22nd Century Federation vs. The Citadel Races (Mass Effect)

[sonofccn]

I have provided a theory, so no, Occam's Razor does not agree with you (and even if it did, that wouldn't prove anything).

Your theory is demostratably flawed nor does it offer a simplier solution than mine. Occam would still fall to me.

The burden of proof is still on you to show that torpedo glow is caused by shields. You have provided no evidence whatsoever.

I have demostrated it is the more reasonable and simplier assumption than your assumption the two are unrelated. That is all I have to do.

And the incident was never specifically directed toward ship shields, just shields in general.

Yes it was. Going into the Nebula was to make the odds even between the heavily damaged Enterprise and the Reliant, the context was of ship's shields and ship's sensors. Now yes it could easily include photon torpedo shields but that is not an absolute there is wiggle room.

That effect was removed in TOS Remastered. The shields don't glow.

You do realize the image is from the Remastered right? Or we can look at this image towards the end of the battle and again see the ship is enshrouded in an aura.

You can poke a couple flaws in it, yes, but the shield theory is hardly flawless either!

Your theory is not internally consitent with its central tenant, namely that anti-matter storage generats an aura, or accurately explains what we see, why an internal warhead generates a field outside of the torpedo casing, conversely the "flaw" of my theory can be accounted for with canon evidence.

What information do we lack?

Output for the laser, endurance for the torpedo. As I have previously stated.

GARDIAN is a system that shoots down missiles.

Missiles from its own verse. Now if you have evidence on how they compare to a photon torpedo we can build from there. But as it is you are saying X must equal Y with nothing supporting it.

No, you need to show that photonic torpedo endurance is anything out of the ordinary.

No because I am not the one making a claim on it. You are.

If you don't have anything, we just default to the normal behavior of GARDIAN -- shooting down incoming missiles.

And the torps normal behavior is to reach the enemy ship and kill it. Which creates an impasse which can only be solved by quanitifying both variables, a feat I do not think is possible within the limitations of the OP, which has not yet been done to the best of my knowledge.

[User1401]

I have demostrated it is the more reasonable and simplier assumption than your assumption the two are unrelated. That is all I have to do.

No, you have not.

Yes it was. Going into the Nebula was to make the odds even between the heavily damaged Enterprise and the Reliant, the context was of ship's shields and ship's sensors. Now yes it could easily include photon torpedo shields but that is not an absolute there is wiggle room.

Saavik: "Trouble with the nebula, sir, is all that static discharge and gas clouds our tactical display. Visual won't function and shields will be useless."

...

Joachim: "We can't follow them into the nebula. Our shields would be useless."

...

Khan: "Raise the shields."

Joachim: "As I feared, sir. Not functional."

It's stated, repeatedly. Shields don't work in general. The context gives no reason to think that it applies only to ship shields.

You do realize the image is from the Remastered right? Or we can look at this image towards the end of the battle and again see the ship is enshrouded in an aura.

Well, since I pointed that out myself, I think it's safe to say that I realize it...

Your theory is not internally consitent with its central tenant, namely that anti-matter storage generats an aura, or accurately explains what we see, why an internal warhead generates a field outside of the torpedo casing, conversely the "flaw" of my theory can be accounted for with canon evidence.

Your theory is not internally consistent with its tenant, namely that shielding not under stress generates an aura, or accurately explains what we see, why a torpedo in a nebula which explicitly disables shields still glows. See? My point is not that the antimatter explanation is any better than the shield explanation, only that the shield explanation is no more plausible than the antimatter explanation.

And no, you have provided no canon evidence to explain your theory. At all.

Output for the laser, endurance for the torpedo. As I have previously stated.

We don't need it.

Missiles from its own verse. Now if you have evidence on how they compare to a photon torpedo we can build from there. But as it is you are saying X must equal Y with nothing supporting it.

Missiles in general. Torpedoes are missiles. Being from a different universe only matters if you can show how that would make a difference.

No because I am not the one making a claim on it. You are.

Yes I made a claim, and I just proved it, logically (something you have failed to do regarding torpedo shielding). Showing that photonic torpedo endurance is out of the ordinary would disprove my claim. But you haven't done so.

