Uber-powered antimatter?

[Perseid]

The simple answer is that the torpedoes used simply don't have the yield to create sufficient ejecta to disrupt the cloud layer. If they did then the cloud layer would have had noticable and long term changes for the duration of the bombardment and resulting devestation.

For reference read about Mount St Helens erupting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_erupt ... St._Helens
And that was only a VE 5 event, for reference the scale: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_explosivity_index

Yes they're wiki articles and concerning volcanoes, but the effect of a planetary bombardment could be compared to multiple volcanoes going off simultaniously (or so I'd imagine)

I love it when people are coming and thinking they can add their two cents without knowing what we are talking about and - as it seems - without reading what was written already. Shows how clever they are.

It's especially nice when they are giving whole internet sides as a reference instead of concrete text passages and without even saying what to look for. Am I supposed to look what from what there is written is relevant and supports your claim?

But I was so nice and have searched for the terms »hight« and »altitude« and found here the following statement:

Eruption column and cloud - Height: Reached about 80,000 ft (24,400 m) in less than 15 minutes

That's a nice information. DaveJB or you should have provided it. It's not my task to provide you with information you could need.

And I have only quoted this information because it it does not solve the problem.

Is the cloud-layer higher than 25 km?

On an earth-like planet we could probably say: No - clouds aren't that high.

But the Founder's planet was a rogue planet and had a cloud layer that covered the whole planet thick enough that we couldn't see the surface at all and thick enough that even circular shockwaves spreading through those clouds traveling thousands of times the speed of sound for hundreds of kilometers couldn't disperse them.

And this cloud layer didn't consisted of liquid droplets or frozen crystals made of water. They weren't our nice white cirrocumulus. They weren't even thundery clouds.

What do you know about the cloud-layer and its hight on the Founder's planet?

How can you claim that the ejecta could disrupt the cloud layer without providing evidence first that the ejecta could reach the cloud layer at all?

And this in the few seconds the planet was shown. The Wikipedia-article, you referred to, said that the eruption column and cloud reached its hight in less than 15 minutes - implying that it needed more than a few seconds.

You had to provide also evidence that the torpedoes didn't detonated underground to cause as much damage to the crust as possible.

Ejecting matter into the atmosphere means only that energy that could have been used to damage the crust even more is wasted.

If it were my objective to destroy the crust and mantle of a planet, I'd try to let the torpedoes detonate as deep as necessary to maximize their effect on the crust and mantle.

How can you claim that the ejecta could disrupt the cloud layer without providing evidence first that there was ejecta at all?

Considering that we know little to nothing about the atmosphere on the Founder's planet there is no way to answer that. The point of the links was that if a VE 5 event can be seen from space seen here, then you should be able to see the results of planet cracking explosions from space.
Besides earlier on you were arguing that there are shockwaves travelling through the cloud layer. Typically debris from explosions will travel with the shockwave normally arriving within a few seconds of the shockwave hitting, hell that's how fragmentation explosives do their damage the fragments are carried by the blast from the explosion.
A volcanic eruption is, at a basic level, an underground explosion (explosive decompression in this case) that pours out through a hole created in the earths crust (at least for the eruptions like Mt St Helens, and Eyjafjallajökull). Therefore if the torpedoes did detonated underground you would end up with an effect remarkably similar to a volcanic eruption, and if we go by the multi-terraton level explosions that you're talking about you'd see the ejecta, the blast would tear great chunks out and throw it upwards, ergo the detonations are not underground detonations, at least not on the level that this super antimatter should suggest.

[DaveJB]

Okay, let's add some actual math to the proceedings, shall we? We'll take a yield of 64MT for the Cardassian and Romulan torpedoes. For argument's sake, we'll assume that since they're most likely exploded near the surface they can get much nearer their theoretical yield (we'll call it 63.5MT) since there's less chance of the antimatter dispersing into the vacuum of space.

An explosion of that size would, according to the nuclear explosion calculator on the main Stardestroyer.net, site, flatten everything in a 28.5KM radius and produce thermal radiation effects strong enough to kill any exposed lifeform within a 64KM radius. Therefore, the total destructive area of a single torpedo would be approximately 12,868 square kilometres.

Let's assume that the torpedoes are fired in an equidistant pattern in order to maximise their destructive potential. Taking the 300 torpedo figure from earlier, that gives us a total area of 3,860,040 square kilometres. If we were to be ultra-generous and assume that the beam weapons affected the same amount of the planet, we get a grand total of 7,720,080 square kilometres.

If the Founder homeworld has the same ocean-to-land ratio as Earth, its landmass will have a total area of 148,326,000 square kilometres. Therefore, the aforementioned bombardment would destroy/devastate around 5.2% of the planet's landmasses.

Of course, this is still some ways off 30% of the landmasses or total surface, but it shows that the fleet doing this is at least in the realm of plausibility. By contrast, there is no evidence whatsoever other than the word of one officer that 30% of the planetary crust was outright destroyed.

I will not continue this debate with you as long as you do explain why we didn't see anything that happened beneath the cloud-layer - not even the torpedo detonations.

That's rich, considering I asked you to prove that the cloud layer could possibly have obscured the destruction of 30% of the crust, and you're still refusing to do so.

If you want to call it quits on this debate, that's your choice. But I'll say it one last time, your entire approach to debating is wrong. Instead of offering up any sort of reasonable explanation for what we saw in the episode, you're just throwing up vague hypotheses that all start out from a single core assumption (that 30% of the crust was destroyed) and demanding that everyone else disprove them.

Just as a closing thought, consider this. You're saying that it's not possible for an atmosphere to be thick enough to obscure multi-megaton detonations on a planetary surface. But you're saying it is possible for an atmosphere to be thick enough to obscure 30% of the planet's crust being blown apart. You really don't see any contradiction there?

[WATCH-MAN]

Considering that we know little to nothing about the atmosphere on the Founder's planet there is no way to answer that. [...]

That's exatly what I have said from the beginning.

And if we can not answer that, we can not prove that it was wrong when the Romulan officer stated that 30 percent of the crust was destroyed only because we did not see what happened beneath the cloud-layer.

With other words: We have the statement of the Romulan officer as evidence and nothing that proves that it is wrong.

You could argue that the sensor readings and thus the statement of the Romulan officer were wrong not only concerning the life-signs but concerning the extent of the destruction too.

But DaveJB hadn't done that.

Besides it would not help.

In this case we have no useful visuals anymore as what we have seen was only the depiction of the sensor-readings on the main-screen of the Romulan warbird. That would leaves us only with the statement of Lovok: »Computer analysis indicates that the planet's crust will be destroyed within one hour, and the mantle within five.« That may be not as impressive as destroying thirty percent of the crust with one volley. But it would be still impressive enough to not change the main problem of this debate.

[Eternal_Freedom]

The possible solution is that whatever they used was not antimatter, or there was a reaction wit hthe atmosphere, or the cloud creature itself, to produce such an effect. It's an outlier, which is always a pain in the ass. But honestly, I think that assuming a weird situation in that one case is easier than assuming some weird treaties/restrictions (self-imposed or otherwise) on every AQ power is a more likely outcome.

The problem is that I am not fond of outlier explanations. You can have outliers in experiments, in measured data or in statistical data.

But what happened in the TOS episode »Obsession« and in the DS9 episode »The die is cast« did happen.

I am the opinion that we have to try to reconcile it and do not ignore it.

Of course you are allowed to have another opinion - although I do not think that such an opinion is practical in real life.

I'm not disputing that the events happened, I am saying that they cannot, or should not, be used as evidence for the Federation having teraton-range or better weaponry which (for the Federation at least) is never seen again when there are other, more plausible, explanations that also fit the facts. As per Occam's Razor, the simpler solution is that the Obsession event is an outlier based on special circumstances, hence never repeated, rather than "it's normal but we agreed never to use such weapons again." Since no mention is made of such agreements or treaties in future, the "special circumstances" explanation is more likely.

Improbable things and singular events do happen in real life.

Only because the USA have used their nuclear weapons only once and have used in all other events only conventional weapons (before and since then), I can not conclude that they do not have nuclear weapons (any more), that their usage of nuclear weapons was an outlier and they aren't able to use nuclear weapons (any more).

I have to try to reconcile it. And in this case it is easy to reconcile as we know that on the one side the threat of mutual destruction and on the other side (domestically and external) political reasons kept them from using nuclear weapons again. We know this as it happened in real life.

But imagine we would have seen only parts of this via a TV-series that shows only the events in which a military unit or base is involved. The TV series has shown us the attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and since then all the wars in which the USA were involved. We would see situations - as the Vietnam war - in which it would be plausible to use nuclear weapons again. But the TV series had not shown us all the nuclear weapons tests that happened since WWII and it had not shown us all the nuclear weapons the USA have. In the series we have only seen the conventional weapons - grenades, torpedoes, missiles, cruise missiles and bombs (all only used with conventional warheads) as the military unit or base which the TV series is about were not involved in the nuclear weapons tests and do not have access to nuclear weapons. And the TV series had not shown us all the things that happened in Washington - all the (domestically and external) political shenanigans going on in Washington.

Of course - from what was seen in such a TV series - it is not totally implausible to conclude that the USA do not have nuclear weapons any more, that the two weapons they used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were their only two nuclear weapons and a huge bluff to get Japan to surrender.

But of course that wouldn't be the only possible explanation. An explanation that assumes that there are going on things off-screen that explains why the USA are not using nuclear weapons any more - although they still have them - is possible too. And - as it happens - it would be nearer to the truth.

To me it is the same with Star Trek. We know that the series is only about one ship or base. We know that the series does not show us all that happens. We know that many things are happening of screen - even important things. Insofar we can reconcile such »outliers« if we find a possible explanation about what happened off-screen that fit to the facts shown on-screen.

I really don't see your point here. The Federation is not (despite the absurdly high prevalence of American accents) the US, thus at best we can use it as a rough analogy. Which is still flawed, since the Federation faces existential threats from equal or superior powers on a regular basis (seriously, in the ~15 years we see of the TNG/DS9/VOY era, there are a half-dozen ore more serious threats tot he Federation's very existence).

Of course such explanation would be only one of several possible explanations. But it would show that »outliers« are reconcilable and that they do not have to be ignored.

We aren't ignoring the outliers. I am contending that there were specific circumstances applying to these two situations which explain the results, rather than using an explanation that would necessitate much larger knock-on changes later on that we simply do not see.

The next question is, where the burden of proof lies.

Does the one who claims that a shown event is an outlier and has to be ignored because it can't be reconciled has the burden of proof?

