC' they went with a brute force approach (that ended up failing, but not because it wouldn't work but because IT WAS A TRAPPP/ackbar)

Whether or not the Founders are resilient or not, there's plenty of other times when it could've come up.

I don't know if it establishes that Soran was the only dude who knew how to do it. I thought the Romulans were after him because he stole shit from them to use in the weapon. Picard in 'Starship Mine' points out how trilithium is a dangerous substance used in weapons technology, and it's a byproduct of their engines. But I haven't watched Generations in ages so please don't make me.

The Romulans had trilithium, but there's no indication they knew how to do what Soran was doing. They were only researching it. In terms of Starship Mine, Picard was thinking in different terms (i.e. a increase-firepower weapon, rather than a sun-killer).

There might be other reasons why it's not common or if they don't have the capability. Non proliferation treaties for example.

A non-proliferation treaty would (seek to) prevent the spread of the weapons tech, but it wouldn't stop the originating powers from using it.

[Stofsk]

When I was reading this thread. If I had watched the episode in question I would have made the same connection as well, considering all the other things that are in the script that ties it to Genesis.

Well, I never did, and I highly doubt anyone but a pretty hardcore Trek nerd would think about the Genesis device when they heard 'let there be light' either.

No comment

But then how do you choose? See: the Rodenberry example- how do you come up with a decent argument to respond to someone who dismisses TOS evidence because the Great Bird hated TOS? You know for example that as far as Rodenberry was concerned, whenever there was a conflict between TOS and TNG, TNG wins. You can't argue with that unless you have an objective policy.

Yeah you can argue against it, it requires you to take things on a case by case basis. So Wolfe making his comments about the episode he wrote is acceptable. Roddenberry, dismissing the entirety of TOS which other people worked on? Nonsense.

The problem with 'lit analysis' approach and just pulling in whatever feels good at the time to explain things is that there's no consistent standard. To some, its perfectly reasonable to say Data is fallible and can say dumbassed things (because he so transparently is. Take for example his stupid "computer, is growth actually occuring" question from that Season 2 episode that Chuck recently reviewed). The advantage is you can objectively identify what is and isn't dumbassed and you don't need to worry about what the intent was.

I disagree. The writers obviously intended Data to be super-intelligent, but ignorant of what it means to be human because he's an android. Asking questions that betray that ignorance is fine, or his lack of understanding or familiarity with slang or phrases (like in 'All Good Things...') and stuff like that. When he gets a basic scientific measurement wrong, like confusing watts with joules or whatever the fuck it was, stuff like that is difficult to take with your objective standard, because ironically it isn't consistent with all the other times Data is the science/tech go-to-guy. Indeed, hearing a basic fact gotten wrong is enough to pull people's suspension of disbelief away. The answer though is willing suspend it again, by ignoring it or saying well Data is a fictional character whose lines are written by a writer in front of a computer. (or maybe it was a typewriter back then) If Data gets something elementary wrong it's because the writer got it wrong. Otherwise the only other alternative is that Data is an idiot, and I see no value in that.

This can extend to SW as well. Han's infamous line about parsecs is one everyone makes fun of. What's the objective explanation for that line? Well it's in the EU, and it's super-lame but that's what you're arguing for. Instead, I can just go Lucas used a unit of distance when he should have used a unit of time in that scene. Otherwise my suspension of disbelief is lost. But if I tried the kind of explanation that made it into the EU, it would be cringe-worthy wouldn't it?

What's the reason that they can? There needs to be positive evidence of this capability. Heck, it always seemed obvious to me that one of the main purposes of ST2 (Khan wiping Regula One's databanks, etc) and ST3 was to close the book on Genesis. Maybe that's a writer's intent argument, I dunno.

I think that is one of the themes of both movies, but ultimately I don't think it's easy to do what you describe. Adam made the point in reply to Degan that major projects like the one that formed the basis for Genesis would have constant reports of progress and would probably be diffuse enough that the science stuff wouldn't be lost. It's very difficult for me to accept that the loss of those scientists, the device and David Marcus' subsequent death on the planet was enough to render it 'lost' technology for good. If nothing else, the Klingons would want to pursue their own experimentation. The Romulans would as well I'd bet. The reason why they didn't would need some other explanation, along the lines of perhaps treaties being worked out between the major powers.

Whether or not the Founders are resilient or not, there's plenty of other times when it could've come up.

Sure, but the reason why they don't come up in other episodes has more to do with the writers not putting them in those subsequent episodes than the idea that Klingons demonstrated a WMD in one episode then never used it ever again.

See what I mean by my qualms above? The Klingons have the capability to render an M-class planet completely uninhabitable; we see that clearly demonstrated in that episode. They never use it again; why? Because they're stupid? I mean there are plenty of potential reasons we can speculate on, but I feel if the answer is 'because the Klingons are stupid harhar' it doesn't lead to any kind of meaningful discussion. Maybe they don't use it because of cultural reasons (i.e. it would be dishonourable to use it against civilians in a war, which is what a planet that is inhabited would be like), maybe there are problems with its deployment (i.e. it takes too long to work, it can be reversed, you need to space superiority before you can deploy it and if you need that you might as well just stick to conventional weapons etc), or it was a prototype method that is difficult to pull off due to [TECH] reasons. Who knows? Out of universe though, maybe the writers just forget about it.

The Romulans had trilithium, but there's no indication they knew how to do what Soran was doing. They were only researching it. In terms of Starship Mine, Picard was thinking in different terms (i.e. a increase-firepower weapon, rather than a sun-killer).

Yeah but Sisko ordered quantum torpedoes to be armed with a delivery device for trilithium resin in 'For the Uniform' and it had the affect of rendering a planetary biosphere uninhabitable to humans. I think it's a bit more than simply a damage multiplier. It's a substance that can be used to affect strategic damage to a target.

Also it wouldn't surprise me that the Romulans were researching something related to trilithium. But really dude, let's not talk about Generations anymore please.

A non-proliferation treaty would (seek to) prevent the spread of the weapons tech, but it wouldn't stop the originating powers from using it.

True. But maybe in this case, the effort to prevent the spread of such tech also prevented the creation of it? Who knows, ST is very optimistic in that regard.

[Vympel]

Quickie: re Han's quote in ANH, its meant to be nonsense per the script, I don't believe GL got anything wrong or intended to write something other than he did. The script calls it a "stupid attempt to impress them with obvious misinformation". More tomorrow if I have nothing to do during office hours

[Lord Helmet]

I'm trying to think of any time where a weaponized Genesis would have been useful in the Trek canon, and I can think of only one: the attack in "The Die is Cast".

While regular starships were up for the job, if they could do it with one cloaked ship it would have spared a lot of trouble - no need to bother with secret Obsidian Order fleetyards. Just put the torp on a shuttlepod and call it a day.


However, since that was a secret operation by Cardassian and Romulan intelligence (not even the full government at least in the case of the Cardies), the state of Federation technology wouldn't change things anyway.

There is also the fact that it was learned of and co-opted by the Founders at some point in the planning stages, who then used it to destroy a significant amount of both intelligence services so it is unlikely that they would promote a strategy that would only involve a shuttle as they wanted warships filled with tal'shiar and obsidian order operatives to trap and destroy.

