I've just given you several examples of when this is not the case, including the extremely major examples from TOS and TUC. Your explanation for this is... what? I'll again remind you that "canon" does not have a format, nor does it lay one out. Canon is exactly as consistent as the whims of VFX artists, no more, no less. There is no information corroborating your theory that forcefield interactions are "always visible." I've just shown you that most common forcefields are NOT visible at all. If you're going to claim that "canon" supports your theory (whatever that means) you need to address this point. It's not contradicted by anything on this point, therefore it stands. False assumption. No argument is "by default" unless it is corroborated by the evidence. Simply churning out a list of reasons why you assume an alternate explanation may be flawed doesn't provide any support for your own theory, and at this point it occurs to me that I'm not entirely sure what your theory IS. If you're claiming that impulse drive is a type of low-gear warp field, that theory DOES contradict canon and the tech manual. You'll need to elaborate your position before we can continue. Another assumption on your part. DS9's weapons appear to be nothing more special than ordinary phasers and photon torpedoes. The VFX in the entirety of "Sacrifice of Angels" do not show any shield reactions from any ships, either Klingon or Starfleet. Just another example of the rule you are hanging on not really existing. Ah, but it DID show interactions in "Emissary" and several earlier episodes where DS9 is shown to be enclosed in a large shield bubble. As did the Cardassian cruiser in "The Wounded" when fired on by the Enterprise-D. You have implied that for forcefields. I have demonstrated to you very clearly that you are incorrect. Your only possible fallback position is to argue that, in fact, everything SHOULD be visible and then to resort to an endless list of rationalizations whenever this turns out not to be the case. The simpler explanation is that forcefields aren't usually visible when they interact with things. That is much easier to explain in light of the visual evidence, where the converse case would require us to make up ever more exotic theories about why certain forcefields are used in once case but not in others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterburner You don't "need" anything, it's the definition of "history" which does not include fiction. You could say "fictional history," but the same problem applies: it is subject to the whims of its creators. Um... yes. The difference is in real history there is an objectively verifiable truth that can be discerned from the evidence. Fictional history has no such truth, since it is entirely made up and one made-up event is just as true as another made-up event, even if they both directly contradict each other. And yet, since it is still canon, precedent is irrelevant. Correct. Because the creators either didn't subject themselves to such controls, or didn't remain under them. Which is just another way of saying "the producers didn't feel like being controlled." Canon is therefore inconsistent simply because the VFX artists didn't make an effort to be consistent. Except that they're the ones who defined what canon is by putting things on screen. So, yeah, they are pretty admissible. No, see, to be a contradiction YOU have to come up with a line of dialog that says "there are no force fields here." Do you have an example of this or not? Otherwise it's just my deductive analysis against your "I don't see it, so it must not be there" assumptions. Half right. The tech manual was created after the fact--by the producers--as a reflection of design intent. It is essentially a work that fleshes out the details of what THEY had in mind when they came up with the idea, in some cases in more detail than they had originally included in their own notes. As you have admitted that you have not actually read the tech manual, your opinion on this matter is thoroughly irrelevant. It's a massive oversimplification based on sloppy use of a set of terms that were meant to be an analogy only. It's an inference from the situation. The antimatter reactor is a power system for the ship's main engines and (arguably) for its sublight engines. Both of these engines were completely inactive along with the rest of the ship. Unless you're prepared to give a logical reason why the reactor would be active, we can safely assume it was not. Which contradicts "Coming of Age" where Wesley Crusher and Mordoc both agree--with confirmation from the test computer--that "where antimatter is concerned" the only intermix ratio is "1:1". Interesting that Wesley describes this as a "trick question," since this implies that OTHER intermix ratios are possible in different circumstances; it is extremely likely those "different circumstances" involve a use of an intermix chamber for something OTHER than a receptacle of drive plasma from the antimatter reactor. The intermix chamber does not mediate a matter/antimatter reaction. The "reactor" or "warp core" does that. TMP Enterprise didn't have a warp core. And again, some of the diagrams you yourself posted clearly showed not one but two different fusion reactors hooked up to the intermix shaft to operate as a backup incase the antimatter plant failed. The intermix chamber doesn't seem very particular about where it gets that plasma from. You proceed from an extremely false assumption. The PRODUCERS didn't consider TOS to be the ultimate precedent of anything, in fact they had already undermined most of it by the time TMP was in pre-production. On the other hand it's curious that you consider TOS to be the ultimate precedent for canon and then at the same time assume that a blast-deflector forcefield would be visible. The MAJORITY of force fields in TOS were not visible, whether they interacted with anything at all. Even Enterprise's deflector shields were never visible even when the ship was under attack (see "The Deadly Years" and "Erand of Mercy" for examples).