Or has the one who gives a possible explanation that shows that it can be reconciled and thus does not needed to be ignored has the burden of proof?

My opinion is that the first one has to prove that what we have seen has to be ignored as it can't be reconciled. After all: He is the one who invokes an irreconcilability.

Again, we aren't ignoring the outliers, we are proposing simpler, circumstance-specific conditions that do not generate further inconsistencies.

The thing is that your explanation - a reaction with the atmosphere or the creature - is not only possible but to be expected. Of course will the anti-matter react with the matter of the atmosphere and of the creature in an annihilation. But such an annihilation dwarfs all possible chemical reactions that could go on besides the annihilation.

And yet the "metryon gas" used as a makeshift weapon in Insurrection (the fight between the E-E and two Son'a warships in the Briar Patch) generated far more energy than any possible chemical reaction, but it worked quite effectively.

For that matter, the cloud creature itself most likely contributed heavily to the explosion, since it was capable of warp-travel it must have had a source of power comparable to matter/antimatter reactors to provide the energy (or relied on some freaky subspace effects, which can also be quite deadly).

And in the TOS episode »Obsession« they explicitly spoke of anti-matter:

• • • • • • KIRK:
        Antimatter seems our only possibility.
        
        • • SPOCK:
        An ounce should be sufficient. We can drain it from the ship's engines and transport it to the planet surface in a magnetic vacuum field.
        
        • • [...]
        • • SPOCK:
        A matter-antimatter blast will rip away half the planet's atmosphere.

It's possible that Spock left out that the from the ship's engines drained anti-matter still has to be processed to the super-anti-matter - as he could assume that Kirk knew this. But it seems implausible that they misspoke.

Given Spock's precision in explaining plans (to the point of correcting Kirk's earlier statement of "20 times stronger than diamond" to "21.4 times" at the start of this episode, it is unlikely that he woudl have omitted such an important step. Additionally, earlier in the episode they had to rendezvous with the USS Yorktown to transport some drugs. Kirk asks how long the round-trip to the Tychos system will take, Chekov says "1.something days." Kirk thinks and says they'll met the other ship "in 48 hours" so he was clearly expecting to arrive, deal with the cloud creature and leave quickly. Since the antimatter bomb plan is conceived after they arrive, it cannot have taken them long to rig up the weapon.

Finally, Spock, after describing the plan, clearly states "There is only one problem," Kirk replies "yes, the blast" and Spock confirms it with the line you quoted. Any issue with refining or processing ordinary antimatter into this super-antimatter would have been included in this "there is one problem" line.

Ergo, the anitmatter used was completely normal and was taken directly from the ship's engines. Unless you want to try and prove that the Enterprise used super-antimatter as fuel (good luck with that) you cannot argue this point.

Incidentally, this is why it's important to quote all the relevant dialogue, not just the parts that immediately agree with your point.

The bomb used in Obsession was small enough that it would fit, at the very least, in a probe casing. Or a shuttlecraft if needs be.

I do not know which probe casing you are referring to. But I think it was to large to fit in a photon torpedo casing if you do not want to remove other important parts.
As putting it in a shuttle craft - such a shuttlecraft could be shot down far easier than a torpedo - as seen in the TNG episode »Best of both worlds« when the Borg cube shot down three sentry pods of the Mars Defense Perimeter easily.

The weapon used is approximately the size of a human torso. The probe casings are the same size as photon torpedo casings (they use the same launchers). We have seen the size of torpedo casings, we have seen that they can indeed hold a torso-sized object. Ergo, this bomb should fit into a probe casing, or otherwise a modified torpedo casing.

I will concede the "shooting down the shuttlecraft" point, but since I established just now that this hypothetical bomb woudl fit in a torpedo or probe casing, it is a moot point anyway.

It's been a while since I saw the episode (my recollections of the bomb come from still images) but I don't think it was stretched out into days.

It's the same with me. It was not the impression I got from the episode. But that happens often when watching TV. Things that happened about the course of days and weeks are put into a 45 minutes episode. Of course they are leaving out all the thumbs twiddling. Sometimes only a cursory remark reveals that more time has passed. Sometimes not even that.

AS I noted above, in this case the maximum times is hours at most.

At any rate, no mention is made of a) the material being anything special or b) "but that'll take days to produce" or anything like that. As best I can recall it was just there.

You are right that no mention is made.

In the TOS episode »Obsession« they only said:

• • • • • • KIRK:
        Antimatter seems our only possibility.
        
        • • SPOCK:
        An ounce should be sufficient. We can drain it from the ship's engines and transport it to the planet surface in a magnetic vacuum field.
        
        • • [...]
        • • SPOCK:
        A matter-antimatter blast will rip away half the planet's atmosphere.

It's possible that Spock left out that the from the ship's engines drained anti-matter still has to be processed to the super-anti-matter - as he could assume that Kirk knew this.

Again, as noted above, Spock says there is just one problem, and the time taken to refine the material is not mentioned.

Easy enough, Season six, "Tears of the Prophets," multiple D'Deridex warbirds seen firing torpedoes from forward launchers when attacking the weapons platforms (can be seen just after Martok orders Sisko to attack).

Acknowledged.

But in this case we are again at the question if the torpedo tubes of the attack fleet are standard torpedo tubes. As the ships may be special-builds it is possible that they have special torpedo tubes for their special planetary assault weapons.

Speculation. Regardless, every indication we have is that these were standard ships firing standard weapons. Neither Tain nor Lovok mention "we've got some weapons just for the job" or anything like that. Even the line from Tain you quote just below, when he says they've built the fleet in sceret, he doesn't mention any special weapons. If, as you postulate, these weapons are banned, you would think it would at least be adcressed here. It's "we've built this fleet in secret, we're going to blast the Founders." Garak, upon hearing the predicted damage, doesn't say "but you'd need a super-weapon to do that." No mention, anywhere, of the ships having special armaments, or indeed anything special apart from the cloaking devices.

It is plausible that the Romulan ships are special-builds. But they certainly weren't built in the Orias system. When that shipyard was revealed in DS9's "Defiant" only Cardassian ships are seen. It would be absurd to say they were built there, as it would mean the Tal'Shiar giving Cardassians the designs for their most advanced warships. They may ahve cooperated that far, but (since you like real-world examples) as far as I know even the US and UK navy's don't trade design secrets for their nuclear submarines (for example).

You may be right - but I thing it is irrelevant where the ships were build.

Indeed, it is irrelevant (although if the Warbirds were built at Orias, it's bloody weird that they'd hand over their complete designs).

Even so, if the Warbirds were special-builds, why go tot he trouble and expense of building full-sized Warbirds when a smaller, "missile frigate" type of vessel would have been sufficient? Why not simply provide crew for the Cardassian ships?

You should ask the Tal Shiar or the Obsidian Order. We know at least from the Cardassian ships that they were build for the attack on the Founder's planet. I can't explain why they did build Keldon class war ships and not only - as you put it - »a smaller, "missile frigate" type of vessel«.

Accepted.

• • • • • • TUVOK:
        One of the Cube's shield grids is fluctuating. Ventral axis, secondary emitter.
        
        • • [...]
        • • JANEWAY:
        Their ventral shield grid?
        
        • • TUVOK:
        Still fluctuating at a rate of point zero six terahertz.

Talk about a Cube's shield.

Conceded. However, this would only be an issue IF the super-beam-weapons are indeed less effective against shields. It also does not address the super-torpedoes that could be used instead.

I appreciate your point, but again, Obsession shwos that the stuff is (apparently) commonplace - Spock does not mention "but it will take x days to generate" he just says "an ounce wil be sufficient." If it really is super-antimatter, and it does take longer to generate, Kirk should have asked how long they'd have to wait, or something to indicate it isn't a commonplace material.

I concede that Spock hadn't mentioned it.

But there are many things he does not mention. Maybe he knew that Kirk knew that it will be a time consuming process.

I'm not willing to invalidate this episode only because Spock did not mentioned something.

I am not asking you to invalidate the entire episode. Just to concede that there was some other explanation for the huge blast seen that does not require many further inconsistencies in later series.

The "Sacrifice of Angels" example doesn't apply, since using such a weapon would have inflicted major losses on the Dominion in the AQ and allowed the Federation to continue blocking the wormhole, preventing further Dominion reinforcements en-masse. They would have had to build them in the AQ from scratch (which they do, but such a setback would have given the Federation a major breather).

See, I always wondered why the fleet engagements always happened in a spitting distance. That may be the explanation. To prevent the enemy from using such weapons as he would destroy himself at such close distances.

But if fleet engagements are always such a close distance affair that you can't use super-weapons, why would you bring such super-weapons to it? They would only waste the place you would need for the weapons you can use and need to use.

Furthermore - even if the Federation could have prevented the Dominion from sending reinforcements through the wormhole by using WMDs, it wouldn't have affected the Dominion forces that were already in the Alpha quadrant. These forces were already strong enough to nearly defeat the Federation, Romulans and Klingons without any reinforcement. And had the Federation used WMD it had to expect that the Dominion forces in the Alpha Quadrant would use them too. Mutual destruction.

This doesn't apply to the "What You Leave Behind" battle. Because these were all the Dominion forces in the AQ. It was their last stand.

AS for the close engagement ranges, there are I think better explanations than "we're getting close to them so they can't use their super-bombs, even though we never carry them ourselves and if they had them they wouldn't need a massive fleet."

Also, the Dominion forces were indeed strong enough to keep the Federation and Klingons hard-pressed, but even the Dominion knew they woudl need the reinforcements to win decisively, hence all the effort to get them from the GQ. Also, those 1200 Dominion and Cardassian ships in Sacrifice of Angels were a large portion of their fleet (they only concentrated them because the Allies had concentrated their fleet for the battle). Taking massive losses to a super-torpedo would have been a major blow for the Dominion.

Similarly, the "What you Leave Behind" example also fails, as by that point the Dominion were being pushed back into Cardassian territory and were making a last stand. The female Changeling ordered the remaining Jem'Hadar and Breen ships to pull back to Cardassia Prime and fight to the last. Not "call in reinforcements from elsewhere" or anything, fight to the death. THe Allied commanders argue that they shoudl press on and end the Dominion threat then and there, with no mention of having to send task forces elsewhere.

After the Founder ordered the remaining Jem'Hadar and Breen ships to pull back to Cardassia Prime, no further battle occurred as Odo could achieve an agreement with the Founder.