[Connor MacLeod]

I don't think Genesis is just a specific device or technology, rather, it seems like the approach had a set number of goals that had to be met (rapid terraforming, solve food problems, overpopulation, etc.) - but they may not actually have banked on any one particular approach. For example, we know the "Genesis cave" was a success (as far as we know) and that was (IIRC) tied to the food issue. We know that the "planet terraforming" approach apparently wasn't completely successful (due to the use of protomatter.) so either that was a failure or the approach still needed refinement.

As I've already said, there's too much we don't know to say whether they still worked with Genesis or not, whether they can weaponize it or not (which is still the point of "Genesis being lost-tech", lets not kid ourselves.) and so on. We do know that they did not forget about Genesis as per Voyager - the technology still exists, but probably not in any working form (given the context of the episode, GEnesis seems to be on a par with the Omega molecule, so they may deliberately NOT want to develop the technology. In that sense, its not lost, but they're clearly not going to just use it on a whim either.)

Had I to speculate, I'd guess that the whole intention of the "rabid terraforming planet device" was a speculative venture. If overpopulation and food supplies were chronic problems there are numerous ways to get around that (hydroponics, space habitats, etc.) that would be far less complicated (but probably more intensive in cost and industrial applications). Had the venture paid off, then they probably can meet several goals iwth one stone (Even if Habitats and hydroponics are cheaper, they might still favor the 'Genesis device' approach because it is more "natural" seeming to planet-bound humans than a space station is. Part of me has a sneaking suspicion that replicator technology might have been an outgrowth of that project (or at least inspired upon it). If so, then the Genesis project could very well have continued, and some or even much of the research survived (in part), but was put into different avenues and applications than what we saw in ST2 or 3.

It is also quite possible the genesis project (as we saw it in ST2 and 3) failed either because it does not scale up well, or because it is very selective on the kind of planet it can terraform. Such selectivity is not an insurmoutnable obstacle for nonmilitary applications, but it can prevent it from being successfully or easily weaponized. Hell, for all we know it has components to the technology that have to be installed in a starship or a station to work.

I can think of one thing though that makes me doubful the "star-reignition" is directly tied ot the Genesis device in ST2-3 - from what we know of the creation of the planet, Genesis seems more involved in processes that takes away energy (or accelerates that process, since we know accelerated growth was a rather fundamentla part of the device's function) rather than add energy into it. I'm also skeptical it could just ramp up biological processes in any brute force manner because of the thermodynamic implications (Spock wasn't turned into a Space Marine by Genesis, and he didn't cook in his own biological processes)

[Batman]

Given that a lot of the colonies we see over the course of the series are tiny, I'd venture that overpopulation isn't a problem (if at all) so much as overcentralized population, as in while there would be in theory plenty of food or room for everybody if they could develop those colonies and/or ship in enough food from there/colonists out there, they simply don't have the fleet capacity/speed. Genesis Stage 2 could provide 'farm worlds' close by to mitigate any food shortages, and the final stage Genesis torpedo (assuming it worked as advertized) would allow for a fully habitable (thriving, even) M-class biospheres anywhere you find a sufficiently large piece of uninhabited real estate, massively cutting down on travel times and thus colonization rates, ameliorating if not outright eliminating population problems.
(As Connor points out, there's easier ways to do this, but for whatever reason the UFP seems unwilling or at least highly reluctant to go them).

[Patrick Degan]

No, it is breaking apart heavier elements into lighter ones, not wholesale rearrangement of their subatomic patterns to achieve anything on the scale of what Genesis attempted, which is the point of contention here.

What the fuck is going on inside that rock you call a brain? Subatomic patterns are defined as elements and isotopes. Change a subatomic pattern and an element or isotope changes, or I guess technically a charge since electrons are subatomic particles too.

Change an element, charge, or isotope and the subatomic pattern changes, because that's how it is defined.

This is high school chemistry.

Try high school nuclear physics instead. As in atomic distintegration. Which is what is being done to the carbon and oxygen in Epsilon 119 by Setayik's device.

What you care about is irrelevant, and the matter goes far beyond simple rules-lawyering. This is why:

Wong is a fucktard. He's attacking a strawman there (surprise!), he's full of shit, and it's not even relevant here. He goes on about scientific analysis, but this is a matter of in-universe backstory.

You do not even attempt to address the logic behind his points or point out why authorial intent is more valid than suspension of disbelief and examination of the observed phenomena. "In-universe backstory", which is not even referred to once in the entire script for "Second Sight", is irrelevant.

Genesis had not been designed originally to incorporate it, and without it the system would not have worked at all. And as it was, the resulting planet became unstable very rapidly.

Something they all know. He told Saavik who surely reported it, by the book.

Now, some external expert is looking over what they do know. "wait a fucking minute, this doesn't add up" he says. Then the report comes in "they used protomatter". "ok lol, that explains a lot". A few years later, he has his own take on the matter.

And this supports the contention that Genesis was being researched elsewhere than just the Regula I facility or that the data was shared amongst other institutes and that Genesis could therefore be replicated or adapted... how, exactly?

Case in point: NASA could not build another Apollo Saturn V rocket today.

Yet, we can still build heavy lift rockets. No, we can't just roll new Saturn Vs off the assembly line. Nor did Setayik simply walk up to a replicator and say "Genesis torpedo, hot".

We cannot currently build anything which can loft the tonnage of a Saturn V. The best heavy lift rocket anywhere in the world currently is Russia's Angara A7, and that can only put up a third of what Saturn could loft. Atlas V, the best rocket America has today, can only manage a quarter of a Saturn's payload weight. This is an ongoing problem which NASA are having to face as the result of having lost so much of the Saturn project data and the body of experts who worked on the rocket.

[Connor MacLeod]

I don't think that's key to how it operated though. As I recall the take away energy argument, it was due to gravitational potential in the nebula - creating the planet didn't require energy input because, given time, it would have happened spontaneously thanks to gravity.

I know Mike speculated it was a combination of transporter (I think he meant replicator) technology and some sort of time acceleration effect, so I guess if you buy into that idea it wouldn't need large amounts of energy. Mind you, I'm not sure I'd want to be playing around with any sort of temporal stuff like that either (what if it backfired? You could end up aging someone..)

I'd think that even at a "rapid" pace its something you'd want to have done at a controlled rate. More akin to a reactor than a bomb.

But, it wasn't meant to be used on a nebula, so they couldn't have been banking on something like that; accelerating time wouldn't transform a lifeless rock alone.

It may not even have been meant to explode. I have a hard time believing that setting off what is supposed to be a detonation on a planet is going to result in life. That's kinda like saying that borg Neutron Mine was high explosive.

Two things it did that take energy input are:

1) Plant growth obviously requires energy. Perhaps provided by the sun (or artificial lights in the cave), but it happened awfully quickly at the end of the film for that - by the time Spock landed, things had already sprouted. Since they expected it to go this way, even outside the extraordinary collapsing nebula scenario, something would have to provide for it.

One idea I toyed with (and a possible one why the planet blew apart at the end) as an alterantive to the time dilation is that a byproduct of the Genesis device is that the energy taken out of the nebula to form the planet would have to go somewhere else. some of it might be used in the planet formation, creating the core and mantle, feeding the growth of new life, etc. But if the proces were imperfect or imbalanced, it might release too much energy, causing disruption of the planet, or possibly even destruction (which is why a planet blows up like a bomb.) There's still alot of holes in that idea (where does the energy go? How was the Genesis device intended to get rid of it once the process was complete, etc, etc.)