And the torps normal behavior is to reach the enemy ship and kill it. Which creates an impasse which can only be solved by quanitifying both variables, a feat I do not think is possible within the limitations of the OP, which has not yet been done to the best of my knowledge.

So what? Missile behavior in general is to reach an enemy ship and kill it. GARDIAN's normal behavior is to stop missiles from doing that. My syllogism still shows that, unless you can show otherwise, GARDIAN would intercept photonic torpedoes and stop them from impacting.

[sonofccn]

Well, since I pointed that out myself, I think it's safe to say that I realize it...

The images I posted showing the torpedo like glow. The ones you say were edited out in the remastered version are from the remastered version. Did you look at what I posted?

Answer the rest later.

[sonofccn]

@Stargazer:

Torpedo shields-

1. 24th century torpedoes posses shields and glowing aura. I presented evidence for the former already and will be happy to provide an example of the latter if you wish it. Any evidence you have to dispute these points please feel free to provide.


2. Of the choice that the aura is the shield or that the aura is a separate system which is generated over the torpedo in addition to a protective shield the former is the simpler and less complex theory which explains what we see. If you have any evidence to dispute this point you may provide it here

A. Shields pumped to high enough intensity cross over into the visual spectrum as demonstrated by the screencap of a ship running at 100% in the remastered episode. If you have any evidence to dispute this subpoint you can provide it here


3. 22nd century photonic torpedoes posses the same orange aura as 24th century torpedoes again Occam’s Razor chooses that it is a shield as well rather than the needlessly complex theory that it is some unrelated system which merely looks like the 24th century shieldglow. Any evidence you have to dispute this point you can provide here.


4. Logically then the torpedoes of the 23rd century should be shielded as well and therefore has a discrepancy with the nebula incident. However as the quotes you provided show it is in the context of starship’s shields and sensors they are talking of leaving us short of an absolute torpedo shields would be affected. Any evidence you have to dispute this point, and I remind you it would require torpedoes to be specifically mentioned, you can provide here.


5. This then is the straightforward logical progression which takes in the full body of evidence, rather than focus on a singular data point, choosing the simplest and least complex assumptions at every juncture prompted to explain what we see.

Gardian laser system-

1. In a nutshell we do not know A, strength of the laser, and we do not know B, endurance of the torpedo, yet you postulate A is greater than B without evidence. I counter that since A is undefined and B is undefined neither can be determined greater than the other and therefore the solution is Null until we obtain further evidence.

A. You also state that because the Gardian laser is designed as a counter to missiles that warships of the ME verse would be expected to encounter it wins by default without evidence against any missile. Which is a fallacy because it success would be depended upon the torpedo’s characteristics, speed, agility, armoring ect. Therefore the burden falls to you, making the claim the photon torpedo falls within defeatable characteristics, to support your assertion.

[User1401]

1. 24th century torpedoes posses shields and glowing aura. I presented evidence for the former already and will be happy to provide an example of the latter if you wish it. Any evidence you have to dispute these points please feel free to provide.

Granted. I do not dispute either of these points.

2. Of the choice that the aura is the shield or that the aura is a separate system which is generated over the torpedo in addition to a protective shield the former is the simpler and less complex theory which explains what we see. If you have any evidence to dispute this point you may provide it here

No. The shield aura theory is not simpler, because you have to come up with an explanation for why torpedo glow remains when torpedoes are fired in the Mutara Nebula.

A. Shields pumped to high enough intensity cross over into the visual spectrum as demonstrated by the screencap of a ship running at 100% in the remastered episode. If you have any evidence to dispute this subpoint you can provide it here

I'm not sure I believe that your screencaps are from the remastered episode. Memory Alpha has a clearly defined screencap from the remastered episode, and the glow is not present. I do not possess the remastered episode on DVD, so I cannot check myself. Even if it is, this still does not prove that the torpedo glow is the shielding.

3. 22nd century photonic torpedoes posses the same orange aura as 24th century torpedoes again Occam’s Razor chooses that it is a shield as well rather than the needlessly complex theory that it is some unrelated system which merely looks like the 24th century shieldglow. Any evidence you have to dispute this point you can provide here.