We do not know what would have happened if the Dominion forces did not surrender. We do not know if the Federation/Klingon/Romulan ships had WMD they couldn't have used in the fleet engagement aboard. And we do not know that - even if they had such weapons onboard - they would have used them in the orbit of Cardassia Prime

Actually, we do know what would have happened if the Dominion hadn't surrendered. Sisko, Ross and Martok agreed to push on to Cardassia Prime in a final offensive, rather than allowing the Dominion to re-group.

At any rate, as I've said many times by now, I am not talking about using the super-weapons in orbit of Cardassia Prime!. I'm talking about the initial battle out in deep space where there are no civilians around to become collateral damage.

Your real-life examples are interesting, but again, I'm not sure they apply. For the Germans, uing it's chemical weapon stockpiles would not have substantially tilted the balance of power in their favour (they couldn't use it to, say, wipe out Soviet tank armies in a stroke, or obliterate the Normandy landings). Chemcial weapons are not comparable in damage to nukes, which is the closest real-life analogue to the supposed uber-torpedoes.

The example still shows that there may be reason beyond pure military aspects. Chemical weapons undoubtedly would have been useful. But if the Germans had used them, the Allied would have too.

It's the same with the Dominion: If the Federation, Klingons or Romulans had used them, the Dominion and Cardassians would have too.

They ould have been useful, probably. But they wouldn't have been as immediately and devastatingly effective as these super-antimatter weapons would logically be.

For that matter, you seriously think that the Klingons wouldn't at least have mentioned using these weapons, given how much of an uphill war they're fighting? Especially in late season seven when it is only the Klingons that can hold the line against the new Breen energy-draining weapons, and the Klingons are stated to be "outnumbered twenty to one?" It's not even discussed as an option.

As for the USA, well, again, they weren't facing an enemy that a) massively out-numbered them and, most importantly b) had equal or superior military technology. That's the key thing lacking from your Korea/Vietnam comparisons.

You could argue that in such a case you can employ such weapons a fortiori as you do not have to expect any consequences. If you fight an enemy with equal or superior military technology you have to expect that you loose that war and are called to account for your deeds. And by using WMDs - such as the enemy has too - you have to expect mutual destruction.

The Federation was already facing destruction. Since the Federation (or elements within it) are seen to be willing to go to any length to protect it, it seems utterl absurd that using such weapons is never even considered.

I answered this just above, please see that.

see above

Dealt with above.

see above

Except you didn't actually answer anything further up. Please try again.

[Eternal_Freedom]

You could argue that the sensor readings and thus the statement of the Romulan officer were wrong not only concerning the life-signs but concerning the extent of the destruction too.

But DaveJB hadn't done that.

Besides it would not help.

In this case we have no useful visuals anymore as what we have seen was only the depiction of the sensor-readings on the main-screen of the Romulan warbird. That would leaves us only with the statement of Lovok: »Computer analysis indicates that the planet's crust will be destroyed within one hour, and the mantle within five.« That may be not as impressive as destroying thirty percent of the crust with one volley. But it would be still impressive enough to not change the main problem of this debate.

Is this you conceding that the sensor readings are false?

Because if it is, then you can stop talking about the speed the shockwaves move, the fact that we don't see ejecta or long-term disruptions in the clouds etc. Because you'll have admitted that the only visuals to base your objections on are fake.

As for Lovok's statement, it is made by a Changeling infiltrator there specifically to screw up the plan. It is also made only to Tain and Garak who, for all their knowledge, are not experts on starsip combat. Has it occurred to you that Lovok is lying to Tain? He later admits "we did everything to help the plan along." Making Tain believe that the attack can be completed before Jem'Hadar forces arrive would certainly fit with the "infiitrate and decieve" thing the Founders have going on.

[DaveJB]

Is anyone here able to post DVD-quality screenshots of the bombardment? It's difficult to tell because of the quality of the clip posted above, but there actually do appear to be what look like glowing, molten areas near the middle of the screen after the initial bombardment stops. If that's the case, it would pretty handily destroy this "the cloud cover was so thick that it obscured the destruction of 30% of the crust" argument once and for all.

If no-one else can provide screenshots, I'll post some later in the week when I get back home. Until then (or until someone else provides screenshots), I'll hold off on making any additional arguments.

[WATCH-MAN]

I'm not disputing that the events happened, I am saying that they cannot, or should not, be used as evidence for the Federation having teraton-range or better weaponry which (for the Federation at least) is never seen again when there are other, more plausible, explanations that also fit the facts. As per Occam's Razor, the simpler solution is that the Obsession event is an outlier based on special circumstances, hence never repeated, rather than "it's normal but we agreed never to use such weapons again." Since no mention is made of such agreements or treaties in future, the "special circumstances" explanation is more likely.

We aren't ignoring the outliers. I am contending that there were specific circumstances applying to these two situations which explain the results, rather than using an explanation that would necessitate much larger knock-on changes later on that we simply do not see.

Again, we aren't ignoring the outliers, we are proposing simpler, circumstance-specific conditions that do not generate further inconsistencies.

I am not asking you to invalidate the entire episode. Just to concede that there was some other explanation for the huge blast seen that does not require many further inconsistencies in later series.

I think it has nothing to do with Occams Razor to try to explain something by invoking specific circumstances without explaining what specific circumstances that could be. Has god enhanced the yield of the used weapons in TDIC?

I really don't see your point here. The Federation is not (despite the absurdly high prevalence of American accents) the US, thus at best we can use it as a rough analogy. Which is still flawed, since the Federation faces existential threats from equal or superior powers on a regular basis (seriously, in the ~15 years we see of the TNG/DS9/VOY era, there are a half-dozen ore more serious threats tot he Federation's very existence).

My point was not to compare the Federation with the USA.
My point was to explain that if we see a world through the perspective of a TV series, we are seeing only a very little bit of this world and can not assume that all that is happening in this world is shown on-screen.
As we in a TV series about a US military unit would not see what happens in Washington, we can't expect to see in a TV series about a Federation military unit what happens at the Federation government.

And yet the "metryon gas" used as a makeshift weapon in Insurrection (the fight between the E-E and two Son'a warships in the Briar Patch) generated far more energy than any possible chemical reaction, but it worked quite effectively.

Did it?

For that matter, the cloud creature itself most likely contributed heavily to the explosion, since it was capable of warp-travel it must have had a source of power comparable to matter/antimatter reactors to provide the energy (or relied on some freaky subspace effects, which can also be quite deadly).

As you have argued yourself, Spock would have mentioned it:

• • • • • • SPOCK:
        A matter-antimatter blast will rip away half the planet's atmosphere.

He didn't.

Given Spock's precision in explaining plans (to the point of correcting Kirk's earlier statement of "20 times stronger than diamond" to "21.4 times" at the start of this episode, it is unlikely that he woudl have omitted such an important step. Additionally, earlier in the episode they had to rendezvous with the USS Yorktown to transport some drugs. Kirk asks how long the round-trip to the Tychos system will take, Chekov says "1.something days." Kirk thinks and says they'll met the other ship "in 48 hours" so he was clearly expecting to arrive, deal with the cloud creature and leave quickly. Since the antimatter bomb plan is conceived after they arrive, it cannot have taken them long to rig up the weapon.

Finally, Spock, after describing the plan, clearly states "There is only one problem," Kirk replies "yes, the blast" and Spock confirms it with the line you quoted. Any issue with refining or processing ordinary antimatter into this super-antimatter would have been included in this "there is one problem" line.

Ergo, the anitmatter used was completely normal and was taken directly from the ship's engines. Unless you want to try and prove that the Enterprise used super-antimatter as fuel (good luck with that) you cannot argue this point.

Okay - let's assume that they did not had to process the drained anti-matter to the super-anti-matter.

This would mean that normal anti-matter has done what was observed in the TOS episode »Obsession« and in the DS9 episode »The die is cast«.

Is this really better?

The weapon used is approximately the size of a human torso. The probe casings are the same size as photon torpedo casings (they use the same launchers). We have seen the size of torpedo casings, we have seen that they can indeed hold a torso-sized object. Ergo, this bomb should fit into a probe casing, or otherwise a modified torpedo casing.

I assume that a photon torpedo is not hollow. All the place inside a photon torpedo casing is used by parts that are necessary. You can change the war head. But you can only put something into that place that is not larger than the original warhead. I do not know how big the warhead of a photon torpedo is (1,5 kg anti-matter shouldn't need more place than 1,5 cubic decimetre plus what is necessary to contain this cubic decimetre anti-matter). But it is possible that what is necessary to contain even a little bit of super-anti-matter is bigger than what is necessary to contain 1 kg of normal anti-matter.

Speculation. Regardless, every indication we have is that these were standard ships firing standard weapons. Neither Tain nor Lovok mention "we've got some weapons just for the job" or anything like that. Even the line from Tain you quote just below, when he says they've built the fleet in sceret, he doesn't mention any special weapons. If, as you postulate, these weapons are banned, you would think it would at least be adcressed here. It's "we've built this fleet in secret, we're going to blast the Founders." Garak, upon hearing the predicted damage, doesn't say "but you'd need a super-weapon to do that." No mention, anywhere, of the ships having special armaments, or indeed anything special apart from the cloaking devices.

It's again the same question: How much can we conclude from the fact that something wasn't said (on-screen).

Garak is very intelligent and Tain knew it. Both like it to not say things outright.

Memorable quotes from Garak:

• • • • »Truth is in the eye of the beholder, Doctor. I never tell the truth because I don't believe there is such a thing.«
        • • • • Garak to Bashir
        »Of all the stories you told me, which ones were true and which ones weren't?«
        »My dear Doctor, they're all true.«
        »Even the lies?«
        »Especially the lies.«
        • • • • Bashir and Garak
        »Treason, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.«
        • • • • Garak to Entek
        »Are you sure that's the point, Doctor?«
        »Of course. What else could it be?«
        »That you should never tell the same lie twice.«
        • • • • Garak and Bashir discussing the moral of »The Boy Who Cried Wolf«
        »The truth is usually just an excuse for lack of imagination.«
        • • • • Garak to Sisko and Odo
        »Lying is a skill like any other. And if you want to maintain a level of excellence, you have to practice constantly.«
        • • • • Garak to Worf

His father, Tain, wasn't very different. Both aren't saying things that do not have to be said.

And as the Obsidian order is explicitly forbidden to have military equipment of any kind - as was stated by Dukat when the Keldon class war ships appeared in the Orias system chasing the Defiant, Garak knew already that the Obsidian order has illegally build the ships. Insofar it wasn't such a big step to assume that they have build illegal weapons too.