The big problem with that I think is again thermodynamics - I don't think you can accelerate a whole ecosystem without cooking that self same ecosystem. Living things aren't meant to handle temperature extremes very well.

But, the chemical bonds that make up plants are small compared to:

2) Subatomic rearranging - like I said before, this is identical to the star thing, by definition. If they were taking carbon out of the planet to make life, that'd be just molecular arrangements. Subatomic implies they somehow made the carbon too.

Which I won't argue with but I'd say there are some fairly obvious limits. Its not blowing large amounts of mass out of the star with the shockwave, or blowing the star apart, or apparently doing much except turning it on. Again that begs the question of "how much energy are we talking about" its all well and good to say it might be huge but that's a relative thing. huge compared to blowig up a planet? Huge compared to a the KE in a dino killer asteroid? Huge compared to an H-bomb?

We don't know for sure if that's what's going on, or of the Trek writers just abused the term again. In both the cave and the nebula, it's possible that all the chemicals needed for life were already there, so it wouldn't have necessarily been screwing with nuclear shit. (asteroids aren't actually pure iron, lol)

Offscreen its fairly obvious they only wanted a gimmick to drive the plot of TWoK, and as far as the movie goes it worked fine. TOS was like that (Sonic weapons, the Doomsday machine, giant space amoebae). Like everything, it only "matters" if you're trying to discuss or analyze the in-universe bits.

Maybe the planet blew up because it simply couldn't handle the raw matter making up Ricardo Montalban.

[Patrick Degan]

Try high school nuclear physics instead. As in atomic disintegration. Which is what is being done to the carbon and oxygen in Epsilon 119 by Setayik's device.

me: it's a rectangle

you: no, its a square

Non-answer, therefore irrelevant spam.

You do not even attempt to address the logic behind his points or point out why authorial intent is more valid than suspension of disbelief and examination of the observed phenomena.

Because it's irrelevant. You're refusing to even objectively examine the observed phenomena.

Amusing coming from the man who is insisting that we ignore all that lying evidence and rely on your True Interpretation of Divine Will authorial intent.

But as for the observed evidence... No, sunshine, despite what you asserted in an earlier post, the two phenomena of the Genesis Device and Dr. Seteyik's star-lighter are decidedly not the same:


The Genesis Effect, from the Carol Marcus presentation video viewed by Adm. Kirk and his officers. As we can see, when the pod hits the surface of the planetary body, a localised energy reaction initiates which then gradually propagates in an omnidirectional wave over the entire surface. Elapsed time for the process is uncertain, given how presentation videos will often depict such events in time-lapse fashion for viewer convenience.


Dr. Seteyik's kamikaze dive into the surface of Epsilon 119 and subsequent detonation of his protomatter device. As observed in this event, there is an initial explosion, followed by a very rapid expansion of the blast-effect. Within seconds, the black dwarf is beginning to glow and spontaneous energy eruptions accompanied by what appear to be electrostatic discharges occur simultaneously over the entire surface of the body, which then very rapidly undergoes primary fusion ignition. From these events, it's clear that the cascade chain reaction referred to by Seteyik is involving the entire mass of Epsilon 119 down to its core and within a very brief time interval, indicating a quite different principle than that underlying Genesis is in effect.

*snip* (And this supports the contention that Genesis was being researched elsewhere than just the Regula I facility or that the data was shared amongst other institutes and that Genesis could therefore be replicated or adapted... how, exactly?)

I'm tired of repeating myself.

Translation from Destructionator-speak: "I can't really prove my assertion about parallel Genesis research taking place along with that of Team Marcus, so I'll just ignore the question and make it go away." No, sunshine, it doesn't work that way around here. You made a claim, now back it up with evidence or concede the point. I grow tired of your bullshit.

[Patrick Degan]

Non-answer, therefore irrelevant spam.

You're unbelievably stupid and I hate you. Do us all a favor and permanently lock your account. Right now. Click the profile in the upper right, fill in a bunch of gibberish in the email field, and hit submit. Spare the rest of us from your long-winded idiocy. Have you ever made a single post that was worth reading?

Enjoying your little temper-tantrum?

The square/rectangle analogy isn't a difficult one to grasp, especially since I've explained it in every fucking post I've made in response to your vomit. I particularly like it because it also reflects the specific situation with your stubbornness.

But, you're so fucking stupid you haven't seen it the first three times. Am I explaining it poorly? Oh fuck, one more time. Elemental transmutation is rearranging atoms on a subatomic level, because elements are defined by the way their protons - which are subatomic particles - are arranged. If there's groups of two, you have helium atoms. If there's groups of six, you have carbon atoms.

If you rearrange those groups of six protons, you won't have carbon anymore. Similarly, if you disintegrate those nucleuses, you won't have carbon anymore. That's a specific description of the same general idea.

Rearranging subatomic particles is the rectangle.

Disintegration is a square. It's a special type of rectangle, but still fits the definition of rectangle in every way.

Subatomic reorganisation is a chemical process, as occurs with the formation or dissolution of molecular compounds. But to forcibly change one element into another requires overcoming the strong nuclear force and that is possible only with a nuclear reaction. Particularly where disintegrating stable isotopes of carbon or oxygen to produce elemental hydrogen would be concerned. The two processes are treated as different in the study of the physical sciences. Is that simple and brief enough for you to grasp?

Elapsed time for the process is uncertain, given how presentation videos will often depict such events in time-lapse fashion for viewer convenience.

[...]From these events, it's clear that the cascade chain reaction referred to by Seteyik is involving the entire mass of Epsilon 119 down to its core and within a very brief time interval, indicating a quite different principle than that underlying Genesis is in effect.

Your stupidity knows no limits.

Look who's talking.

You can't even stay consistent with your own bullshit.

Again, look who's talking.

First, you don't know if the time is accurate, but then, the times allegedly not matching up is one of the two pillars of your conclusion! (BTW, we know Genesis was indeed in a very brief time interval, because we watch it happen at the end of the film! It goes from nebula to orange blob in under a minute...)

Elapsed time from the detonation of the Genesis device to the initial coalescence of the planet from the material of the Mutara Nebula comes in at exactly 1.27. How do I know this? I just popped my copy of the movie into the DVD player, selected the scene, and timed it. You may also wish to note that the planet we see at the end of that interval is still cooling and hasn't even formed an atmosphere, which means the Genesis wave is nowhere near finished with the creation of a class-M world at that point (we have the additional complication that we're certainly seeing an abbreviated sequence, given that it would take Kirk a lot longer than a minute and a half to run from the bridge, climb down fifteen levels from C-deck —past which the turbolifts were inoperative due to battle damage— and reach engineering in time to watch Spock die and it is during all his run that the coalescence of the Genesis planet is taking place). By contrast, the Carol Marcus presentation video shows the entire process, from impact and detonation on surface of a dead world to full class-M biosphere complete with liquid oceans, in a time-lapse sequence lasting exactly 51 seconds, as per the timing of the YouTube clip.

The other pillar is that it went down to the core. That's shaky too. Genesis was plunged into the planet in the presentation, and omnidirectional when we see it blow up at the end. So, yeah, that'd hit the whole thing too.

