www.ditl.org

Atekimogus wrote:One might further speculate that the most important and most expensive ships of the federation would stand higher on the refit list than an old Excelsior

The Excelsior's continued service in the DS9 era indicates that the basic spaceframe and infrastructure are inherently sturdy and well-designed - the perfect testbed for such an experiment.

Atekimogus wrote:noone knows how much better it is in the end compared to "normal" armour.

There could be a great variance in the effectiveness of ablative armor based on its composition - but by definition, it is more effective than non-ablative armor of the same composition. Ablative means that it vaporizes and carries off energy, rather than just absorbing it.

Captain Seafort wrote:
There's no evidence that the alt-E-D is any more technologically advanced or powerful than the "real" one. Therefore, under Occam's Razor we must assume that they're effectively the same ship.

Why, if we were to go with the simplest solution, we should throw away that example as having too many uknowns. if there is no evidence one way or the other then to assume they are identical is everyway is a large assumption in itself

Captain Seafort wrote: There is actually - the alt-E-D was destroyed (or about to be destroyed) by a warp core breach brought on by a coolant leak. That was the exact same cause as the WCB that destroyed the E-D over Veridian III.

well, if i were to use a real world example. i blew the headgaskets in my 1989 Cougar with a 5.0 v8 because it over heatesd. i blew the headgaskets in the 1990 Thunderbird because i pushed too much boost throught the factory motor. 2 very different engines, 2 very different causes. the same result. looking at the result of something does not give you a full picture of how and why

Captain Seafort wrote: So? If there's only enough antimatter in the core to sustain the reaction, then obviously the energy release will be within the limits of Fed materials and forcefields. Even if the core itself is breached then there should be a containment vessel around it capable of withstanding the release. The fact that WCBs are capable of destroying the ship indicates either that the core has far too much excess reactivity or that there isn't a containment vessel. Either of which demonstrates gross engineering incompetence.

this is why i asked if it is ever stated how much is required we don't know how much is required to sustain the reaction, we also don't know how much the GCS burns under combat conditions. it may very well be that the amount required at idle is within limits and an explosion can be controled. during combat the demands may be to the point where it is impossible to build a forcefield or physical containment shield to keep the blast in... we don't know the design constraints in building one. perhaps its known to be very dangerous but its the only yay to get a ship of that size moving at warp.

Captain Seafort wrote: If there's enough antimatter in the core to spill out into the ship, then there's too much of it. There should be so little that it's barely sustaining the reaction, and if the core malfunctions or is damaged, all they have to do is shut off the fuel supply and the reaction will die.

well, again how do we know that will generate the power to get the ship moving? maybe at idle it is enough.

Kevsha wrote:Why, if we were to go with the simplest solution, we should throw away that example as having too many uknowns. if there is no evidence one way or the other then to assume they are identical is everyway is a large assumption in itself

Occam's Razor isn't about discarding unknowns, but about discarding unnecessary additional entities - such as more powerful weapons when there's no evidence of them.

well, if i were to use a real world example. i blew the headgaskets in my 1989 Cougar with a 5.0 v8 because it over heatesd. i blew the headgaskets in the 1990 Thunderbird because i pushed too much boost throught the factory motor. 2 very different engines, 2 very different causes.

What's this got to do with my examples? In YE a GCS warp core blew up beacause of a coolant leak. In Generations a warp core blew up because of a coolant leak. Same cause.

it may very well be that the amount required at idle is within limits and an explosion can be controled. during combat the demands may be to the point where it is impossible to build a forcefield or physical containment shield to keep the blast in... we don't know the design constraints in building one. perhaps its known to be very dangerous but its the only yay to get a ship of that size moving at warp.

We know for a fact that the energy of the core at full power can be contained because the core doesn't breach every time they ramp it up to full power. Either there's far more antimatter routinely held in the core than is necessary to sustain the reaction at any given power, or they routinely run the core right on the ragged edge of what the reactor vessel is physically capable of containing. Either way you look at it, it's stupid.