This doesn't apply to the "What You Leave Behind" battle. Because these were all the Dominion forces in the AQ. It was their last stand. [...] I'm talking about the initial battle out in deep space [...]

Please provide evidence that indeed each and every single Dominion ship was there, that the Dominion left all their other assets, all fleet yards and all bases unprotected to intercept the Federation/Romulan/Klingon invasion fleet.

I doubt that as I doubt that the Federation, Romulans and Klingons have put every ship they have into their invasion fleet and have left their own assets totally unprotected.

[WATCH-MAN]

Is this you conceding that the sensor readings are false?

It's me conceding that the sensor readings concerning the life signs are false.

And it's me saying that if the sensor readings concerning the extent of destruction are false too, that - and only if that were the case - we wouldn't have any visuals any more.

I wouldn't have a problem with it as I am not the one who argues that the visuals (lack of ejecta etc.) does not match with the statement that thirty percent of the crust is destroyed. In this case the only evidence we have would be the statement from Lovok.

Tain and Garak may not be »experts on starship combat«. But they are not stupid or uneducated. Tain was after all the former head of the Obsidian Order. It's not plausible that Lovok could claim that they are able to do something that should be - according to you - obviously impossible to do. And it is not as though as if Tain learned about the plan only when Lovok told Garak about it. Obliviously Tain knew beforehand of the plan and had enough time to check its prospects of success.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I'm not disputing that the events happened, I am saying that they cannot, or should not, be used as evidence for the Federation having teraton-range or better weaponry which (for the Federation at least) is never seen again when there are other, more plausible, explanations that also fit the facts. As per Occam's Razor, the simpler solution is that the Obsession event is an outlier based on special circumstances, hence never repeated, rather than "it's normal but we agreed never to use such weapons again." Since no mention is made of such agreements or treaties in future, the "special circumstances" explanation is more likely.

We aren't ignoring the outliers. I am contending that there were specific circumstances applying to these two situations which explain the results, rather than using an explanation that would necessitate much larger knock-on changes later on that we simply do not see.

Again, we aren't ignoring the outliers, we are proposing simpler, circumstance-specific conditions that do not generate further inconsistencies.

I am not asking you to invalidate the entire episode. Just to concede that there was some other explanation for the huge blast seen that does not require many further inconsistencies in later series.

I think it has nothing to do with Occams Razor to try to explain something by invoking specific circumstances without explaining what specific circumstances that could be. Has god enhanced the yield of the used weapons in TDIC?

Try again. Occam's Razor holds that if two theories both fit the facts, the simpler explanation is the most likely. So, in your theory, they use on this one occasion a material, apparently commonly used as fuel, as a super-weapon to destroy a creature. This raises the issue of why such weapons are never used again (requiring lots of off-screen treaties and speculation to make a reality) and also requires an explanation of why, when starships suffer warp core breaches, we don't see teraton or petaton-level explosions as a result.

My theory is that it worked on this one occasion because of some unique conditions which are not repeated, and does not require off-screen treaties and speculation to explain why the phenomenon is not repeated.

Which theory is simpler? Answer: mine, it requires far fewer unknown variables, is consistent with the rest of the series, and doesn't require the entire Allied forces in the Dominion War to be totally fucking stupid for not even considering using the weapons.

I really don't see your point here. The Federation is not (despite the absurdly high prevalence of American accents) the US, thus at best we can use it as a rough analogy. Which is still flawed, since the Federation faces existential threats from equal or superior powers on a regular basis (seriously, in the ~15 years we see of the TNG/DS9/VOY era, there are a half-dozen ore more serious threats tot he Federation's very existence).

My point was not to compare the Federation with the USA.
My point was to explain that if we see a world through the perspective of a TV series, we are seeing only a very little bit of this world and can not assume that all that is happening in this world is shown on-screen.
As we in a TV series about a US military unit would not see what happens in Washington, we can't expect to see in a TV series about a Federation military unit what happens at the Federation government.

Except, especially in the Dominion War arc, we do at least see the senior military command discussing plans and contingencies. Sisko's briefing tot he Admiral's in "Favour the Bold" for example. Adn sicne we're discussing wartiem, the military command decisions are most relevant.

And yet the "metryon gas" used as a makeshift weapon in Insurrection (the fight between the E-E and two Son'a warships in the Briar Patch) generated far more energy than any possible chemical reaction, but it worked quite effectively.

Did it?

The reaction/explosion was able to destroy a Son'a warship that had previously survived at least one hit from a quantum torpedo. So yes, it did do a lot more than a simple chemical reaction could produce.

For that matter, the cloud creature itself most likely contributed heavily to the explosion, since it was capable of warp-travel it must have had a source of power comparable to matter/antimatter reactors to provide the energy (or relied on some freaky subspace effects, which can also be quite deadly).

As you have argued yourself, Spock would have mentioned it:

• • • • • • SPOCK:
        A matter-antimatter blast will rip away half the planet's atmosphere.

He didn't.

He did not mention it. However, the conclusion that the cloud creature must have access to a power source capable of making it travel at warp speed is far more logical than saying they need to refine super-antimatter and turn it into a bomb.

At any rate, it does show that speculating based on what character's do not say is worthless, no? I will treat this as a concession that there was no lengthy refining process. After all, Spokc woudl have mentioned it, and he did not.

Given Spock's precision in explaining plans (to the point of correcting Kirk's earlier statement of "20 times stronger than diamond" to "21.4 times" at the start of this episode, it is unlikely that he woudl have omitted such an important step. Additionally, earlier in the episode they had to rendezvous with the USS Yorktown to transport some drugs. Kirk asks how long the round-trip to the Tychos system will take, Chekov says "1.something days." Kirk thinks and says they'll met the other ship "in 48 hours" so he was clearly expecting to arrive, deal with the cloud creature and leave quickly. Since the antimatter bomb plan is conceived after they arrive, it cannot have taken them long to rig up the weapon.

Finally, Spock, after describing the plan, clearly states "There is only one problem," Kirk replies "yes, the blast" and Spock confirms it with the line you quoted. Any issue with refining or processing ordinary antimatter into this super-antimatter would have been included in this "there is one problem" line.

Ergo, the anitmatter used was completely normal and was taken directly from the ship's engines. Unless you want to try and prove that the Enterprise used super-antimatter as fuel (good luck with that) you cannot argue this point.

Okay - let's assume that they did not had to process the drained anti-matter to the super-anti-matter.

This would mean that normal anti-matter has done what was observed in the TOS episode »Obsession« and in the DS9 episode »The die is cast«.

Is this really better?

Honestly, yes, because it lends greater credence to those two events being distinct anomalies rather than representative of potential weapons.

The weapon used is approximately the size of a human torso. The probe casings are the same size as photon torpedo casings (they use the same launchers). We have seen the size of torpedo casings, we have seen that they can indeed hold a torso-sized object. Ergo, this bomb should fit into a probe casing, or otherwise a modified torpedo casing.

I assume that a photon torpedo is not hollow. All the place inside a photon torpedo casing is used by parts that are necessary. You can change the war head. But you can only put something into that place that is not larger than the original warhead. I do not know how big the warhead of a photon torpedo is (1,5 kg anti-matter shouldn't need more place than 1,5 cubic decimetre plus what is necessary to contain this cubic decimetre anti-matter). But it is possible that what is necessary to contain even a little bit of super-anti-matter is bigger than what is necessary to contain 1 kg of normal anti-matter.

Again, you're missing the point. Everything we have states that this was normal antimatter, which means one ounce should easily fit into a normal torpedo. For that matter, given that "an ounce" is sufficient, why bother building a separate weapon when they could just beam down a standard torpedo.

You also don't address the probe issue. You're also speculating again, assuming that the super-anitmatter (which, as I've shown from the quotes, was exactly the same as their normal fuel, and hence torpedo payload) somehow requires much more equipment to store it.

Speculation. Regardless, every indication we have is that these were standard ships firing standard weapons. Neither Tain nor Lovok mention "we've got some weapons just for the job" or anything like that. Even the line from Tain you quote just below, when he says they've built the fleet in sceret, he doesn't mention any special weapons. If, as you postulate, these weapons are banned, you would think it would at least be adcressed here. It's "we've built this fleet in secret, we're going to blast the Founders." Garak, upon hearing the predicted damage, doesn't say "but you'd need a super-weapon to do that." No mention, anywhere, of the ships having special armaments, or indeed anything special apart from the cloaking devices.

It's again the same question: How much can we conclude from the fact that something wasn't said (on-screen).

You've been maintaining that the stuff used in Obsession somehow wasn't regular fuel and required days or weeks of refining, based solely on the fact that Spokc doesn't mention it and "Kirk would have known this."

If I cannot conclude reasonable things that are not directly stated (like the cloud creature storing/generating energy sufficient for high-warp travel) then you cannot conclude that the material used in Obsession was anything more than standard starship fuel-antimatter.

Garak is very intelligent and Tain knew it. Both like it to not say things outright.

SNIP List

His father, Tain, wasn't very different. Both aren't saying things that do not have to be said.

They're both intelligent, yes, but they are spies and manipulators and interrogators, not experts trained in starship combat and weaponry! We should not expect someone to know intricate details in a completely different field just because they are very intelligent. Would you expect Stephen Hawking to know details of naval gunfire support operations simply because he is very smart?

And as the Obsidian order is explicitly forbidden to have military equipment of any kind - as was stated by Dukat when the Keldon class war ships appeared in the Orias system chasing the Defiant, Garak knew already that the Obsidian order has illegally build the ships. Insofar it wasn't such a big step to assume that they have build illegal weapons too.

Speculation, assumption based on more assumption. this is getting tiresome. Can you provide anything to show the TDiC weapons are uber-weapons except the comment from the officer (based on sensor data known to be false or a statement made by a known enemy agent there solely to sabotage the attack?

This doesn't apply to the "What You Leave Behind" battle. Because these were all the Dominion forces in the AQ. It was their last stand. [...] I'm talking about the initial battle out in deep space [...]

Please provide evidence that indeed each and every single Dominion ship was there, that the Dominion left all their other assets, all fleet yards and all bases unprotected to intercept the Federation/Romulan/Klingon invasion fleet.I doubt that as I doubt that the Federation, Romulans and Klingons have put every ship they have into their invasion fleet and have left their own assets totally unprotected.

Not direct evidence, no. However, when Sisko, Martok and Ros discuss driving on to Cardassia, their only concern is that if they let the Dominion hold Cardassia they will rebuild their forces. No mention made of reinforcements. The Founder orders the fleet to pull back to Cardassia Prime and fight to the death. No mention of summoning reinforcements from elsewhere, (from her, the Cardassian Legate, the Breen commander, or Weyoun). I would argue those are fairly strong implications that this was, if not all the Dominion had, then certainly the vast majority.