Strawman Fallacy. I said NOTHING about the Genesis device penetrating to the core of the target planet shown in the simulation. Perhaps you were so anxious to type out your pathetic little "gotcha" that you conflated my discussion of the Genesis wave with the discussion of the energy reactions on Epsilon 119 initiated by Seteyik's device.

No, sunshine, it doesn't work that way around here. You made a claim, now back it up with evidence or concede the point. I grow tired of your bullshit.

No, shithead, I answered this in previous posts.

I'm not responsible for your fantasies.

Stofsk made a comment on the topic too. (Note that I don't repeat what other people said either. I don't have that insatiable urge to break up every single post into individual lines and vomit screens of shit after each one, regardless of if it's been addressed or is relevant. I compose posts with the assumption that the reader has bothered to read the posts above them.)

And Vympel made much the same objections as I've made, which you also tried to just handwave away. And people get quoted in these debates for purposes of context. Especially for the benefit of those who are coming into the thread late or don't have the time to plough back through multiple pages of argument.

Apparently, you only see what you want to see.

Look who's talking.

1) Engineering projects are built off existing science. In the real world, there's often two or more people who come up with something, independently, at about the same time. This especially happens in science and mathematics.

Even if one specific design is lost (like the Saturn V), there's still other machines built on the very same principles (like the Space Shuttle - both use LH2 rockets).

But nowhere near the same capabilities, sunshine. Nothing we've got now could do a direct-burn transorbital injection flight to the moon carrying the tonnage a Saturn V could handle easily. That the Space Shuttle and Saturn V use LH2 engines in no way speaks to the comparative capabilities of the two machines. Not in the least.

2) Funders like to see returns on their investments. Even communist governments like to see progress in their projects. A simple "we're working on it" isn't good enough - they want to see details.

It's an extraordinary claim with no evidence that nothing about the project would be sent back to Earth. This doesn't mean they can build another one at the drop of a hat, but nobody is claiming that.

3) We actually see a derivative work of Genesis, proof positive that something of the project survived. Of course, you'll ignore this, since your logic is invariably either circular or broken. Even if you're too stubborn to accept the on-screen evidence, Wolfe's statement ought to be admissable.

1) Wolfe's statement is not admissible. For all we know, his reasoning when no farther than "DURR... PROTOMATTER = GENESIS". Or he was simply tossing out a quick, glib statement without really thinking the matter through. Because of these uncertainties, observed evidence is the superior standard for objective evaluation. Seteyik's device does not produce the same physical effects as Genesis, and has a far faster reaction time upon what is an Earth-sized electron degenerate mass (which is also why your bloviations about subatomic reorganisation are inoperative: that process would not be possible given the material state of the carbon and oxygen in the body of Epsilon 119).

2) The Federation Council and the Starfleet General Staff were the only bodies, as far as the actual canon evidence presented shows us, which had any knowledge of Project Genesis. We get nothing from any scene, any line of dialogue, in either TWOK or any subsequent film or television episode to support your contention that parallel Genesis research had to be taking place elsewhere than Regula I. That is what we see and, as far as the evidence goes, that is the reality in the Star Trek world, like it or not. I'm still waiting for you to provide actual evidence from canon sources that says otherwise. Do you think you can manage that one, sunshine?

3) It is your assumption entirely that Seteyik's device is derivative of Genesis and on the same broken logic used by RHW (which, BTW, he didn't even bother to state in the actual filmed script for "Second Sight"), assuming equivalence by way of one point of commonality i.e. the use of protomatter. The visual evidence presented, however, belies that assumption entirely.

Axes teh question: "What do you think the author was trying to say?"

No, it really doesn't. You look at what's on the paper or on the screen and talk about it. Sometimes, some behind the scenes knowledge is fun and adds to it, but it doesn't rely on reading the author's mind.

Mr. Wong says this over and over and over and over again. But, it's just not true.

Because you say so?

Really, that's all that needs to be said here, since that entire page talks about author intent as the highest authority, which simply isn't the case.

That is not at all what that page is talking about. It's talking about why authorial intent is valueless as an authority.

I think Stofsk said it in this thread too - even if it were about author intent, the subjectiveness (the core of Mike's attacks against "literary analysis") comes from guessing it. If the author flat-out says something, in no uncertain terms, where's the uncertainty? Wong's argument is author intent is bad because it is ambiguous and wishy-washy (note his hilarious style of saying "Case closed." at the end of the green text).

Because the author, in this case Robert Hewitt Wolfe, did NOT say it in the actual episode "Second Sight". Nor has any other screenwriter for any other television episode or film in the various Star Trek series. And according to Paramount, canon for Star Trek is what's shown on screen, period —excepting material that the studio has actually decanonised, like just about every episode of TAS except "Yesteryear". Also, the device Wolfe and the other two writers created for "Second Sight" reacts very differently than does Genesis. That is the evidence that has to be dealt with, no matter what RHW has to say on the matter after-the-fact or off-the-cuff.

It actually reminds me of a TNG episode, Pen Pals. They are all having a chat on the prime directive. Pulaski is arguing blah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah... on reading the writer's mind.

Aside from that though, spending time attacking Wong's strawman is a pretty big waste of time, so fuck it.

No, you strawmanning Mike's statements is the waste of time here. Along with your endless handwaving and you acting like a pissy little bitch in this thread, which is growing most tiresome.

[Lord Helmet]

Elapsed time from the detonation of the Genesis device to the initial coalescence of the planet from the material of the Mutara Nebula comes in at exactly 1.27. How do I know this? I just popped my copy of the movie into the DVD player, selected the scene, and timed it. You may also wish to note that the planet we see at the end of that interval is still cooling and hasn't even formed an atmosphere, which means the Genesis wave is nowhere near finished with the creation of a class-M world at that point (we have the additional complication that we're certainly seeing an abbreviated sequence, given that it would take Kirk a lot longer than a minute and a half to run from the bridge, climb down fifteen levels from C-deck —past which the turbolifts were inoperative due to battle damage— and reach engineering in time to watch Spock die and it is during all his run that the coalescence of the Genesis planet is taking place). By contrast, the Carol Marcus presentation video shows the entire process, from impact and detonation on surface of a dead world to full class-M biosphere complete with liquid oceans, in a time-lapse sequence lasting exactly 51 seconds, as per the timing of the YouTube clip.

Was the presentation they saw was speeded up for the benifit of those viewing obviously, in fact we have a actual time frame from the script on how long it took them to create just the cave:

CAROL

This? It took the Starfleet corps
of engineers ten months in space
suits to tunnel out all this. What
we did in there -- we did in a day.
David, why don't you show Dr. McCoy
and the Lieutenant our idea of food.

So a minimum of a day for the cave to get to a point it develops food.

[TheHammer]

Elapsed time from the detonation of the Genesis device to the initial coalescence of the planet from the material of the Mutara Nebula comes in at exactly 1.27. How do I know this? I just popped my copy of the movie into the DVD player, selected the scene, and timed it. You may also wish to note that the planet we see at the end of that interval is still cooling and hasn't even formed an atmosphere, which means the Genesis wave is nowhere near finished with the creation of a class-M world at that point (we have the additional complication that we're certainly seeing an abbreviated sequence, given that it would take Kirk a lot longer than a minute and a half to run from the bridge, climb down fifteen levels from C-deck —past which the turbolifts were inoperative due to battle damage— and reach engineering in time to watch Spock die and it is during all his run that the coalescence of the Genesis planet is taking place). By contrast, the Carol Marcus presentation video shows the entire process, from impact and detonation on surface of a dead world to full class-M biosphere complete with liquid oceans, in a time-lapse sequence lasting exactly 51 seconds, as per the timing of the YouTube clip.