Occam's Razor does not have to choose anything. You are assuming that there must be an explanation for the glow, when really there doesn't have to be. Do shields glowing blue when hit need an explanation? Does the rainbow-like effect from going to warp in the TOS movies need an explanation? Ultimately here is no evidence linking shielding to the glow, and in fact there is evidence against it. And the antimatter payload theory is not "needlessly complex". It fits better with the evidence, actually. We know for certain that all photon torpedoes and photonic torpedoes carry an antimatter payload, and they all glow. We do not know for certain that all photonic and 23rd century photon torpedoes have shields. Occam's Razor would favor the antimatter explanation, because we do not have to make a needlessly complex theory for why torpedo glow remains in the Mutara Nebula.

4. Logically then the torpedoes of the 23rd century should be shielded as well and therefore has a discrepancy with the nebula incident. However as the quotes you provided show it is in the context of starship’s shields and sensors they are talking of leaving us short of an absolute torpedo shields would be affected. Any evidence you have to dispute this point, and I remind you it would require torpedoes to be specifically mentioned, you can provide here.

They never say "the ship's shields". They say "shields will be useless". You also have presented no reason that torpedo shields would be different than ship shields for that to even matter.

5. This then is the straightforward logical progression which takes in the full body of evidence, rather than focus on a singular data point, choosing the simplest and least complex assumptions at every juncture prompted to explain what we see.

No, it's not logical at all. It is built on falsehoods and unproven conjecture.

Gardian laser system-

1. In a nutshell we do not know A, strength of the laser, and we do not know B, endurance of the torpedo, yet you postulate A is greater than B without evidence. I counter that since A is undefined and B is undefined neither can be determined greater than the other and therefore the solution is Null until we obtain further evidence.

We do know that GARDIAN is powerful enough to shoot down fighters and missiles. We have no reason to think that torpedoes are more durable than normal missiles. Therefore, we can postulate that A is sufficient to destroy B. My syllogism earlier is still valid.

A. You also state that because the Gardian laser is designed as a counter to missiles that warships of the ME verse would be expected to encounter it wins by default without evidence against any missile. Which is a fallacy because it success would be depended upon the torpedo’s characteristics, speed, agility, armoring ect. Therefore the burden falls to you, making the claim the photon torpedo falls within defeatable characteristics, to support your assertion.

I have already provided the evidence that GARDIAN is considered 100% accurate against anything short of relativistic projectiles, which torpedoes decisively are not. The burden falls to you to show that torpedoes are more durable than ordinary missiles. We have no reason to assume that the torpedoes are any more durable than normal missiles, which GARDIAN can shoot down.

[sonofccn]

Granted. I do not dispute either of these points.

Good.

No. The shield aura theory is not simpler, because you have to come up with an explanation for why torpedo glow remains when torpedoes are fired in the Mutara Nebula.

The Nebula is addressed in point four for now we are merely concerning ourselves with orange aura of 24th century torpedoes.

I'm not sure I believe that your screencaps are from the remastered episode.

Here see for yourself. Trekcore HD, and therefore remastered, screencaps. Here is your starship on the exact same page I collected the second image I presented to you.

Even if it is, this still does not prove that the torpedo glow is the shielding.

This was only to disprove your assertion a shield couldn't be made visible during "normal" noncontact operation, the shield=aura is dealt with on the greater point.

You are assuming that there must be an explanation for the glow, when really there doesn't have to be.

No there must be an explanation for the glow, something is generating it. We can either assume it is the same as what is generating the glow in the 24th century or invent a new device.

Do shields glowing blue when hit need an explanation?

There is an explanation regardless if we know or understand it.

Ultimately here is no evidence linking shielding to the glow, and in fact there is evidence against it.

I just listed a body of supportive evidence and logical deduction supporting it and your only evidence against it is the 23rd centuries torps glowed inside the Nebula during their scant existence. A single data point which may or may not even concern the torpedoes.

And the antimatter payload theory is not "needlessly complex". It fits better with the evidence, actually. We know for certain that all photon torpedoes and photonic torpedoes carry an antimatter payload, and they all glow

First anti-matter storage/warheads do not glow as I have demostated with two seperate examples and I can dig up at least a third if you want. So your theroy dies right then and there. Second it increases the complexity because your assuming there is both an invisble shield being projected over the torpedo and that there is an etheral radiant light being sheathed around it as well. Third your theory doesn't even explain what we see because the glow is outside on the casing of the torpedo not around the warhead which is inside the casing.