Is this you conceding that the sensor readings are false?

It's me conceding that the sensor readings concerning the life signs are false.

And it's me saying that if the sensor readings concerning the extent of destruction are false too, that - and only if that were the case - we wouldn't have any visuals any more.

I wouldn't have a problem with it as I am not the one who argues that the visuals (lack of ejecta etc.) does not match with the statement that thirty percent of the crust is destroyed. In this case the only evidence we have would be the statement from Lovok.

Again, a statement from an enemy agent who is there specifically to sabotage the attack and lure the Cardassian/Romulan fleet to their deaths. He only makes this statement to Tain and Garak, neither of whom (at this point, later in the series Garak does gain experience in starship combat aboard the Defiant) know anything beyond the rudiments of starship weapons.

Tain and Garak may not be »experts on starship combat«. But they are not stupid or uneducated. Tain was after all the former head of the Obsidian Order. It's not plausible that Lovok could claim that they are able to do something that should be - according to you - obviously impossible to do. And it is not as though as if Tain learned about the plan only when Lovok told Garak about it. Obliviously Tain knew beforehand of the plan and had enough time to check its prospects of success.

I will concede that Tain would have known about it in advance. That being said, it does not matter, since if you are reduced to relying on this one statement for your argument, it is very weak evidence. Especially since either a) Lovok was being mostly accurate with the predictions and the bridge officer was wrong, or b) the bridge officer was right (and you then hit the problem of the visuals being inconsistent) and Lovok's predictions were off by a factor of over a hundred. Either way your evidence is extremely weak.

[WATCH-MAN]

Occam's Razor holds that if two theories both fit the facts, the simpler explanation is the most likely. So, in your theory, they use on this one occasion a material, apparently commonly used as fuel, as a super-weapon to destroy a creature. This raises the issue of why such weapons are never used again (requiring lots of off-screen treaties and speculation to make a reality) and also requires an explanation of why, when starships suffer warp core breaches, we don't see teraton or petaton-level explosions as a result.

My theory is that it worked on this one occasion because of some unique conditions which are not repeated, and does not require off-screen treaties and speculation to explain why the phenomenon is not repeated.

Which theory is simpler? Answer: mine, it requires far fewer unknown variables, is consistent with the rest of the series, and doesn't require the entire Allied forces in the Dominion War to be totally fucking stupid for not even considering using the weapons.

Occam's Razor states that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

• You have no explanation at all.
  • • • • »special circumstances«
          »specific circumstances«
          »circumstance-specific conditions«
          »some other explanation«
          »some unique conditions«
  are only wild cards for possible explanations and nothing more. This does not explain how an ounce of the in the TOS episode »Obsession« used anti-matter was able to rip away half the planet's atmosphere nor does it explain how the officers in the Cardassian/Romulan attack fleet - who were combat veterans according to Admiral Toddman - could be convinced to be able to destroy the crust of the Founder's planet in one hour and the mantle in five hours.
• One the other side, we know already of - at least - the following treaties which are obliging the Federation:
  
  • • • • Jankata Accord
          • • • • No species shall enter another quadrant for the purpose of territorial expansion.
          Second Khitomer Accords
          • • • • Subspace weapons are banned.
          Unknown treaty
          • • • • Metagenic weapons are banned.
          Seldonis IV Convention
          • • • • Prisoners of war aren't allowed to be tortured.
          Polaric Test Ban Treaty
          • • • • Research into polaric ion energy is banned.
          Treaty of Algeron
          • • • • Development or use of cloaking device is prohibited
          (I'm sure there are more treaties mentioned - but I can't remember any more.)
  Insofar it does not need much to imagine that there could be another treaty that banns super-anti-matter-weapons.
• And we know that the Federation - regardless how dire the situation has become - has not used any prohibited weapons or technologies against its enemies. Neither did we see the Federation using subspace-weapons nor metagenetic weapons or protomatter weapons. We didn't see the Federation destroying stars (as was done in an experiment in the TNG episode »Half a Life«) or using cloaking devices (not counting the illegal use of the cloaking device of the Defiant by Cpt. Sisko). Insofar it does not need much to imagine that the Federation complies with its contractual obligations.
  
  Who argues that the Federation - if it has super-anti-matter-technology - would have used it during the Dominion war, has to explain why the Federation didn't use any of the other technologies in the direst situation. Because - even if the Federation does not have super-anti-matter-technology - according to the underlying logic, it should have used the other weapons technologies.
• Who argues that - if starships are using super-anti-matter as fuel - we should have seen teraton- or petaton-level explosions each time a starship suffers a warp core breach, has to explain why we did not see kiloton- or megaton-level explosions each time a starship suffers a warp core breach. Because - even if starships do not use super-anti-matter as fuel - according to the underlying logic we should see kiloton- or megaton-level explosions as starships are using normal anti-matter.
• I didn't say that super-anti-matter is used as fuel. I explicitly theorized that super-anit-matter has to be processed from normal anti-matter.
• Who argues that the anti-matter used in the TOS episode »Obsession« is normal anti-matter has to explain why Kirk and Spock didn't use a photon torpedo. A photon-torpedo has an 1.5 kg anti-matter-warhead. Why draining anti-matter from the engines, if simply using a photon-torpedo would be so much simpler? And why is an ounce of the used anti-matter so much stronger that a photon-torpedo with a 1.5 kg anti-matter-warhead?

[biostem]

I am not as mathematically inclined as some of you folks, but if I may, let me pose this question:

In Enterprise, we have the big hoopla about that sphere weapon carving a huge trench across the US. IF a torpedo bombardment can devastate the surface as claimed, then why not just send a weapon with a bunch of torpedo launchers and call it a day? Why didn't the Borg bombardment in First Contact wipe out the small town they were targeting?

[Eternal_Freedom]

Occam's Razor holds that if two theories both fit the facts, the simpler explanation is the most likely. So, in your theory, they use on this one occasion a material, apparently commonly used as fuel, as a super-weapon to destroy a creature. This raises the issue of why such weapons are never used again (requiring lots of off-screen treaties and speculation to make a reality) and also requires an explanation of why, when starships suffer warp core breaches, we don't see teraton or petaton-level explosions as a result.

My theory is that it worked on this one occasion because of some unique conditions which are not repeated, and does not require off-screen treaties and speculation to explain why the phenomenon is not repeated.

Which theory is simpler? Answer: mine, it requires far fewer unknown variables, is consistent with the rest of the series, and doesn't require the entire Allied forces in the Dominion War to be totally fucking stupid for not even considering using the weapons.

Occam's Razor states that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

• You have no explanation at all.
  • • • • »special circumstances«
          »specific circumstances«
          »circumstance-specific conditions«
          »some other explanation«
          »some unique conditions«
  are only wild cards for possible explanations and nothing more. This does not explain how an ounce of the in the TOS episode »Obsession« used anti-matter was able to rip away half the planet's atmosphere nor does it explain how the officers in the Cardassian/Romulan attack fleet - who were combat veterans according to Admiral Toddman - could be convinced to be able to destroy the crust of the Founder's planet in one hour and the mantle in five hours.

And yet your theory also requires multiple "wild cards" for possible explanations: the super-antimatter had to be refined (no evidence whatsoever), a treaty was made banning it's use (untenable given it was apparently common fuel, and no-one even raises the possibility of using it (after all, the Dominion wouldn't be signatories to such a treaty, and the Klingons/Romulans agreed, why not?)). Not only are these "wild cards" for possible explanations, they require additional off-screen rationalization.

[*]One the other side, we know already of - at least - the following treaties which are obliging the Federation:

• • • • Jankata Accord
        • • • • No species shall enter another quadrant for the purpose of territorial expansion.
        Second Khitomer Accords
        • • • • Subspace weapons are banned.
        Unknown treaty
        • • • • Metagenic weapons are banned.
        Seldonis IV Convention
        • • • • Prisoners of war aren't allowed to be tortured.
        Polaric Test Ban Treaty
        • • • • Research into polaric ion energy is banned.
        Treaty of Algeron
        • • • • Development or use of cloaking device is prohibited
        (I'm sure there are more treaties mentioned - but I can't remember any more.)

Insofar it does not need much to imagine that there could be another treaty that banns super-anti-matter-weapons.

Except, again, the idea of a treaty banning it's use is untenable, as a)it's never even raised as a possibility) and b) it isn't some complicated material that needs lengthy prep time, it was a common starship fuel. It could quite literally be kitbashed together in a few hours just like they did in Obsession. No lengthy research required, no weapons tests. Just drain some fuel from the engines, store it securely and fire at the enemy.

[*]And we know that the Federation - regardless how dire the situation has become - has not used any prohibited weapons or technologies against its enemies. Neither did we see the Federation using subspace-weapons nor metagenetic weapons or protomatter weapons. We didn't see the Federation destroying stars (as was done in an experiment in the TNG episode »Half a Life«) or using cloaking devices (not counting the illegal use of the cloaking device of the Defiant by Cpt. Sisko). Insofar it does not need much to imagine that the Federation complies with its contractual obligations.

Hmm, let's see. In addition to Sisko's ruotine use of the cloaking device in the AQ, we have the phase-cloak developed on the Pegasus. Also, when considering options for the wormhole minefield, O'Brien suggests cloaked mines. Dax shoots this down, not because it is illegal, but because it's impractical (they couldn't manufacture enough cloaks in time). So, yeah, that's at least one treaty Federation officers are willing to consider breaking if the situation warrants it.

Who argues that the Federation - if it has super-anti-matter-technology - would have used it during the Dominion war, has to explain why the Federation didn't use any of the other technologies in the direst situation. Because - even if the Federation does not have super-anti-matter-technology - according to the underlying logic, it should have used the other weapons technologies.

Metagenic weapons would have been useless against starships (and the Federation did use bioweapons against the Dominion anyway). I have no idea what polaric energy even does. Subspace weapons would presumably require lengthy prep time for the Federation to prepare, the super-antimatter would not (since, again, it was apparently standard fuel). The subspace weapons also would be too unpredictable and dangerous to themselves, the super-antimatter would not. The cloaking devices were rejected for practical reasons, not legal. Protomatter would again require fabrication, testing, etc, the super-antimatter would not.