I just want to chime in here. I don't think using timing of the onscreen visuals is going to tell you a whole lot either way. You've got the demonstration, which is a simulation of how things are "supposed to work" under tightly controlled circumstances against an already existing planet. However, even if it described the exact scenario as the end of ST2, or the DS9 episode, it is clearly a C-level demonstration that is very rudimentary, meant to show persons without a background in science the general idea behind it. Timing may well be faster or slower - thus its pretty well useless either way.

You've got the genesis device detonating in the middle of a nebula on board a starship that has been blasted to bits, and kicked off by a novice whose only goal is to destroy kirk. Timing may be dependant on a number of factors such as available energy, materials it works with etc. This was a very uncontrolled demonstration of its power and capabilities. The failure of the planet may have more to do with that than any actual failing of Genesis itself.

The DS9 episode is something done under controlled circumstances, but the concept of what they are trying to accomplish isn't the same as either of the first two scenarios. Ignition of a star, and building a planet are obviously quite different goals and thus the exact process is bound to have differences. Further, if you are going to use the "we are probably looking at an abreviated sequence" in ST2, what is prevent anyone from saying the same thing about the DS9 episode?

[Patrick Degan]

Elapsed time from the detonation of the Genesis device to the initial coalescence of the planet from the material of the Mutara Nebula comes in at exactly 1.27. How do I know this? I just popped my copy of the movie into the DVD player, selected the scene, and timed it. You may also wish to note that the planet we see at the end of that interval is still cooling and hasn't even formed an atmosphere, which means the Genesis wave is nowhere near finished with the creation of a class-M world at that point (we have the additional complication that we're certainly seeing an abbreviated sequence, given that it would take Kirk a lot longer than a minute and a half to run from the bridge, climb down fifteen levels from C-deck —past which the turbolifts were inoperative due to battle damage— and reach engineering in time to watch Spock die and it is during all his run that the coalescence of the Genesis planet is taking place). By contrast, the Carol Marcus presentation video shows the entire process, from impact and detonation on surface of a dead world to full class-M biosphere complete with liquid oceans, in a time-lapse sequence lasting exactly 51 seconds, as per the timing of the YouTube clip.

I just want to chime in here. I don't think using timing of the onscreen visuals is going to tell you a whole lot either way. You've got the demonstration, which is a simulation of how things are "supposed to work" under tightly controlled circumstances against an already existing planet. However, even if it described the exact scenario as the end of ST2, or the DS9 episode, it is clearly a C-level demonstration that is very rudimentary, meant to show persons without a background in science the general idea behind it. Timing may well be faster or slower - thus its pretty well useless either way.

You've got the genesis device detonating in the middle of a nebula on board a starship that has been blasted to bits, and kicked off by a novice whose only goal is to destroy kirk. Timing may be dependant on a number of factors such as available energy, materials it works with etc. This was a very uncontrolled demonstration of its power and capabilities. The failure of the planet may have more to do with that than any actual failing of Genesis itself.

I would agree to an extent. Genesis was not detonated under ideal conditions, certainly not those conceived of in the lab. Even under ideal conditions, however, Genesis has to accelerate about a billion years of chemical and then organic processes to produce a class-M biosphere, and that is not going to take place within the brief timeframe of the demonstration video.

The DS9 episode is something done under controlled circumstances, but the concept of what they are trying to accomplish isn't the same as either of the first two scenarios. Ignition of a star, and building a planet are obviously quite different goals and thus the exact process is bound to have differences. Further, if you are going to use the "we are probably looking at an abbreviated sequence" in ST2, what is prevent anyone from saying the same thing about the DS9 episode?

There might be a moment or two of missing time in the sequence during "Second Sight" but events are more or less unfolding in time with the observation of the people standing on the bridge of the Prometheus, so there is not as much room for uncertainty as there is with the situation in TWOK with Kirk making his way through corridors, gangways and ladderways while the Genesis planet forms. Movie-time, Kirk is down in in the engine room from the bridge in about a minute or so, but it would certainly take a lot longer to cover that distance on foot given the size of the Enterprise.

[Patrick Degan]

Subatomic reorganisation is a chemical process, as occurs with the formation or dissolution of molecular compounds.

Square/rectangle again. All transmutation is subatomic reorganization, but not all subatomic reorganization is transmutation. Like I said earlier, electrons count too.

But, why would someone use the extra words after already talking about molecules? Marketing fluff, I guess.

I found a rougher draft of the TWOK script online - obviously before editing - and it doesn't have the subatomic wording. It just says "molecular structure".

It seems like author intent [!], as gleemed from non-canon sources [!!] was to refer to electrons rather than protons. That seems weird given the element ratios in that life cave vs the rock it was made out of, but regardless, even if it's true, it just means Seyetik tweaked it a little. Again, he didn't just walk up to a replicator and say "Genesis torpedo".

It is more than "square/rectangle" as you keep insisting upon. On that point, we will agree to disagree. However, there is still no support for the contention that Seteyik's device is Genesis-derivative due to the very different mechanics observed in the movie and the television episode.

Strawman Fallacy. I said NOTHING about the Genesis device penetrating to the core of the target planet shown in the simulation.

" is involving the entire mass of Epsilon 119 down to its core [...] indicating a quite different principle"

You used down to it's core specifically as a contrast. If you were saying two unrelated things, you should have put a period or something like that in there.

I put the unrelated things in two entirely different paragraphs describing two different video clips of two different situations. I don't see how it's possible to conflate the two statements given the above.

1) Wolfe's statement is not admissible. For all we know, his reasoning when no farther than "DURR... PROTOMATTER = GENESIS". Or he was simply tossing out a quick, glib statement without really thinking the matter through.

OK, so there's no uncertainty in his statement.... so you invent some. Why can't you just accept evidence and move on? Is Wong's Infallibilty that fucking important to you?

The principle of not recognising the Appeal to Authority as a legitimate testimonial is what's important here. Particularly where the "reality" of a fictional situation depicted on screen can't necessarily depend upon the face-value word of a script editor who may or may not have a clear idea of what he's writing or talking about.

Seteyik's device does not produce the same physical effects as Genesis, and has a far faster reaction time upon what is an Earth-sized electron degenerate mass

The speed difference could be simply two to the matter already being there; the Genesis wave spent several seconds collapsing the nebula (the rings as the ship ran) too. Moreover, the change is small enough that it's plausibly due to the difference in detail required - Genesis had to create life, whereas the star device was only concerned about breaking the shit down. (The star wouldn't want to cool down too, so no need to wait for that.)

Except atomic disintegration is far closer to a brute-force process than what Genesis was designed to accomplish, which was wholesale molecular restructuring to produce organic compounds of increasing complexity on a planetary scale until an Earthlike environment is achieved. That is more than a small change; it's an entirely different function.

2) The Federation Council and the Starfleet General Staff were the only bodies, as far as the actual canon evidence presented shows us, which had any knowledge of Project Genesis.

And that random guy from whom the Klingons purchashed their info.....