We do not know for certain that all photonic and 23rd century photon torpedoes have shields.

For certain? No but to assume against it requires needlessly complex assumptions.

Occam's Razor would favor the antimatter explanation, because we do not have to make a needlessly complex theory for why torpedo glow remains in the Mutara Nebula.

1. Your theory doesn't work as demostrated by anti-matter storage not glowing. Ergo your theory is wrong certifiably.
2. As I previously stated it doesn't explain what we see, a aura around the outside of the torpedo.
3. It makes it more complex because we have to assume a 24th century torpedo, possesing the same aura, has a protective forcefield and this magical magnetic radiant energy sheath.

They never say "the ship's shields". They say "shields will be useless".

In the context of the ship. What do you think they were trying to raise torpedo shields when they say "raise shields"? Now yes it doesn't mean it can't mean the torpedoes but it doesn't have too there is a difference. Your reasoning hinges upon it being mandatory.

You also have presented no reason that torpedo shields would be different than ship shields for that to even matter.

Actually their being short-lived high intensity shields as demostrated in the jounrey to Babel in addition to shielding a smaller volume would be valid reasons of the difference. But whatever it isn't ironclad the torpedoes would be affected and we have supporting evidence that what we see is a shield.

No, it's not logical at all. It is built on falsehoods and unproven conjecture.

You have demostrated nothing I have said is false, not one piece of evidence I have presented has been fabricated or lied about, and as to conjecture we will have to disagree. I made minimal assuptions and provided adequate evidence to support my claims to the best that is available.

We do know that GARDIAN is powerful enough to shoot down fighters and missiles.

quanitfy them then. Then quanitfy the photon torpedo.

We have no reason to think that torpedoes are more durable than normal missiles.

And no evidence that its not more durable. We do not have that information.

My syllogism earlier is still valid.

You syllogism assumes X, missiles from ME verse, equal Y, missiles from ST verse, without providing a lick of evidence.

I have already provided the evidence that GARDIAN is considered 100% accurate against anything short of relativistic projectiles, which torpedoes decisively are not.

Possibly 22nd torpedoes but regardless that was an example of an atribute the defense system would be dependent on in order to stop.

The burden falls to you to show that torpedoes are more durable than ordinary missiles.

If I did that I wouldn't be arguing we don't know but that the torps whould shoot through your ships like tissue paper.

We have no reason to assume that the torpedoes are any more durable than normal missiles, which GARDIAN can shoot down.

And no proof that its not. And we have no more reason to favor the gardian than we have to favor the photon torpedo both are equally wieghted possibilies until off set by evidence.

[User1401]

The Nebula is addressed in point four for now we are merely concerning ourselves with orange aura of 24th century torpedoes.

Which still involves the nebula. If torpedo glow in the 24th century is the shields, then we either need to assume the glow was caused by a different source in the 23rd century or that torpedo shields are somehow different and aren't affected by the nebula. Occam's Razor favors neither over the antimatter explanation.

Here see for yourself. Trekcore HD, and therefore remastered, screencaps. Here is your starship on the exact same page I collected the second image I presented to you.

Ok, it's Trek Remastered. The ship does not seem to be sustaining the glow, though.

This was only to disprove your assertion a shield couldn't be made visible during "normal" noncontact operation, the shield=aura is dealt with on the greater point.

Ok, maybe overloaded shields produce a glow. Now prove that torpedo shields are overloaded in the same manner, please.

No there must be an explanation for the glow, something is generating it. We can either assume it is the same as what is generating the glow in the 24th century or invent a new device.

You have not proven that shields create the glow in the 24th century in the first place.

There is an explanation regardless if we know or understand it.

Right, but we don't need to know this explanation. I could say that, oh, shields glow blue because the beams that hit them are blue. But that would be false, since the beams that hit them are not blue. The existing evidence disproves that suggestion, just as the Mutara nebula example disproves the idea that the glow is shielding.