[*]Who argues that - if starships are using super-anti-matter as fuel - we should have seen teraton- or petaton-level explosions each time a starship suffers a warp core breach, has to explain why we did not see kiloton- or megaton-level explosions each time a starship suffers a warp core breach. Because - even if starships do not use super-anti-matter as fuel - according to the underlying logic we should see kiloton- or megaton-level explosions as starships are using normal anti-matter.

-USS Yamato, containment breach, hull section totally vaporised, consistent with kilton-range or better explosions
-USS Grissom, takes torpedo hit to the engine, vessel explodes, no visible wreckage, consistent with kiloton-range explosion
-USS Saratoga at Wolf-359, takes damage to hull and nacelles, vessel explodes, no viible wreckage, consistent with kiloton-range or better explosion
-USS Enterprise-D, Cause and Effect, repeated core breaches, vessel shattered, consistent with kilton-range or lower explosions
-USS Odyssey, rammed by Jem'Hadar fighter, vessel explodes, no visible wreckage, consistent with kiloton-to-megaton range explosion
-USS Enterprise-D, Generations, core breach, hull section vaporised, saucer section pushed into rapidly decaying orbit, consistent with kilton/megaton-range explosion
-USS Sitak and USS Majestic (the two Mirandas escorting Defiant in "Sacrifice of Angels"), both take heavy damage, vessels explode, consistent with kilton/megaton range explosions

That's just off the top of my head.

[*]I didn't say that super-anti-matter is used as fuel. I explicitly theorized that super-anit-matter has to be processed from normal anti-matter.

Except no mention is made of refining it, there isn't time for anything lengthy and no special facilities are apparently required. Spock clearly stated that the only problem with the plan was the blast, not refining or creating the weapon.

[*]Who argues that the anti-matter used in the TOS episode »Obsession« is normal anti-matter has to explain why Kirk and Spock didn't use a photon torpedo. A photon-torpedo has an 1.5 kg anti-matter-warhead. Why draining anti-matter from the engines, if simply using a photon-torpedo would be so much simpler? And why is an ounce of the used anti-matter so much stronger that a photon-torpedo with a 1.5 kg anti-matter-warhead?[/list]

Oh no, this is your theory about the antimatter being super-powered. YOU have to explain these inconsistencies. I already have, the cloud-creature contributed to the explosion (since it has to have a power source that can achieve warp speed).

[WATCH-MAN]

Occam's Razor holds that if two theories both fit the facts, the simpler explanation is the most likely. So, in your theory, they use on this one occasion a material, apparently commonly used as fuel, as a super-weapon to destroy a creature. This raises the issue of why such weapons are never used again (requiring lots of off-screen treaties and speculation to make a reality) and also requires an explanation of why, when starships suffer warp core breaches, we don't see teraton or petaton-level explosions as a result.

My theory is that it worked on this one occasion because of some unique conditions which are not repeated, and does not require off-screen treaties and speculation to explain why the phenomenon is not repeated.

Which theory is simpler? Answer: mine, it requires far fewer unknown variables, is consistent with the rest of the series, and doesn't require the entire Allied forces in the Dominion War to be totally fucking stupid for not even considering using the weapons.

Occam's Razor states that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

• You have no explanation at all.
  • • • • »special circumstances«
          »specific circumstances«
          »circumstance-specific conditions«
          »some other explanation«
          »some unique conditions«
  are only wild cards for possible explanations and nothing more. This does not explain how an ounce of the in the TOS episode »Obsession« used anti-matter was able to rip away half the planet's atmosphere nor does it explain how the officers in the Cardassian/Romulan attack fleet - who were combat veterans according to Admiral Toddman - could be convinced to be able to destroy the crust of the Founder's planet in one hour and the mantle in five hours.

And yet your theory also requires multiple "wild cards" for possible explanations: the super-antimatter had to be refined (no evidence whatsoever), a treaty was made banning it's use (untenable given it was apparently common fuel, and no-one even raises the possibility of using it (after all, the Dominion wouldn't be signatories to such a treaty, and the Klingons/Romulans agreed, why not?)). Not only are these "wild cards" for possible explanations, they require additional off-screen rationalization.

If you did really understand Occam's Razor, you wouldn't have written what you have written.

Occam's Razor is used if you have a situation in which you do not have all facts and thus have to theorize what could have happened. You have to make assumptions. These assumptions can not be proven. Otherwise it wouldn't be assumptions and you do not have to theorize at all. If there are several possible explanations - according to Occam's Razor - the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. But - and that is the important thing - the assumption has to have the ability to explain anything. You have to be able to make predictions with it. Neither is God, the big unknown or »special circumstances« an explanation at all. The latter is what I called wild cards. You do not know what »special circumstances« have contributed to the result, you can not make any predictions.

You can not say the same about my explanation.

[*]Who argues that the anti-matter used in the TOS episode »Obsession« is normal anti-matter has to explain why Kirk and Spock didn't use a photon torpedo. A photon-torpedo has an 1.5 kg anti-matter-warhead. Why draining anti-matter from the engines, if simply using a photon-torpedo would be so much simpler? And why is an ounce of the used anti-matter so much stronger that a photon-torpedo with a 1.5 kg anti-matter-warhead?[/list]

Oh no, this is your theory about the antimatter being super-powered. YOU have to explain these inconsistencies. I already have, the cloud-creature contributed to the explosion (since it has to have a power source that can achieve warp speed).

It is your theory that the anti-matter used in the TOS episode »Obsession« is normal anti-matter.

It is what you are writing again and again (»it was a common starship fuel«, »since, again, it was apparently standard fuel«, »Except no mention is made of refining it [...] Spock clearly stated that the only problem with the plan was the blast, not refining or creating the weapon.«).

That's the premise of your whole argument.

Then please explain why they couldn't simply use a photon-torpedo with a 1.5 kg anti-matter-warhead.

Why draining an ounce of normal anti-matter from the ship's engines and transport it to the planet surface in a magnetic vacuum field, if 1,5 kg of the same anti-matter is already ready in a photon torpedo?

[Eternal_Freedom]

The latter is what I called wild cards. You do not know what »special circumstances« have contributed to the result, you can not make any predictions.

You can not say the same about my explanation.

Listen, moron, I DID give an explanation for what those specific circumstances are. The cloud creature contributes heavily to the blast, as it must have a power source, or a way of storing energy that is comparable to matter/antimatter reactions otherwise it wouldn't be able to travel at high warp speed.

Stop being dishonest about what I have said. And stop going off on sodding tangents.

[*]Who argues that the anti-matter used in the TOS episode »Obsession« is normal anti-matter has to explain why Kirk and Spock didn't use a photon torpedo. A photon-torpedo has an 1.5 kg anti-matter-warhead. Why draining anti-matter from the engines, if simply using a photon-torpedo would be so much simpler? And why is an ounce of the used anti-matter so much stronger that a photon-torpedo with a 1.5 kg anti-matter-warhead?[/list]

Oh no, this is your theory about the antimatter being super-powered. YOU have to explain these inconsistencies. I already have, the cloud-creature contributed to the explosion (since it has to have a power source that can achieve warp speed).

It is your theory that the anti-matter used in the TOS episode »Obsession« is normal anti-matter.

It is what you are writing again and again (»it was a common starship fuel«, »since, again, it was apparently standard fuel«, »Except no mention is made of refining it [...] Spock clearly stated that the only problem with the plan was the blast, not refining or creating the weapon.«).

That's the premise of your whole argument.

It's YOUR argument that the material was refined in some way to make a super-antimatter. I have provided quotes direct from the episode showing that it was NOT. Your argument is thus invalid. Concede or fuck off.

Then please explain why they couldn't simply use a photon-torpedo with a 1.5 kg anti-matter-warhead.

Why draining an ounce of normal anti-matter from the ship's engines and transport it to the planet surface in a magnetic vacuum field, if 1,5 kg of the same anti-matter is already ready in a photon torpedo?

Because the ST writers are a bunch of scientifically illiterate fuckwits. For an in-universe explanation, I have no goddamn idea. I am not going to speculate wildly as you have done so often.

Incidentally, I notice you have completely ignored my other points once again: the known treaty violations, the explanation of why saying "but they didn't use metagenic/polaric/subspace/protomatter weapons" is both a red herring and stupid and the list of starship explosions consistent with kilton or megaton range explosions.

Are you conceding those points? If you do not reply I shall assume you have.

[WATCH-MAN]

It does not make sense to get on more and more »sodding tangents« - as you are putting it. That's why I do not have answered to your other points. That's not a concession. The problem is that we are arguing about points that should only be argued after their premisses are settled. Most points do become a moot issue after that anyway. But the way we argued we couldn't see any more what is important and what is not. We got lost in unimportant details. Sure: We could argue if the illegal deeds of a few Starfleet officers can be attributed to the Federation or if the seen explosions of ships are consistent with explosions caused by a matter-anit-matter annihilation that released energy in the order of tera- or even petajoules. But it won't get us anywhere.

That's why I start again. I want to be sure that I really understand you.

Our source we are debating about how to interpret it is the dialogue and events of the TOS episode »Obsession«:

• • • • • • KIRK:
        Antimatter seems our only possibility.
        
        • • SPOCK:
        An ounce should be sufficient. We can drain it from the ship's engines and transport it to the planet surface in a magnetic vacuum field.
        
        • • [...]
        • • SPOCK:
        There is still one problem, Captain.
        
        • • KIRK:
        The blast, yes.
        
        • • SPOCK:
        Exactly. A matter-antimatter blast will rip away half the planet's atmosphere. If our vessel is in orbit and encounters those shock waves
        
        • • KIRK:
        A chance we'll have to take, Mister Spock.

The problem we both have with this dialogue is that we both know that an ounce of normal anti-matter could not rip away half a planet's atmosphere.

My proposed explanation is that they drained an ounce normal anti-matter from the ship's engines and processed it to an ounce of a kind of super-anti-matter and transported it to the planet surface in a magnetic vacuum field. The matter-super-anti-matter annihilation on the surface released enough energy to rip away half the planet's atmosphere.

Your proposed explanation is that they drained an ounce normal anti-matter from the ship's engines and transported it to the planet surface in a magnetic vacuum field without processing it to a kind of super-anti-matter. Half the planet's atmosphere was only ripped away because the cloud-creature's own energy contributed to the explosion.

Is this a correct representation of your proposed explanation?

[Eternal_Freedom]

Yes it is. Given that the cloud-creature must have a power source sufficient for warp flight, it is the most reasonable and does not require off-screen and un-mentioned refining.

[Crazedwraith]

And yet it is only and specifically the anti-matter that is stated to have the effect of ripping off the atmosphere like that if Watch-Man's quote is accurate. If this was not the usual effect of the antimatter one of them would have mentioned it. So it's clearly the implication of the episode that the bomb did the damage.