The "info" consisted of nothing more than Kirk's report to Starfleet, which could have been gleaned by intercepting his subspace transmission to headquarters and decrypting it. The likely candidate for accomplishing that is none other than Valkris, who was a Klingon spy. No mysterious, unseen intermediary "selling" data is necessary to explain how the Klingons got their intel on Genesis.

We get nothing from any scene, any line of dialogue, in either TWOK or any subsequent film or television episode to support your contention that parallel Genesis research had to be taking place elsewhere than Regula I.

Parallel Genesis research implies a second team doing active work toward the same thing. That's not what I'm saying.

There's two things I am saying:

1) They surely sent back progress reports, which almost certainly included details - test results and the necessary data to justify or reproduce the tests, like what happens in real life.

This is virtually proven on screen: we see some of it - Carol Marcus' PowerPoint in ST2 (apparently available to anyone of sufficient rank who asks for it; Kirk didn't have to be read into a need-to-know project, he just asked the computer and identified himself) and Kirk's commentery on it in ST3 (which was apparently for sale on the black market).

Sensor logs from the Enterprise surely gave more info as well, about the actual detonation.

While we don't see technical details, logic says it is likely to exist. To claim it doesn't is extraordinary, and thus that claim requires the evidence.

2) The Genesis project itself was surely based on existing science, like engineering projects in real life are. If science didn't already support it being possible, would it have gotten funding to begin with? I'd put this as a maybe: apparently the real life US military pisses money away on psychics (if that's not a myth).

The reason for sending back scientific results of tests would be to have other labs duplicate the research conterminously with the main research team. We have no evidence however that anything other than team status updates were being sent anywhere and certainly no evidence of any other lab receiving detailed technical data or parallel tests being conducted. The fact that nearly a century later, we see a Federation terraforming operation in the TNG episode "Home Soil" using what are industrial processes which will take longer than a human lifetime to achieve the transformation of a planetary environment to class-M conditions speaks against Genesis being any further developed, which supports the contention that Genesis was lost when most of the research team died and the station computers were wiped. Also, the sensor logs from the Enterprise would not be enough to reveal details of the Genesis wave or its inner mechanisms, they would only have recorded the physical events of the collapse of the nebula and subsequent formation of the planet —enough to tell someone that an extraordinary energy/gravitational event was taking place but not what was driving it or the specs of the device which triggered it.

Furthermore, despite your incredulity, we have seen multiple examples of wholly isolated research projects taking place in the Star Trek universe: from the time experiments of Prof. Manheim ("We'll Always Have Paris") to the separate AI researches of Noonien Soong and Ira Graves ("The Schizoid Man", "Brothers", etc...), the genetic researches on the Darwin Station ("Unnatural Selection"), Dr. Nel Apgar's Krieger wave research ("A Matter Of Perspective"), Dr. Reyga's metagenic shield project ("Suspicions") and of course Adm. Pressman's phasing cloak project ("The Pegasus"). The Star Trek writers are stuck on the obsolete vision of the pre-World War I gentleman scientist/private (or secret) invention factory. It is quite feasible that the writers for TWOK thought of Genesis as a wholly self-contained research project involving only Dr. Carol Marcus and her team in isolation. And that is all we ever see in the movies and all we ever know of the Genesis project.

And BTW, yes, the Pentagon and the CIA conducted investigation into psychic seeing.

Going back to the Saturn V, they went into that already understanding chemistry, thermodynamics, kinematics, and whatever other physics of rocketflight there is. They didn't privately develop all the underlying science for it. The engineering might be secret and new, but the science is most likely already established. If a guy like Spock were to study the Genesis data, it'd probably make sense to him. The specific designs are lost, but that doesn't mean the principle is suddenly mystery magic.

Apollo was hardly a secret project. In fact, it involved more than a dozen aerospace firms working on various aspects of the rocket and thousands of engineers nationwide. The problem is that all of that information has either been lost or scattered and the original engineering corps are dying off or are so long retired that their engineering knowledge is hopelessly obsolete. The designs and dies were scrapped and so were most of the parts. The combined loss of physical hardware, data, and far more importantly operational experience is what now makes it impossible for NASA, even were it to get the requisite funding, to replicate the achievements of Project Apollo or even Project Apollo itself. We're pretty much knocked back to Gemini as far as manned spaceflight launch capability goes; worse since Apollo was being developed parallel with Gemini. It's now as if Apollo had never existed. Getting back to the moon means essentially starting from scratch and it's a far more complex proposition than just upscaling the SLS.

Have you ever taken a literature class? Ever read literary discussions? They focus on what's in the text, too. It's very rare that they try to read someone's mind.

Except we're dealing with visual media and the events/phenomena presented in that media, which is treated for analytical purposes here as documentary footage and observed events. To reach for authorial intent is Appealing to Authority, which is not valid.

That is not at all what that page is talking about. It's talking about why authorial intent is valueless as an authority.

Jesus Christ. I hate your guts. How can anybody actually be this stupid?

You should try asking yourself that question, actually. Sigh... and you were actually behaving like a rational human being up to this point.

The format of that page is:
YELLOW: Author intent is all that matters.
GREEN: lol no

rinse/repeat

Strawman. The format of that of the page is:

YELLOW: Literary analysis method
GREEN: Suspension of disbelief method
WHITE: explanations and descriptions

Really, you actually think you're going to get away with bullshitting about a page anybody on this site can access with a mouse-click and read for themselves?

That's not insightful because nobody would actually read what the yellow text says!

If you say so, Gracie...

[avatarxprime]

Not to distract from the debate going on between Destructionator XIII and Patrick Degan, but in reading this thread and seeing discussion on forgotten Federation technology, what of Helium fusion enhancement from TNG "Half a Life"? The process was designed/created to bring a dying star back to life, but the first time they tested it, they ended up making a star blow up. The scientist responsible admitted that it would take decades for someone else to go through his research to replicate his work and fix the problem, but that isn't an issue for weaponizing the effect. In that case you want it to mess up and cause the star to explode. That would give every Federation starship the ability to cause a star to go nova, or produce a nova-like event for the cost of a few photon torpedoes. I'm not saying it would help even the odds against the Empire, but it would certainly serve as a weapon that would destabilize the balance of power within the AQ in the Federation's favor seeing as how the Duras sisters wanted those trilithium weapons to do much the same.

[Metahive]

Thing is the Empire is so huge, even destroying a core system will have no immediate effect on its war capabilities. That is if the weapon can even be brought to bear in time.

[Sandslice]

Suspension of Disbelief: either these people really are speaking English, or the film was dubbed (and digitally doctored) to make it look and sound as if they are speaking English.

This is one case where the scientific technique arguably produces a klunkier explanation than the literary method, but the outcomes are still the same.

Actually, it's another inconsistency, and a problematic one at that.
There's no evidence whatsoever that the film was dubbed and digitally doctored. So, by Mr. Wong's method, that means the characters actually are speaking English. Case closed.
If we accept his outcome though, that's where the problems come in. If they can alter the films so perfectly that alien languages are covered up so well, what else did they alter? Since we accept language alterations with no evidence, why not accept anything else?
It throws the source's credibility out the window.