I just listed a body of supportive evidence and logical deduction supporting it and your only evidence against it is the 23rd centuries torps glowed inside the Nebula during their scant existence. A single data point which may or may not even concern the torpedoes.

And I disproved much of them and showed that they were not logical. A single contradictory data point is enough to disprove a theory that doesn't have conclusive evidence to begin with.

First anti-matter storage/warheads do not glow as I have demostated with two seperate examples and I can dig up at least a third if you want. So your theroy dies right then and there. Second it increases the complexity because your assuming there is both an invisble shield being projected over the torpedo and that there is an etheral radiant light being sheathed around it as well. Third your theory doesn't even explain what we see because the glow is outside on the casing of the torpedo not around the warhead which is inside the casing.

And your theory dies right in the Mutara nebula! It's no different. It doesn't explain the glow, unless you assume that torpedo shields are overloaded (which Occam's Razor does not favor), and it's not more complex. For the 24th century torpedoes, we know three facts -- they glow, they contain antimatter, and they have shields. For 23rd and 22nd century torpedoes, we only know two facts -- they glow, and they contain antimatter. It's simpler to connect two things that we already know are present in each case, rather than one thing we know is present and one thing we do not know is present in all cases. Stop applying a double standard.

For certain? No but to assume against it requires needlessly complex assumptions.

Quite the opposite, as I just explained.

In the context of the ship. What do you think they were trying to raise torpedo shields when they say "raise shields"? Now yes it doesn't mean it can't mean the torpedoes but it doesn't have too there is a difference. Your reasoning hinges upon it being mandatory.

Unless you can show that torpedo shields are different than ship shields, yes, it is mandatory!

Actually their being short-lived high intensity shields as demostrated in the jounrey to Babel in addition to shielding a smaller volume would be valid reasons of the difference. But whatever it isn't ironclad the torpedoes would be affected and we have supporting evidence that what we see is a shield.

Ok. Now prove that torpedo shields are higher intensity than ship shields.

You have demostrated nothing I have said is false, not one piece of evidence I have presented has been fabricated or lied about, and as to conjecture we will have to disagree. I made minimal assuptions and provided adequate evidence to support my claims to the best that is available.

The very idea that torpedo glow is caused by shields is an assumption. You've done nothing to prove it, much less disprove the evidence against it.

quanitfy them then. Then quanitfy the photon torpedo.

They are rated to destroy missiles. Photonic torpedoes are missiles. We don't need any more quantification.

And no evidence that its not more durable. We do not have that information.

Sorry, the burden of proof is on you to show that they are more durable. If you can't, Occam's Razor (funny thing, that?) determines that we assume they are as durable as ordinary missiles.

You syllogism assumes X, missiles from ME verse, equal Y, missiles from ST verse, without providing a lick of evidence.

Torpedoes are missiles. Are you inable to comprehend a simple tautology?

If I did that I wouldn't be arguing we don't know but that the torps whould shoot through your ships like tissue paper.

And no proof that its not. And we have no more reason to favor the gardian than we have to favor the photon torpedo both are equally wieghted possibilies until off set by evidence.

It's not my job to prove a negative. If you want to prove that photonic torpedoes can survive being hit by GARDIAN, be my guest. Until then, the default behavior of GARDIAN hitting missiles is that they get shot down.

[sonofccn]

@stargazer:

Its simple. We know torps glow. We know the 24th century model has shields. We know the glow forms over the torpedo. We know the shield forms over the casing. I have proven shields can glow under the proper conditions. It doesn't become much more simplier than that. And before you shout Nebula the nebula has nothing to do with the 24th century torp at this stage, it isn't even logical to assume it is shielded based off of a 24th century torpedo, it is merely self-contained unto itself when we construct our theroy.

The Nebula only comes into play after we look at the 22nd torpedo, which has the exact same glow as the 24th, and deduce it has a shield and therefore logically the 23rd and more advanced in comparison torpedo should have one. Then, and only then, do we have to worry about the Nebula and in which case I have two examples to your one and can if it comes to it call it a descrepency or VFX frag up or whatever I like.