Nevertheless, I can't pretend that EF's theory doesn't make more sense in-universe than 'they have superpowerful anti-matter just this once that they never use again.'

As to why they don't use photon torpedoes and their much larger antimatter warhead, well the out of universe explanation is that the photon torps are physical antimatter bombs didn't come about till the tos movies/tng tech manual. In the original series they were just glowy blobs of destruction that were more powerful than phasers, in fact the effect uses for them were original proximity blasts from the phasers in Balance Of Terror.

In point of fact, that might serve as an in-universe explanation as well, if photon torpedo refers to the delivery mechanism not the warhead. Then photorps might really not have been antimatter based then. Just really good nukes, or plasma bombs or something. Admittedly a bit of a stretch since a change of warhead is what seperates photon torps from quantum ones. But an idea nevertheless.


eta: I myself, am pretty happy with an out-of-universe explanation: 'different shows, made decades apart by non-scientific writers are inconsistent and incompatible with each other. Shit happens' but that's not really the point of the board.

[Lord Revan]

In point of fact, that might serve as an in-universe explanation as well, if photon torpedo refers to the delivery mechanism not the warhead. Then photorps might really not have been antimatter based then. Just really good nukes, or plasma bombs or something. Admittedly a bit of a stretch since a change of warhead is what seperates photon torps from quantum ones. But an idea nevertheless.

Well Photon(ic) Torps in ENT were said to have variable yield anti-matter warhead so it would seem odd for them to switch to non AM-warhead for TOS to only switch back later.

It should also be noted that alot of the exotic weapon treaties in ST (and NBC weapon treaties) come from those weapons either being as harmfull to the user as to the target or being really unpractical to use. This "Super anti-matter" seems just give a bigger boom but still not big enough to be unpractical due the devestation it causes so it seems really odd that it wouldn't have even been suggested to be used against the Borg or the Dominion (or there countless threats Voyager encountered).

[Crazedwraith]

In point of fact, that might serve as an in-universe explanation as well, if photon torpedo refers to the delivery mechanism not the warhead. Then photorps might really not have been antimatter based then. Just really good nukes, or plasma bombs or something. Admittedly a bit of a stretch since a change of warhead is what seperates photon torps from quantum ones. But an idea nevertheless.

Well Photon(ic) Torps in ENT were said to have variable yield anti-matter warhead so it would seem odd for them to switch to non AM-warhead for TOS to only switch back later.

Phooey. I'd forgotten ENT and it's photonic torps. On the other hand, we know the romulan wars were fought with nukes... so they may actually have switched to and from antimatter weapons anyway.

[Lord Revan]

In point of fact, that might serve as an in-universe explanation as well, if photon torpedo refers to the delivery mechanism not the warhead. Then photorps might really not have been antimatter based then. Just really good nukes, or plasma bombs or something. Admittedly a bit of a stretch since a change of warhead is what seperates photon torps from quantum ones. But an idea nevertheless.

Well Photon(ic) Torps in ENT were said to have variable yield anti-matter warhead so it would seem odd for them to switch to non AM-warhead for TOS to only switch back later.

Phooey. I'd forgotten ENT and it's photonic torps. On the other hand, we know the romulan wars were fought with nukes... so they may actually have switched to and from antimatter weapons anyway.

well there were fusion projectiles (cyclonic missiles IIRC) that the NX-01 had before gettting photon tops in season 3 and those were considered brand new, so it's not impossible that bulk of Earth Starfleet's starship missles used fusion warheads even if AM/M warheads were avaible.

[Eternal_Freedom]

In point of fact, that might serve as an in-universe explanation as well, if photon torpedo refers to the delivery mechanism not the warhead. Then photorps might really not have been antimatter based then. Just really good nukes, or plasma bombs or something. Admittedly a bit of a stretch since a change of warhead is what seperates photon torps from quantum ones. But an idea nevertheless.

Well Photon(ic) Torps in ENT were said to have variable yield anti-matter warhead so it would seem odd for them to switch to non AM-warhead for TOS to only switch back later.

Phooey. I'd forgotten ENT and it's photonic torps. On the other hand, we know the romulan wars were fought with nukes... so they may actually have switched to and from antimatter weapons anyway.

We could argue that ENT takes place in an alternate timeline caused by the time-travel in First Contact, but that's an easy way out.

I would not find it strange that Starfleet changes it's warheads on a semi-regular basis, as they learn more about what's out in the galaxy, and as they learn newer ways to make things go boom and/or produce antimatter more efficiently.

[Simon_Jester]

Occam's Razor states that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

• You have no explanation at all.
  • • • • »special circumstances«
          »specific circumstances«
          »circumstance-specific conditions«
          »some other explanation«
          »some unique conditions«
  are only wild cards for possible explanations and nothing more. This does not explain how an ounce of the in the TOS episode »Obsession« used anti-matter was able to rip away half the planet's atmosphere nor does it explain how the officers in the Cardassian/Romulan attack fleet - who were combat veterans according to Admiral Toddman - could be convinced to be able to destroy the crust of the Founder's planet in one hour and the mantle in five hours.

So you have two instances of planet-busting firepower being used.

One was in TOS (where power levels tended to vary wildly anyway, with ships being able to cross the galaxy in days in one episode, then needing days to travel between two adjacent star systems in another), where on one occasion we see a planet-devastating demolition charge. On other instances in that very series, let alone in other series, we see plenty of cases where Kirk and his merry band would benefit immensely from having a planet-devastating weapon... but do not have them and do not use them.

Likewise, another incident occurs in DS9, where a fleet of Star Trek ships apparently have the means to devastate much of a planetary surface in a relatively short amount of time. Except, again, this same level of power is not demonstrated elsewhere and at other times.

So basically, we have two isolated incidents of planet-devastating firepower. We have dozens of incidents where anyone in their right mind who had planet-devastating firepower would use it... but it is not used.

It is far more logical to conclude, in the absence of explicit statements to the contrary or a common practice of using planet-devastating firepower, that under anything like normal circumstances no such planet-devastating firepower is available. That no, the Enterprise does not keep a handful of planet-wrecking torpedoes on hand that it inexplicably never fires at anything even when in mortal danger, just so it could use them in that one episode.

I mean, in real life, the very reason we give nuclear weapons to combat units is because we expect that if those combat units are seriously threatened they will use the nuclear weapons. That's the strategic point- that these units are a tripwire, something you Do Not Mess With unless you're prepared for the war to go nuclear.

And yet it seems as though if you're right, Starfleet and other Trek powers routinely hand these planet-wrecker weapons out to ships for use Just In Case... but then not only do they NOT use such weapons when in severe danger, but they don't even talk or think seriously about doing them! It makes no sense.

[*]One the other side, we know already of - at least - the following treaties which are obliging the Federation:

• • • • Jankata Accord
        • • • • No species shall enter another quadrant for the purpose of territorial expansion.
        Second Khitomer Accords
        • • • • Subspace weapons are banned.
        Unknown treaty
        • • • • Metagenic weapons are banned.
        Seldonis IV Convention
        • • • • Prisoners of war aren't allowed to be tortured.
        Polaric Test Ban Treaty
        • • • • Research into polaric ion energy is banned.
        Treaty of Algeron
        • • • • Development or use of cloaking device is prohibited list]
          (I'm sure there are more treaties mentioned - but I can't remember any more.)

Conventions on torturing POWs and on biological warfare are irrelevant to this question, I crossed them off the list. A treaty banning territorial expansion is ALSO irrelevant to this question, plus it's a bilateral agreement between the Federation and the Cardassians anyway. Again, crossed off.

The ban on cloaking devices was part of a treaty specifically intended to enforce a neutral zone between Earth and the Romulans. And frankly it was a very unequal treaty in the Romulans' favor. Moreover, if the Federation had given up its right to planet-wrecking super-antimatter weapons in any such bilateral treaty, that treaty would not be binding on anyone not a signatory to it. So even if, say, the Federation and the Cardassians made such an agreement, there would be nothing stopping the Klingons or the Romulans from developing the technology themselves. We see this with cloaking- the Klingons and the Romulans both independently develop the technology and routinely use it against the Federation, and each other, and other random enemies throughout the galaxy. Meanwhile the Cardassians, the Dominion, the Borg and so on don't use cloaking (much)... but by all available evidence this is because they chose not to, not because they promised not to. Italicized to mark that it's at least vaguely relevant to the topic because it's a ban on a powerful ship-to-ship weapon, but still a dumb example.

The ban on "polaric ion energy" seems to come from it being very dangerous to work with even in the lab, so nobody really wanted to violate that treaty ban. Probably signed with a sigh of relief from all involved, and certainly not a case where everyone and their cousin already had such weapons in service and then decided to retire them... which is what you claim happened with super-antimatter weapons.

The ban on 'subspace' weapons is most germane... but again, these are banned because of unpredictable effects that can alter subspace. Since we've seen a lot of major disasters that unexpectedly and randomly devasted entire planets or even reached out across interstellar distances courtesy of subspace events... There are good reasons to avoid such a weapon. It's the equivalent of outlawing a weapon that causes random hurricanes in real life. Even a nuclear weapon is less bad than that, because you know it will only kill what you point it at.

So in general, the only classes of banned weaponry in Star Trek are either those a particular empire has foresworn as part of a specific agreement (as the Germans promised not to build battleships after World War I), or those which are so indiscriminate and uncontrollable in their effects that they're likely to backfire on the person using them (bioweapons, weapons that cause unpredictable rips in the fabric of space and time, et cetera).

Super-antimatter doesn't fall into either category.

Insofar it does not need much to imagine that there could be another treaty that banns super-anti-matter-weapons.

And yet this is NEVER mentioned in story. So IF you are right, a superweapon is deployed, is common and accepted technology owned by at least three star nations, two of which are violent warlike dictatorships... and then it is inexplicably banned and disappeared and none of them even talks about using them even in the most desperate emergencies.

[*]And we know that the Federation - regardless how dire the situation has become - has not used any prohibited weapons or technologies against its enemies. Neither did we see the Federation using subspace-weapons nor metagenetic weapons or protomatter weapons. We didn't see the Federation destroying stars (as was done in an experiment in the TNG episode »Half a Life«) or using cloaking devices (not counting the illegal use of the cloaking device of the Defiant by Cpt. Sisko). Insofar it does not need much to imagine that the Federation complies with its contractual obligations.