DS9: Little Green Men has absolute evidence that Star Trek dubs and digitally doctors alien speech. In the episode, three Ferengi are stuck in the USA in 1947 and encounter American military personnel. Because nuclear fission fallout is disrupting the Universal Translators, the two factions cannot understand each other.
When the Ferengi are speaking amongst themselves, they are clearly speaking English. Since the Americans, who speak English, cannot understand them, this means the Ferengi are not actually speaking English. Therefore, the Ferengi are really speaking their own language, altered on film for English viewers' benefit.
This can be extrapolated to establish that most uses of the UT include digital doctoring of the logs. Since this represents most contacts between the UFP and other aliens, does that mean we have to toss all of Star Trek?

(Stepping out of world) Most sci-fi and fantasy will run into the problem of representing languages; and most choose to use English (or other language of production) as a proxy for the most useful/common. As common as this approach is, I think we can agree to ignore that problem even in suspension of disbelief analysis.

[Azron_Stoma]

They also apparently have some kind of Holographic projection or something to get the lip synching right.

It would be rather amusing, albiet time consuming and costly, to have the characters clearly overdubbed with The viewer's speaking language while their mouth movements are clearly non-english. Imagine if Picard constantly spoke french and we hear Patrick stewart overdubbing his lines in english.

I can imagine it would also cause problems for those hearing impaired who are accustomed to reading lips and may not have closed captions handy.

[Sandslice]

If I may take on a few of these and ask questions. If I make any references to EU, they'll be clearly labelled to be used or ignored as you will.

I'm curious about this. It seems that yes, the ships of the Empire are faster than those of the Federation, but from what we've seen on-screen, that seems to be the only edge that the Empire has.

Two examples of other edges would be production capacity and ground combat.

-Reliable time travel

What theory of chronophysics is used? If I recall my Trek history, this is portrayed rather inconsistently - sometimes causing causal loops, sometimes alterations of the future (without the auto-assassin paradox,) sometimes many-worlds. Sometimes (cf: ST IV) they leave stuff in the past and take stuff into the future without considering the consequences of either action.

-teleportation.

What is the theory of transporter operation? It's not a teleport (otherwise TNG: Second Chances is impossible due to conservation of mass, if not also the first law of thermodynamics.) If it's a replicator, then what happens to the subject when it is beamed "out?"

-energy-to-matter conversion

The theory of relativity permits it even now, and every time someone fires up a particle accelerator like LHC, it happens.

The Federation has cloaking devices and the means to detect cloaked ships.

The Federation has had two effective ship cloaks, both of which were Romulan. The personal cloaks in Insurrection are generated by chameleon suits - they don't interfere with the subject's shadow and can be detected.
As for detection, these have been improvised solutions that exploited weaknesses in the cloaking tech. We never see a Fed ship enter the Neutral Zone running active scans for Romulan cloaks (despite having every reason to know how a Romulan cloak works.)
Note that the Reman Scimitar in Nemesis was also detected by exploiting a specific weakness; in order to mind-screw Troi, Shinzon had to form an intrusive telepathic link to her. Unfortunately for him and his cool ship, she used the link and simple triangulation to detect him and thus the ship's cloak.

The Empire may have cloaks, as evidenced by Piett's line in ESB about cloaking devices, but it's certainly clear that the Imperial fleet does not use them, or they would have done so before the Battle of Hoth and that if they had the means to detect a cloak then Piett would have ordered them to do so when they lost the Millenium Falcon from view.

First off, it was Needa, not Piett; and the line was "No ship that small has a cloaking device." Implicit in this assumption are the following:
1. Cloaks exist.
2. Cloaks can be detected.
3. Needa didn't order a cloak scan because he believed that the Falcon was too small to mount a cloak (which suggests that cloaks require substantial power output, well in excess of what would be expected of a glitchy YT-1300 transport.)

As for ISD cloaks: even if they had and deployed them, each ship would have to be detectable by the other ships in the flotilla - requiring probably detectable active scans.

-An episode of The Next Generation showed an engineer who created a ridiculous method of space travel that made a "subspace wave" or whatever that went out of control. It was stated that the wave would have destroyed any planets in its path. The Enterprise came up with a way to dissipate the wave at the end of the episode. Any Starfleet capital ship would be capable of deploying and dissipating the wave as a weapon. That would easily take out or disable a Death Star.

For reference, the episode is TNG "New Ground." It's worth another post (or even thread) to explain why the solition wave could not be reliably weaponised.

-The Enterprise from TOS is capable of incinerating the crust of a planet on its own. I believe the name of the episode where this is mentioned is "The Armageddon Factor." The Imperial flagship Executor was incapable of destroying the Hoth Echo Base from orbit. If you are thinking about the Rebel shield, see the next entry.

"A Taste of Armageddon." Kirk claimed to be able to destroy the planet. Given Kirk's track record, it is possible that he was bluffing, especially in light of DS9 "The Die is Cast" where a 30-ship fleet which included Romulan D'deridex warships could not accomplish "incinerating the crust." As awesome as the TOS Enterprise was, I should ask for evidence that it could succeed at a task that eluded 30 ships, each of which had higher potential.

As for the battle of Hoth, two factors inhibited such an attack: the Rebel theatre shield (which could have been defeated by engaging a BDZ operation away from it) and Vader's desire to capture Luke alive. Indiscriminate bombardment would have had a strong chance of roasting young Skywalker, thus failing the mission. (By the way: why didn't the Founders have theatre or planetary shields capable of withstanding the assault?)

-The Hoth Echo Base shield is able to be penetrated by ground vehicles. Starfleet shields are capable of deflecting incoming attack ships. In the episode Preemptive Strike, the only way a small fighter was able to pierce the shields and get close to the Enterprise was that Enterprise allowed them in.

This proves (along with two Gungan examples in TPM) that Star Wars shields discriminate according to what they thwart.
Also, please prove that Fed shields can block ramming ships, in light of the fact that comparably shielded Klingon ships could not. In addition, the Reman Scimitar (Nemesis) could not block the Enterprise's slow ram despite having *two* shields.

-A point could be made that in regards to the Second Death Star's shield. That shield was delivered by a planet-based facility. If the Empire had the technology to equip the Death Star with its own energy shield then they would have done so, but neither Death Star was so equipped. The conclusion is that Starfleet shields are stronger and more economical.

This will also be addressed in a separate post.

-The Federation defeated the Dominion in battle. There is no conceivable scenario in which the Federation would fail to demand and receive the Dominion's invasive transporter technology, which is capable of beaming through shields.

In TNG "The Wounded," O'Brien devised a way to beam through shields anyway - by exploiting the weakness caused by shield frequency oscillation. Also, the Borg could beam through shields, which raises the question of why Voyager (having a Borg crew member) cannot do so. Shields, however, are only one of several problems for transporter tech.

-In Endgame, Voyager comes back home with advanced technology that allows them to destroy Borg ships with little effort. Such technology is only 20 years ahead of Voyager's time so there is little doubt that if the crew of Voyager could adapt it to their own ship so quickly, then Starfleet would waste no time in upgrading the fleet.

Which would potentially destabilise the Alpha Quadrant, while possibly failing to defeat the Borg should they ever be able to return. Also, it should be noted that 2404 Janeway supplied 2378 Voyager with the transphasic torps and how to configure the launchers for them - but there's no evidence that she taught the crew the theories of creating them.

-Yes, the Empire has Death Star technology. However, the Empire only has ever had one Death Star at a time, never a fleet.

