I've added back the scientific footnote because it is scientific. After all CA VI eploding is speculation on the part of Kahn, a non-scientist who could not have witnessed the event directly enough to state that the planet sponteneous exploded. It is impossible for a planet to just explode and the readership should know that.

  • To quote Seven of Nine: "Impossible is a word humans use far too often". In our current scope of things, a planet spontaneously exploding is impossible, yes, but so is travelling beyond the speed of light according to Einstein's theory of relativity (as an object's velocity approaches the speed of light, its mass becomes so great that it cannot further accelerate and therefore not break the light speed barrier or something to that effect), but travelling beyond the speed of light, as you know, is commonplace in Star Trek. Perhaps there was something very distinctive about Ceti Alpha VI that caused it to explode such as an unstable planetary core. Personally I don't think that the footnote should be put there - Star Trek has a great deal of science fact but at the end of the day it is science fiction. Sorry if I trod on anybody's toes. --Scimitar 00:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I think measurement of geothermal energy and the future breaking of a theoretical barrier are a little different. In other words we are talking about observation of nature as opposed to mans intervention of nature. If a planet is stable enough to have a crust it will never conjure up more energy. Even Jupiter will never ignite without an outside force. --Mark 2000 03:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

But what if the planetary core was made of ultritium, or populated by energy spheroid life forms? An intergalactic energy transmitter mishap caused by Kelvan interference could have resonated along its rotationl axis at near right angles.
I fon't think that primitive 21st century science is really up to the task of calling this impossible--Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 04:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Theres nothing like crazy theories to try to explain bad writing and research, right? Thats fine. I made the footnote more ambiguous to simply an external force, but tending toward ruling out the scientifically implausable. After all, Trek is grounded in reality and we should understand what the real world research has to say in relation to science fiction. --Mark 2000 06:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I wasn't saying that geothermal energy and warp drive are the same thing. I'm just saying that there may have been some unexplained cause for the planet exploding. As CaptainMike said, our understanding of science at the moment is nowhere near advanced enough to dismiss the possibility of planet spontaneously exploding. It would frankly be arrogant to do so.--Scimitar 09:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Bad writing and research? What does your opinion of the movie mean in relation to listing the disposition of this planet in the movie?
If there is a universe where subspace anomlaies, high-energy materials like dilithium and ancient alien explosive technology is strewn about, I'm surprised there aren't more planets spontaneously exploding.
If current science knowledge states that it would take X amount of pressure or energy to break a planet up completely, and in Star Trek there are ample sources of things that have been explicitly mentioned to generate much more than that amount of energy (as there also are in the "real" universe), I don't see why anything about it is unlikely -- there are literally dozens of random, interstellar, far-traveled planet breaking devices and premises, literally flying around the Star Trek galaxy, and also planted, deus ex machina style, in 9 out 10 planets visited. I think that speculating external vs internal is moot, it wasnt mentioned inthe film -- and both are possible.


The statement that "Scientists have found that there is not enough energy within a planet for it to explode on its own no matter how fierce the geologic activity" is fine as a background footnote if the source of the information is disclosed. If there is no valid citation for the claim, it should be removed or significantly softened to be less conclusive. Aholland 15:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, in accordance with above discussion. -- Captain M.K. Barteltalk 16:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
And very nicely done, too! Aholland 16:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Ceti Alpha VI exploded, non-canon explanation:

Star Trek, New Frontier, Gateways, book six of seven, isbn: 0-671-04242-4, p. 69 describes M'res of Enterprize (TAS) crew falling through an (Iconian ?) gateway at the time and sent into the future (temporal gateway) at the time of the planet exploding. She was reassigned to a science vessel called Einstein.

The event in the book described: The away team scanned a "pulsating in the air" and scanned with a tricorder. They found some equipment that appeared to be running some kind of self-test and continued to scan,then it happened.

More Citation Edit

The same issue has arisen again as with "Citation" above. I have removed "Modern scientists agree a planet does not have enough energy in its core to spontaneously explode" from the article. If there is a valid citation (I'm talking respected and peer reviewed science here, not Trek) for such a conclusive claim please discuss it back here. We can include the material if the citation is a good one. Aholland 11:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sensors Edit

Has anyone brought up the question as to why the Reliant made such a big mistake as to what planet they were orbiting? I mean I think with as advanced sensors as were available at the time, why would a survey of the system miss that a planet was missing? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

There's no need to bring up that question because it was explained. The planet they thought was missing was Ceti-Alpha V and thought they were viewing Ceti-Alpha VI. Also the movie would have to have a different reason for them to get this is the reason. — Morder (talk) 23:57, November 11, 2009 (UTC)