RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,585
Posts: 5,515,300
Members: 25,156
Currently online: 516
Newest member: jerrlaro

TrekToday headlines

Two New Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Dec 26

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek TV Series > The Next Generation

The Next Generation All Good Things come to an end...but not here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 26 2014, 01:38 AM   #91
PhoenixClass
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: The Pegasus

Vandervecken wrote: View Post
I could just as easily repeat--again--that no one has explained how warp 10+ drive that results in a cloaking effect, or ship materials that result in a sturdier ship and healthier crew that result in a cloaking effect, are classifiable first as cloaks.
But what is your authority for the proposition that the treaty talks about secondary/primary effects? The episode didn't say anything about that. The only authority we have is the interpretation by the characters and there was no mention that the phase was permissible because cloaking is secondary (which, again, begs the question of which effect is primary and which is secondary). If there was such a legal basis for the phase, the admiral in charge of the project would have relied on it, instead of conceding the prohibition.

Remember, Pressman's justification wasn't a loophole or an exception in the treaty; his justification was that it the treaty was a disadvantage to the Federation.

In the interest of keeping an open mind, can you elaborate on how these technologies relate to the cloaking effect? For example, is the ship cloaked only when at warp 10+? Can the warp drive be used to cloak without providing such propulsion? Do the ship materials render the ship permanently cloaked? etc.

It's not a defense. It's an absurdity. You might as well say that a car is a lamp because it has headlights. Sometimes--in fact most of the time--objects do have an obvious first purpose, and a gun is one of them. Do you really think there is anything like a significant fraction of sensible adults--let alone a majority--who think a gun with a flashlight built into it is a flashlight as much as it is a gun? Do you think that?
Of course it's absurd. But, then again, I'm just applying your logic to a different situation.

If you concede that

Forbidden tech A (gun) + permissible tech B (flashlight) = still forbidden,

you can't argue that

Forbidden tech A (cloaking device) + permissible tech B (sturdier spaceframe) = permissible.


Phasing here isn't even close to being the gun with a flashlight attached, where in that metaphor phasing is the flashlight and cloaking is the gun. Phasing, insubstantiality, is something wholly different from invisibility to eyes and sensors, and carries with it a completely different range of possible applications.
I don't see how you can argue that phasing is wholly different from invisibility when phasing renders the ship using it invisible.

Furthermore, a flashlight is wholly different from a gun and has completely different applications, yet you concede that it does not make a gun permissible.
PhoenixClass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 26 2014, 07:34 PM   #92
JD5000
Commander
 
JD5000's Avatar
 
Location: Jackson, WY
Re: The Pegasus

There is an image of the 'Treaty of Algernon' on page 89 of 'Federation: The First 150 Years' by David A. Goodman, which supposedly just uses info from Memory Alpha. I don't know how this book is regarded in terms of canon. Ironically it doesn't say anything about cloaking devices, but maybe that's covered on page two and this is only a 'picture' of the first page.

I find this odd, because I'm pretty sure we're all right remembering something about the illegality of Federation cloaking devices being a condition of the treaty being said on screen several times.
JD5000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 26 2014, 08:13 PM   #93
DonIago
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Burlington, VT, USA
View DonIago's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to DonIago Send a message via AIM to DonIago Send a message via Yahoo to DonIago
Re: The Pegasus

As a book it's non-canon by default.
__________________
--DonIago
It was the best of Trek, it was the worst of Trek...
"If I lean over, I leave myself open to wedgies, wet willies, or even the dreaded Rear Admiral!"
DonIago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 26 2014, 08:23 PM   #94
JD5000
Commander
 
JD5000's Avatar
 
Location: Jackson, WY
Re: The Pegasus

Isn't Memory Alpha info regarded as canon? I just noticed prevalence in posts here claiming that we can't read the wording of the treaty, so that presents difficulty in discussing it. I'll do more research later and see if MA backs up this representation.
JD5000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 26 2014, 08:37 PM   #95
DonIago
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Burlington, VT, USA
View DonIago's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to DonIago Send a message via AIM to DonIago Send a message via Yahoo to DonIago
Re: The Pegasus

Unless TPTB have revised their policies, it's only canon if it's been depicted on screen, and sometimes not even then (TAS, for instance).
__________________
--DonIago
It was the best of Trek, it was the worst of Trek...
"If I lean over, I leave myself open to wedgies, wet willies, or even the dreaded Rear Admiral!"
DonIago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 26 2014, 10:13 PM   #96
Armored Saint
Fleet Captain
 
Armored Saint's Avatar
 
Location: Quebec City
Re: The Pegasus

I took a look at google and the contents doesn't seem to be cannon. The author CREATED what could have been those documents by using Memory-Alpha as reference. Look at the Eulogy for James T. Kirk pronounced by Spock. http://media.sfx.co.uk/files/2013/10...ion-eulogy.png
Armored Saint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27 2014, 04:27 PM   #97
Vandervecken
Commander
 
Vandervecken's Avatar
 
Location: Kobold
Re: The Pegasus

DonIago wrote: View Post
Please cite supporting evidence for the claims you make about what the treaty does or doesn't specify and what the Federation's intentions were when they signed it.
You do the same.