Conversly your theroy is not based on actually anything, I have proven shields can glow you haven't that magnetic fields do, doesn't do what you say it does, warheads don't glow which would be on par with a shielded torpedo that lacked a glow, and doesn't explain anything, my theroy says the glow is a high intensity shield your theroy says the glow should be contained within the torpedo casing. Regardless of any issues or flaws in my reasoning your theory is a hundred times worse, it isn't a good parody of my argument and frankly I would ask you stop bringing it up because it is absoluetely moronic.

As to your gardian laser for the last time I am not asking you to prove a negative, what you are asking me to do, I am asking you to prove a positive. That the laser can do what you claim to a photon torpedo something you have not quantified in the slightest.

[User1401]

You have not proven any link between torpedo glow and shielding. It's that simple. Speculation is not the same thing as proving something. Show me any canon statement or example that explicitly links torpedo glow to shields, or concede.

As for GARDIAN, I have quantified that GARDIAN is enough to destroy missiles. Torpedoes = missiles. It's that simple. And if you say it's not that simple, well, what was that thing about Occam's Razor that you keep banging on about? Unless you give a reason that torpedoes are more durable than ordinary missiles, we simply assume that torpedoes are as durable as any other missile.

[sonofccn]

You have not proven any link between torpedo glow and shielding. It's that simple.

No I just proven its completely possible, explains what we see and is the simplist assumption between glow is generated by shield and glow is generated seperatly from shield.

Show me any canon statement or example that explicitly links torpedo glow to shields, or concede.

If we can't try and make infered reasonings supported by evidence in this then we are in deep trouble because, unless I missed something, I don't have a cannon statment anything from Mass Effect can hurt anything from Trek. There goes the debate. :)

As for GARDIAN, I have quantified that GARDIAN is enough to destroy missiles. Torpedoes = missiles. It's that simple.

And what their targets is called tells us nothing about them. It is that simple. One's position is never presumed correct by default it must be proven, even an ISD vs an ant would require both parties to be quantified before a winner can be declared. I do not understand why you are so reluctant to prove your position or why it is so difficult for you to accept some things we simply don't know how they'll react.

And if you say it's not that simple, well, what was that thing about Occam's Razor that you keep banging on about?

Occam's razor has nothing to do with two unkown variables which is what we are arguing about. We do not know how strong a photon torpedo is in relation to a ME missile. You are claiming in essence they are exactly the same, I demand you provide proof of this assertion.

[Picard]

Photon torpedo can sit in middle of a star for few minutes, and bury into crust of a planet. Really, that's only thing you need to know about torpedoes' shields.

[Praeothmin]

Photon torpedo can sit in middle of a star for few minutes, and bury into crust of a planet. Really, that's only thing you need to know about torpedoes' shields.

And if it has nothing to do with shielding, then it means Torpedo casings are incredibly resistant and the Gardians will probably not even make a dent in them...

[sonofccn]

Checking the actual episode of Journey to Babel I do not see support for the images taken from Trekcore. The ship is displayed in detail on the viewscreen without orange glow. I can not account for the descrepency on Trekcore, on the same set it has the CGI shuttle as well as the CGI ship which couldn't have existed in the preremastered version, and can only offer my apology and concession on the matter to Stargazer.

[Picard]

Orange glow is seen in older version of the episode, remastered version doesn't have it.

[User1401]

Checking the actual episode of Journey to Babel I do not see support for the images taken from Trekcore. The ship is displayed in detail on the viewscreen without orange glow. I can not account for the descrepency on Trekcore, on the same set it has the CGI shuttle as well as the CGI ship which couldn't have existed in the preremastered version, and can only offer my apology and concession on the matter to Stargazer.

Ah, ok. Apology accepted.

Photon torpedo can sit in middle of a star for few minutes, and bury into crust of a planet. Really, that's only thing you need to know about torpedoes' shields.

24th century photon torpedoes. To use an example from the real world, modern day artillery, while still operating on the same principles, is not the same thing as cannons from the 18th century. Those cannons didn't have the same speed, range, destructive power, etc. Also, some modern artillery uses depleted uranium, but that certainly doesn't mean that 18th century cannons did. The nature of 24th century torpedoes thus should prove nothing more about the nature of 22nd century torpedoes.