Who argues that the Federation - if it has super-anti-matter-technology - would have used it during the Dominion war, has to explain why the Federation didn't use any of the other technologies in the direst situation. Because - even if the Federation does not have super-anti-matter-technology - according to the underlying logic, it should have used the other weapons technologies.

This is a fair point- but even if the Federation is so restrained, other powers in the Alpha, Beta, and for that matter Gamma and Delta quadrants are not!

We see plenty of evidence of both rogue actors and actual states using other 'exotic' methods to achieve their goals: time travel, dangerous space-fracturing munitions, you name it. And yet you claim that despite a widely available, relatively simple (available in the TOS era) method being around to create weapons far more powerful than a conventional photon torpedo... nobody uses it. Period.

[*]Who argues that the anti-matter used in the TOS episode »Obsession« is normal anti-matter has to explain why Kirk and Spock didn't use a photon torpedo. A photon-torpedo has an 1.5 kg anti-matter-warhead. Why draining anti-matter from the engines, if simply using a photon-torpedo would be so much simpler? And why is an ounce of the used anti-matter so much stronger that a photon-torpedo with a 1.5 kg anti-matter-warhead?[/list][/list][/list]

The torpedo warheads might not be easy to dismount, or it might be impossible to "tap" them for small quantities of antimatter on demand. Or the Enterprise might not want to expend torpedoes in a situation where a random demolition charge would do the trick.

If you did really understand Occam's Razor, you wouldn't have written what you have written.

Occam's Razor is used if you have a situation in which you do not have all facts and thus have to theorize what could have happened. You have to make assumptions. These assumptions can not be proven. Otherwise it wouldn't be assumptions and you do not have to theorize at all. If there are several possible explanations - according to Occam's Razor - the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. But - and that is the important thing - the assumption has to have the ability to explain anything. You have to be able to make predictions with it. Neither is God, the big unknown or »special circumstances« an explanation at all. The latter is what I called wild cards. You do not know what »special circumstances« have contributed to the result, you can not make any predictions.

You can not say the same about my explanation.

Excuse me... do you have any education in formal logic? If so, I suggest you call whoever taught you formal logic and ask for your money back.

Occam's Razor is very simple and breaks down into two parts: "THE SIMPLEST THEORY" and "THAT FITS THE FACTS."

Now, the "simplest theory" part is easily satisfied by EITHER claiming the Federation has super-antimatter that powers its spaceships OR claiming that it doesn't. Both theories are in fact very simple.

Then we come to the "that fits the facts" part. The problem is that while claiming that Star Trek ships can take their super-powered ultra-antimatter fuel and turn it into a planet-shattering Molotov cocktail on demand fits a few specific cases, it totally fails to fit all sorts of other cases.

What Kirk and Spock did in that one episode was, essentially, make a Molotov cocktail out of the fuel their ship ran on. It wasn't that hard. If they could do that any time they pleased, if everyone had that capability, it would be used a lot more than just once in the course of about 250 episodes of various Star Trek series.

So while the "super-antimatter" theory fits the specific facts you cherrypicked, it fails to fit the other facts, which are far more numerous. Your theory has to fit all the facts, not just some of them, in order to be believable.

Now at that point you started backpedaling. In an attempt to make your new theory fit ALL the facts, you introduced additional ideas- what are now mockingly called epicycles- to your theory.

You proposed an extremely efficient mechanism of treaty enforcement that bans anyone from using this commonly available fuel to make planet-wrecking Molotov cocktails. Treaties so powerful that they bind not only the Federation (which has a history of tripping over its own red tape), but also such bold, warlike, and unscrupulous powers as the Klingons, Romulans, and Cardassians. And for that matter other races throughout the galaxy that have NO prior contact with the Federation or the Alpha Quadrant powers and have NO logical reason to be bound by the same treaties, such as the Dominion and the various races of the Delta Quadrant. And for that matter, yet other races such as the Borg who don't even have a meaningful concept of making treaties and will literally try to kill or enslave every sentient being they encounter.

The problem is that while NOW your theory "fits all the data," in the sense that there are no inconsistencies with the evidence...

You have comically failed the "simplest theory" test now. Because now the choice is between "super-antimatter and a super-treaty that everyone inexplicably follows and doesn't even think about breaking, including people who have never heard of the treaty and spit on the very concept of treaties" and... "no super-antimatter."

Almost ANY possible explanation would fit the fact more simply than "super-antimatter exists and is easily available and can be used to make planet-wrecking Molotov cocktails, but no one ever actually does this because of the super-treaty."

So again, find your logic tutor and ask for your money back.

[DaveJB]

Took me longer than I had hoped, but here are some DVD-quality screenshots of the bombardment from The Die is Cast:

http://tinypic.com/r/2mgo1lv/8
http://tinypic.com/r/2h849le/8
http://tinypic.com/r/3sww3/8
http://tinypic.com/r/1zpquzb/8
http://tinypic.com/r/vuwr5/8

As you can see, there are some signs of damage to the surface, but nowhere near a catastrophic disruption of 30% of the crust. More significantly however (and admittedly, this is more obvious in the actual episode than these screenshots) it appears that whenever the weapons hit the atmosphere it somehow produces a fireball-type effect that obscures the actual moment of impact on the planet's surface. However, the fact that these fireballs disperse and leave what looks like visible damage to the surface indicates that the atmosphere is, in fact, not so thick that 30% of the crust could have been blown apart without it being visible from orbit.

On top of that, as you can see in the first picture most of the side of the planet that gets hit by the barrage is actually on the "night" side of the planetary terminator, so there's not even any actual evidence of a significant cloud cover on that part of the planet at all.

As an addendum, Garak's line is that the a transponder is being used to send "false sensor readings," not just "false lifeform readings," so it's still in the realm of possibility that the reading indicating that 30% of the crust was destroyed was faked.

[WATCH-MAN]

I'm not willing to spend my whole evening answering to all of you - especially as I think that it is not necessary any more.

To quote Simon_Jester:

• • • • »[...] your theory "fits all the data," in the sense that there are no inconsistencies with the evidence [...]«

It is god that this was stated.

But - at the same time - it's a pity that this self-appointed Master of Logic was not able to propose only one single explanation that not only fits all the data but is also simpler than the from me proposed explanation. But after reading claim after claim from him without him providing only one single evidence, reference or source, his incompetence does not surprise. It gets especially pathetic when he compares theory one - »the Federation has super-antimatter« - with theory two: - »it doesn't« - without noticing that theory two doesn't explain anything of what happened in the TOS episode Obsession. It seems he does not understands Occam's Razor at all.

Anyway, that leaves only one competing explanation: The one Eternal_Freedom has proposed.

And you are all seeing the problems with that explanation.

Already Archer's Enterprise was armed with photonic torpedoes, which had anti-matter warheads (according to the ENT episode The Expanse). Kirk's Enterprise was armed with photon torpedoes. These photon torpedoes have anti-matter warheads too (compare e.g. the movie Generations or the TNG episode The Loss).

Interestingly enough, photon torpedoes were fired at the cloud creature in the TOS episode Obsession.

• • • • From the TOS episode Obsession:
        
        • • KIRK:
        Photon torpedoes. Minimum spread pattern.
        
        • • CHEKOV:
        Minimum pattern ready, sir.
        
        • • KIRK:
        Fire photon torpedoes.
        
        (The ship is rocked by the blasts at such close quarters.)

So the question remains why, if photon torpedoes with an anti-matter warhead had no effect on the cloud creature, an ounce of the same anti-matter that was already used in the photon torpedoes was supposed to be effective.

And if - for what ever reason - the same anti-matter suddenly was supposed to be effective, why not simply using a photon torpedo or a photon grenade instead of draining anti-matter from the ship's engines and transporting it to the planet surface in a magnetic vacuum field. They could have beamed a photon torpedo or a photon grenade down to the surface of the planet as easily. And they could have reduced the yield of the photon torpedo or the photon grenade if they really thought that the maximum yield would be overkill.

And why was the detonation of the normal anti-matter not only supposed to rip away half the planet's atmosphere but was indeed able to do it? The annihilation of an ounce of normal anti-matter with an ounce of matter does not release so much energy.

Even if one argues that the energy of the cloud creature could have contributed to the detonation, why is the cloud creature supposed to have so much energy available? It is a cloud creature. Even if its whole mass is converted into energy it is not enough to rip away half the planet's atmosphere. And how could Spock know this? And why did he not mentioned it? According to him, it is the matter-antimatter blast that will rip away half the planet's atmosphere.

Insofar: Yes, this explanation may be simpler, but it does not fits all the data and thus can't be chosen.

Maybe it is possible to rationalize all these discrepancies away - but only by adding more assumptions to this explanation which would make it more complex.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I'll only address this part, as it is my theory that is being attacked, I'll leave the rest to Simon and others.

Even if one argues that the energy of the cloud creature could have contributed to the detonation, why is the cloud creature supposed to have so much energy available? It is a cloud creature. Even if its whole mass is converted into energy it is not enough to rip away half the planet's atmosphere. And how could Spock know this? And why did he not mentioned it? According to him, it is the matter-antimatter blast that will rip away half the planet's atmosphere.

My goodness. How many times have I said this now? The cloud creature is able to travel at warp speed. The cloud creature has mass. Ergo it must be using something analogous to warp drive to achieve this. It follows that the creature must also have a source of power for whatever mechanism it uses to travel at high warp, and that this reaction must be at least comparable to a matter/antimatter reaction or an artificial singularity (as these are the only power sources we see powering warp drives that I know of).

Now, whether this power source is a reaction the cloud creature utilizes, or a kind of super-capacitor it can charge up from an external power source (like a star, or a starship possibly), the energy present would be released when the creature is destroyed. That much energy suddenly released into the environment will behave very similarly to a matter-antimatter blast.

As for Spock not mentioning it, well, you're assuming he didn't mention refining the ship's fuel into a super-bomb when he reasonably should have. It's called inferring facts based on evidence. I infer that the cloud creature explodes and contributes most of the blast energy and Spock didn't mention this.

You conclude that they refined their fuel into a super-bomb (in a matter of hours or less) and used it to blow away the atmosphere and then never use it again requiring even more inferring of facts (on much weaker grounds than mine) and speculation.

Tell me, honestly, which is the simpler of those two inferences.

Maybe it is possible to rationalize all these discrepancies away - but only by adding more assumptions to this explanation which would make it more complex.

The irony of this line is amazing. This is exactly what you are doing! Every time myself or someone else pokes a hole in your theory, you just throw up your hands and say "wah, but maybe it was this, or that, or this" even though that speculation makes no gods-damned sense