If you want to read up on the principles of engineering, written by a professional engineer, have a look at this.

Captain Seafort wrote:
additional entities

well first off all, i think i speak for everyone when i say additional tities are never unecessary.

but anyway, the law does make your case faily well, but using history as an example, technology tends to advance at an accelerated rate during war. i still beleave the since we are dealing with an alternate timeline that has no bearing on the primary time line there is no reason to count it. Occam's razor may work well with most phenomina, but manipulation of the timeline seems like something where assuming an absolute minimal impact, especially with such a drastic change, is difficult. especially because we know that the war has lasted longer than the production run for the GCS and therefore the ship was designed in this universe with it being a warship from its origional plans. or are we to assume that this GCS would still carry families, extencive scientific suites, the same level of crew amenities, ect. i know by Occam's razor we should but that strains credibility too far.

Captain Seafort wrote: What's this got to do with my examples? In YE a GCS warp core blew up beacause of a coolant leak. In Generations a warp core blew up because of a coolant leak. Same cause.

well think of it this way. the headgasket failure is the coolant leak. had i not caught it, both woulf have led to a bent rod or a spun bearing, which you could think of as a warp core breach. i would imagine that a loss of coolant would be the doom of any warp core or else a cooling system would not be required. so the coolant leak caused the warp core breach, but maybe there were different things that caused the coolant leak. but in yesterday's enterprise we don't see the ship explode, maybe they were able to jettison thier warp core, only to be ripped to bits moments after by the klingon ships. maybe they would have been able to take all 3 ships down but they were trying to draw the klingons fire no matter what the cost and therefore sat and took a pounding.

Captain Seafort wrote:
We know for a fact that the energy of the core at full power can be contained because the core doesn't breach every time they ramp it up to full power. Either there's far more antimatter routinely held in the core than is necessary to sustain the reaction at any given power, or they routinely run the core right on the ragged edge of what the reactor vessel is physically capable of containing. Either way you look at it, it's stupid.

If you want to read up on the principles of engineering, written by a professional engineer, have a look at this.

i read it. i'm from a long line of engineer's and i would have became one myself had i not made a few poor decisions. I understand what you are saying. i have been trying to come up with some sort of in-universe explination of why things happent they way they have. it is hard to beleave that the UFP would field ships that explode when you if you look to hard at the warp core.

but then again, its just a show

Kevsha wrote:Occam's razor may work well with most phenomina, but manipulation of the timeline seems like something where assuming an absolute minimal impact, especially with such a drastic change, is difficult.

Occam's Razor is a basic premise of logical analysis - it isn't affected by circumstance.

or are we to assume that this GCS would still carry families, extencive scientific suites, the same level of crew amenities, ect. i know by Occam's razor we should but that strains credibility too far.

Not at all - we see or hear evidence that such things are different in the altered timeline. The alt-E-D was designed to transport a brigade, and had no families or children aboard. The Razor only removes unnecessary additional entities - it doesn't assume the simplest solution regardless of the evidence.

it is hard to beleave that the UFP would field ships that explode when you if you look to hard at the warp core.

It's hard to believe the Soviet Union would field nuclear-powered submarines without anything resembling decent shielding. It's hard to believe they would design a power reactor in which dropping the control rods would initially accelerate the reaction, or build one without any containment shell. They did.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Kevsha wrote:Why, if we were to go with the simplest solution, we should throw away that example as having too many uknowns. if there is no evidence one way or the other then to assume they are identical is everyway is a large assumption in itself

Occam's Razor isn't about discarding unknowns, but about discarding unnecessary additional entities - such as more powerful weapons when there's no evidence of them.