Did the Empire really need more than one at a time? Destroying a planet isn't something you do every day (unless you're a living creature that needs to eat them for sustenance, like Unicron,) and ISDs are easier to create and deploy.

[avatarxprime]

Thing is the Empire is so huge, even destroying a core system will have no immediate effect on its war capabilities. That is if the weapon can even be brought to bear in time.

I know, that's why I explicitly said that this would not even the odds against the Empire and focused more so on its apparent relegation to "forgotten technology" and its effect on the status quo in the Alpha Quadrant; allowing the Federation to essentially take full control of the various AQ powers as a result.

[Sandslice]

This post, as mentioned in my previous post, will address the OP's assertions concerning solition waves and the Death Star shields.

-Soliton waves:

The reference episode is TNG "New Ground." The soliton wave was generated as part of an experiment in inducing artificial warp-speed travel in ships not equipped for normal warp speed; in normal operation, a ship would ride the wave like a galactic surfer - and the power output would be low enough to prevent damage.
The method of generating the wave was a bank of 23 emitters on the surface of a planet, which were expected to produce a wave that would acquire sufficient strength to move ships from two million km toward another specified planet which had emitters for dissipating the wave.
The wave surged in an unexpected way at warp 2.35, destroying the test ship and damaging the Enterprise. After the sensors were repaired, the wave had grown to 12x its strength and was travelling at warp 4.1. About an hour later, the engines were back online, and the wave had grown to 96x times its original strength at warp 6.37 - within a couple hours of Lemma II, where it would be estimated to have 200x its original strength, enough to smash Lemma II.
Enterprise overtook the wave, needing warp 7.3 to do so; and then dissipated the wave with a spread of photorps set for maximum (level 16) power, which ended the wave's existence.

Problems for weaponising this:
1. Energy requirement for producing the wave: The wave would have reached Lemma II with 200x its normal energy, enough to destroy "most of" Lemma. This may be slightly lower than the ~2.3e32J required for full planetary destruction; to be generous, we'll scale it down to ~2.3e27 (5e11 megatons,) which is sufficiently destroyed.
The initial energy of the wave would thus be ~1.15e25J, with each of the 23 emitters contributing ~5e23J to the whole. This is six times what a GCS produces - and this is just for one component of the wave generator in SURFING mode.
To weaponise the soliton wave, the firing platform must supply all of the energy.

2. Range: The unstable wave would have required three light years to attain the energy levels in question - and presumably it would have kept on in a straight line, picking up speed as it smashed whatever it encountered. While allowing the wave to propagate over long distances lowers the initial energy requirement, it cannot be reasonably aimed at such ranges, espeically against a jump-capable mobile fortress. There would also be concerns of collateral damage, especially since the wave increases in size as it propagates.

3. Unknown interaction with a Death Star's passive defencive systems. This may serve to *increase* the energy requirements to overpower a Death Star.

----

And now for the Death Star shields.

A point could be made that in regards to the Second Death Star's shield. That shield was delivered by a planet-based facility. If the Empire had the technology to equip the Death Star with its own energy shield then they would have done so, but neither Death Star was so equipped. The conclusion is that Starfleet shields are stronger and more economical.

1. DS2 was 60% complete. It is quite possible to assert that the primary shield generators would not have been installed yet.
2. Given that X-wing blaster cannon shots could penetrate the hull and do at least superficial internal damage, we should expect that stronger capship weapons would actually be a threat; and DS1's defences were calibrated around it being attacked by capships. This is not just the turbolasers, as the attackers would be able to inflict damage - it must therefore entail the use of shields.
3. DS2's shield was projected from the planet below, and provided a level of protection that didn't allow the "slow through" trick --- the shield had to be dropped before an attack could succeed. This does not support the conclusion that Star Trek shields are stronger *or* more economical.

Untrue. In "The Die is Cast", they devastated the planet in a matter of seconds, maybe minutes if we assume they compressed time to keep the episode moving, but the characters were still standing in the same place before and after, so it couldn't have been long.

The fleet estimated about an hour for destruction of the crust - and this was with all 30 ships working on it. Kirk claimed to be able to do so on his own.

[Stofsk]

No Kirk nor Scotty ever claimed the Enterprise was going to destroy the crust.

I don't have a hard time believing the Enterprise could destroy the planet's surface (antimatter in photon torpedoes probably doing most of the damage, with phasers being maybe the surgical strike instruments), but really all we got from the episode was that Scotty asserting that the Enterprise had the means at its disposal to bring civilisation on Eminiar to an end.

[tribalcheetah]

There is no evidence to suggest that the Executor was incapable of destroying Echo Base. You're ignoring the fact that Vader did NOT want to destroy the base, he wanted it intact so that he could capture Luke. Nuking Echo Base from orbit would have rather obviously been counterproductive to that goal.

Further, the theater shield deployed at Echo Base was intended to protect against orbital bombardment. It had nothing to do with defending against a ground assault. I'd say that works as advertised, wouldn't you?

A little off topic but I feel that I have to mention this. There actually is evidence that the Executor and the flotilla was incapable of directly destroying Echo Base. http://youtu.be/isRZxiDiH58 time 3:40. General reports that there is a energy field protecting an area of the planet capable of deflecting ANY bombardment. A bombardment from the Executor and it's escort of Star Destroyers, presumably.

One-episode wonders won't do shit against 25,000 easily replaceable mile-long planet-killing warships.

Star Trek vessels/tech has long been shown to render planets uninhabitable/destroyed. Brute force is not much of a special skill there, apparently.

It goes without saying that the Empire has a significant amount of vessels. How many of those capable of committing to a "vs" battle is something else, if you consider the Empire is also busy: chasing rebels, smugglers and bounty hunters, occupying and terrorizing rebel (and sometimes friendly) worlds into submission, asserting fear into the general populace to maintain control, defending and patrolling military bases and secret areas, chasing after Jedi rumors, power projection, and so on across the entire galaxy. All of those tasks seem to always be assigned to a Star Destroyer.

Hell, there were at least two SD's at Tatooine at the beginning of ANH when they were escaping in the Falcon, and all that was originally captured there was a little corvette (which only took one SD to capture). The Federation probably has a denser ship population (estimated anywhere from 5000-12000 depending on what time frame you are referencing) available in it's quadrant than the Empire has for it's galaxy, even though the Empire could redeploy faster (depending on what it is doing).

A question also: I've seen references for both but are Star Destroyers 1,600 meters or 1 mile long? 1 mile = 1609.3 meters, not 1,600.

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

question also: I've seen references for both but are Star Destroyers 1,600 meters or 1 mile long? 1 mile = 1609.3 meters, not 1,600.

They're 1600 meters long, saying they're a mile long is technically incorrect, but its close enough for government work. I fail to see how that extra nine and a third meters matters anyway.

[Captain Seafort]

question also: I've seen references for both but are Star Destroyers 1,600 meters or 1 mile long? 1 mile = 1609.3 meters, not 1,600.

They're 1600 meters long, saying they're a mile long is technically incorrect, but its close enough for government work. I fail to see how that extra nine and a third meters matters anyway.

It depends which source you read. Some say a mile, some say 1600 metres. The Technical Journal says 1605m. As you say, there's no practical difference, so it might well be the case that they're all true, varying with batch or shipyard.