Are you actually suggesting that, yes, the Federation Council DID have in mind giving the Romulans a veto over Federation technological development? Rather than a simple ban on cloaking tech for the Feds? (which is the only way it is discussed by Picard, Pressman, Riker, or any others).
__________________
"Mu hah hah ha! And when they give me Battlestar Galactica that'll be the trifecta! My red matter and action movie scripts are unstoppable!"--JJ "Destroyer of Worlds" Abrams
Vandervecken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27 2014, 04:46 PM   #98
Vandervecken
Commander
 
Vandervecken's Avatar
 
Location: Kobold
Re: The Pegasus

PhoenixClass wrote: View Post
Vandervecken wrote: View Post
I could just as easily repeat--again--that no one has explained how warp 10+ drive that results in a cloaking effect, or ship materials that result in a sturdier ship and healthier crew that result in a cloaking effect, are classifiable first as cloaks.
But what is your authority for the proposition that the treaty talks about secondary/primary effects? The episode didn't say anything about that. The only authority we have is the interpretation by the characters and there was no mention that the phase was permissible because cloaking is secondary (which, again, begs the question of which effect is primary and which is secondary). If there was such a legal basis for the phase, the admiral in charge of the project would have relied on it, instead of conceding the prohibition.

Remember, Pressman's justification wasn't a loophole or an exception in the treaty; his justification was that it the treaty was a disadvantage to the Federation.

In the interest of keeping an open mind, can you elaborate on how these technologies relate to the cloaking effect? For example, is the ship cloaked only when at warp 10+? Can the warp drive be used to cloak without providing such propulsion? Do the ship materials render the ship permanently cloaked? etc.

It's not a defense. It's an absurdity. You might as well say that a car is a lamp because it has headlights. Sometimes--in fact most of the time--objects do have an obvious first purpose, and a gun is one of them. Do you really think there is anything like a significant fraction of sensible adults--let alone a majority--who think a gun with a flashlight built into it is a flashlight as much as it is a gun? Do you think that?
Of course it's absurd. But, then again, I'm just applying your logic to a different situation.

If you concede that

Forbidden tech A (gun) + permissible tech B (flashlight) = still forbidden,

you can't argue that

Forbidden tech A (cloaking device) + permissible tech B (sturdier spaceframe) = permissible.


Phasing here isn't even close to being the gun with a flashlight attached, where in that metaphor phasing is the flashlight and cloaking is the gun. Phasing, insubstantiality, is something wholly different from invisibility to eyes and sensors, and carries with it a completely different range of possible applications.
I don't see how you can argue that phasing is wholly different from invisibility when phasing renders the ship using it invisible.

Furthermore, a flashlight is wholly different from a gun and has completely different applications, yet you concede that it does not make a gun permissible.

I can't believe I have to explain this, but:

When I discuss primary and secondary effects, I am applying the kinds of words that practitioners of jurisprudence might apply when attempting to interpret a treaty under circumstances that could not reasonably be categorized as the circumstances that the treaty was intended for, or are at least not obviously automatically within the confines of those circumstances. Interpretation of a law requires going beyond its exact wording--that is what judges and arbitrators do. They design their own nomenclature, legal tests, etc.

How can I argue that phasing is completely different? You mean, how is the ability to pass through matter different from invisibility? Is a warp drive different from a replicator? Is an apple different from an orange?

I don't see why this makes a difference, but let's say in my plus 10 warp drive scenario, the ship is always invisible to anyone. That STILL does not make warp 10+ tech a cloak. It is warp 10+ tech. It may have other secondary effects, such as throwing off a particular kind of radiation--but that would not make it a radiation-creation device.

Do you think chemotherapy is therapy for destroying cancers, or is it a torture designed for inflicting horrible effects on people, like myelosuppression and neuropathy (both are common side effects of chemo)? Because by your reasoning, it's just as much the second as it is the first. You're not going to find too many people who embrace that definition.

My point was that your analogy is wrong. The situation is thus:

Important new technological advance that has nothing to do with cloaking has cloaking as an inescapable side effect=permitted.

YOUR analogy would be thus:

Important new technological advance has cloak added to it for no reason whatsoever. (And that would be banned, because it would be a cloak, but no more than all alone and thus immediately understandable as banned by the Treaty.)