Occam's Razor states that theories should be free from unnecessary entities. Occam's Razor does not state that the simpler explanation is better or preferred, this is a common misconception. So if more powerful weapons are needed as part of a theory the Razor does not apply. More powerful weapons explains why the YE-E was able to destroy the Klingon ship so quickly, and the E-D was not able to do the same in "Generations".

m52nickerson wrote: Occam's Razor states that theories should be free from unnecessary entities. Occam's Razor does not state that the simpler explanation is better or preferred, this is a common misconception. So if more powerful weapons are needed as part of a theory the Razor does not apply. More powerful weapons explains why the YE-E was able to destroy the Klingon ship so quickly, and the E-D was not able to do the same in "Generations".

well, thats what i think. but you and seafort are using the Occam's Razor theory to come up with different outcomes. which it seems alot of people are doing. which is why i say throw the whole yesterday's enterprise episode

Mikey wrote:

Atekimogus wrote:One might further speculate that the most important and most expensive ships of the federation would stand higher on the refit list than an old Excelsior

The Excelsior's continued service in the DS9 era indicates that the basic spaceframe and infrastructure are inherently sturdy and well-designed - the perfect testbed for such an experiment.

Also true, as I said just speculations where one is as good as the other. But since the refit was at least possible with the possibilty of a major war the speculation that at some point probably even before the war some GCS were upgraded to this standard is still not the most ridicoulos, isn't it?

Mikey wrote:There could be a great variance in the effectiveness of ablative armor based on its composition - but by definition, it is more effective than non-ablative armor of the same composition. Ablative means that it vaporizes and carries off energy, rather than just absorbing it.

I know how it is supposed to work but that still leaves us largely in the grey at how much better it is to standard-armour. Usefull only against energy weapons? Also handy against torpedos? How much more hits are you able to survive because of it etc. Hard to say imho....
What you can say is that because of its workings it does not help whatsoever to enhance the sturdiness of the basic frame of the design or the SIF which leads me to the opinion that it may be a nice help against energy weapons, probably not so much against torpedoes but overall it is probably a bit overrated and not the major technological step ahead of previous designs.

Kevsha wrote:

m52nickerson wrote: Occam's Razor states that theories should be free from unnecessary entities. Occam's Razor does not state that the simpler explanation is better or preferred, this is a common misconception. So if more powerful weapons are needed as part of a theory the Razor does not apply. More powerful weapons explains why the YE-E was able to destroy the Klingon ship so quickly, and the E-D was not able to do the same in "Generations".

well, thats what i think. but you and seafort are using the Occam's Razor theory to come up with different outcomes. which it seems alot of people are doing. which is why i say throw the whole yesterday's enterprise episode

Agreed, no one will be able to say for sure what was different or what was the same in that episode.

Occam's Razor does not state that the simpler explanation is better or preferred, this is a common misconception.

Source?

Occam's Razor does not state that the simpler explanation is better or preferred, this is a common misconception.

actually.....

Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham). The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one.

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html

By making the fewest assumptions you are by definition making it simpler are you not

Yes.

m52nickerson wrote:Occam's Razor states that theories should be free from unnecessary entities. Occam's Razor does not state that the simpler explanation is better or preferred, this is a common misconception.

Technically true, though you're splitting hairs. What the real outcome of the Razor is that the explanation which requires the least amount of made-up shit is preferred; this is commonly (and often correctly) read as the "simplest" explanation. In the case we've been discussing, such "made-up shit" would include saying that the YE E-D definitely has more powerful weaponry than the "normal timeline" E-D. Would such a circumstantial assumption fit? Sure - but that doesn't mean that you can assume evidence of such when there isn't any.

Further, I'm curious to know why you are adamant that the E-D's weaponry was more powerful in YE when Seafort presented another, feasibly supported model which would explain the effects seen just as well, and has as much evidence to back it.

Indeed. I'm backing Seafort on this one.

Mikey wrote:Further, I'm curious to know why you are adamant that the E-D's weaponry was more powerful in YE when Seafort presented another, feasibly supported model which would explain the effects seen just as well, and has as much evidence to back it.

That would be the Klingon ships having weaker shields in the alternate timeline?

Yes. And his "industrial capacity vs. attrition" basis for that is as completely unsupported as the "E-D had better guns" idea, and equally logically based.