You want the tail to wag the dog in your analogy, and most people consider the tail wagging the dog to be wrong, a circumstance to be avoided.


----

And I do recall Pressman's justification. I'm not arguing about that. As I wrote, MY opinion is that the Feds shouldn't have worried about the Treaty from the get-go. It is NOT applicable.
__________________
"Mu hah hah ha! And when they give me Battlestar Galactica that'll be the trifecta! My red matter and action movie scripts are unstoppable!"--JJ "Destroyer of Worlds" Abrams

Last edited by Vandervecken; March 27 2014 at 05:46 PM.
Vandervecken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27 2014, 11:17 PM   #99
Silvercrest
Rear Admiral
 
Re: The Pegasus

Vandervecken wrote: View Post
DonIago wrote: View Post
I doubt the Romulans would make the kind of distinction you're making. The end result is that the ship is cloaked. Hence whatever technology is leading the ship to be cloaked is a de facto cloaking device.
Of course the Romulans would argue for as broad an interpretion of the treaty as possible. That doesn't mean their interpretation is controlling or, to the Federation, paramount. Your argument that a secondary effect is defining is not reasonable. I've given two very good examples of tech that might have that effect and that no sane person would consider a cloaking device. To advance the notion about warp 10+ tech or better ship materials would be disingenuous at best.

And here's another: the Iconian doors. Because you can get from point A to pojnt B without the Romulans knowing a thing about it. You've been effectively cloaked.

Does that really make sense to you? That if the Federation could master the tech of the Iconian doors, they would deny themselves that tech because the Romulans would object? Come, this is not reasonable.
Well, even if it counts as cloaking ... there could be a way around that one. It depends on the exact wording of the treaty. Everything onscreen refers to the prohibition of the Federation developing cloaking technology. But we never hear whether there's a specific ban on Federation ships using the technology, particularly if someone else developed it. If there isn't, using the Iconian technology wouldn't violate the treaty.

If the ban is specifically on development, then perhaps even Picard's use of the phasing cloak wouldn't constitute a specific violation. (Even though the original development still constitutes one.)

That might even explain why DS9 got away with using a Romulan cloak for years without a Romulan operator onboard.

It's more likely that treaty does cover the point. Or at least it's likely that the Romulan lawyers and negotiators would scream bloody murder when they heard ... and the treaty would be amended in a hurry.

I'm just sayin'.
Silvercrest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 10 2014, 02:20 AM   #100
PhoenixClass
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: The Pegasus

Since this came up in the thread about the Dominion War, I thought I'd beat this dead horse one more time.

I rewatched the episode, and I don't think you can dismiss the characters' interpretation so easily. You were talking about primary and secondary effects. Riker describes the device as a"protoype for a Federation cloaking device." Pressman describes it as the "greatest breakthrough in the weapons research in the last 50 years."

Based on that language, the intent was to develop a cloaking device. Therefore, it's primary purpose was to be a cloaking device, rather than cloaking simply being a side-effect of a device intended to phase.
PhoenixClass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 11 2014, 10:25 PM   #101
varek
Commander
 
varek's Avatar
 
Location: Danville, IN, USA
Re: The Pegasus

I loved this episode, because it reminds me so much of "The Philadelphia Experiment," which I believe really happened. I agree with Riker, when he said that if he had known then what was really going on, he would have joined the mutineers! Picard was right in informing the Romulans of this treaty violation. (Of course, it made sense to wait until after they'd used it to free themselves!)
Two interesting asides about the Philadelphia/Pegasus experiment:
1. Some say it was connected with the Montauk Project, which may have been connected with Mars; and,
2. A writer I just read suggested that the Kecksburg (PA) "acorn" may have been part of a WWII German time-travel experiment.
Both of these allegedly real-life events are like the Pegasus episode.
__________________
Varek, Vulcan Engineer
Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations
Time, like latinum, is a limited commodity.
varek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 12 2014, 12:26 AM   #102
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: The Pegasus

TNG seemed to make clear that one of the clauses in "The Treaty of Algeron" was the ban on the UFP from developing clocking technology. It doesn't matter if this clocking was a secondary, tertiary etc.. effect. If the device caused the ship to become invisible to the naked eye then it was a clocking device.

Now if the Federtion device in "The Pegasus" simply caused the ship to phase then it wouldn't be a violation of the treaty. As one of the effects caused it to become invisible to the naked eye then it's illegal under the terms of the treaty.

But to expand it further would a phased ship even show up on sensors? It might not, ddue to it being out of phase surely sensor scans would just pass straight through, same for phaser/disrupter beams, torpedeos, interstellar matter etc.. So in effect you would have an invisible ship to everything but the naked eye.
__________________
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.
MacLeod is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:49 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.