Why is Firefly so different? by Randy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 7, 2003 9:20 AM

HARDAN

I agree with your thoughts.
I have another aspect:
This future is more real than any other shown in SciFi-Series. In most series exist Aliens. And its not that alien exists that makes them unreal, but that there are thousends of variegated (I hope I got the right word

) species. I affirm that "we" will not make contact to other "lifeforms" in the next thousend years if we ever make contact.
If I compare the FF-Universe to the ST-Universe I have to say that ST is a big crap. The system of StarTrek just doesn't work. That theres no money and everyone works for the "whole thing". If you ask an economist he'll say that this wouldn't work. In Firefly we see the galaxy as our world is today: Splitted up in few people who have everithing, and many who have nothing. The ones who have everthing put upon the others.

That's why firefly for me is different and better.

-----------------------------
Yes there are Fireflyfans all over the world. Even in little switzerland.
Sorry for all the mistakes in writing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 7, 2003 11:44 AM

I think you meant "varying". "Variegated" means different colors.

I agree that this future seems much more realistic. It is chaotic and dark, like our own lovely world of today.

You made a good point. Having no aliens certainly sets the Firefly world apart from others. And again, shows that the focus of this series is elsewhere than laser battles and gruesome creepies.

The thing that always sorta bugged me about aliens on other shows is that it seems 90% of the aliens are humanoid. Given all the weird life forms on our own planet, multiply it by the ga-gillions of other planets, seems there'd be a bit more variety than two legs, two arms, walking upright etc etc etc.

"...morbid and creepifying, I got no problem with" - Mal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 7, 2003 11:44 AM

I think you meant "varying". "Variegated" means different colors.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 7, 2003 2:36 PM

JYNK

I still think there are gruesome creepies, but they've got "hands of blue" and come "two by two". ;)

-------------------
"Let's move this conversation in a not-Jayne's-fault direction." - Jayne

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 7, 2003 3:18 PM

JEFFNS

I seem to recall the original Star Trek had a signifigant number of non-humanoid aliens, certainly they had a greater percentage over the run of their three seasons than any of the other Star Treks had in theirs.
In the FireFly universe, it is entirely plausible that humans fill the niche of "inhuman" characters (ie, the Reavers) and far more chillingly than the "latex of the week" aliens that seem to have become the norm for television science fiction.
It is far more disturbing to see human beings acting savagely towards each other than to see aliens preying on them.
Joss and his team certainly captured that dynamic, and the essentially cut-throat capitilism that thrives in the absence of a strong central government on the frontier.
This show resonates with an implicit recognition of how human beings behave towards one another, which makes the growing bond among the crew of Serenity all that much more engaging and interesting to watch.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 8, 2003 1:11 AM

SABI

You forgot - the aliens always speak proper american english too.

And I take issue with the first poster who said that Zoe stand up to Mal. On the contrary, INARA is the one who stands up to Mal. And I think he likes it.

"Mal just DO IT."

"It doesn't matter what you want, he's dying!"

"If you get rid of them, I'm leaving too."

She says whatever she has to to move his hand, or his emotions. She is his counterbalance.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 8, 2003 1:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Randy:

The thing that always sorta bugged me about aliens on other shows is that it seems 90% of the aliens are humanoid. Given all the weird life forms on our own planet, multiply it by the ga-gillions of other planets, seems there'd be a bit more variety than two legs, two arms, walking upright etc etc etc.

Actually there are some very good reasons why you would have to be somewhat humanoid in order to be an intelligent species. You are right that there are a wide variety of life forms on this one planet, but not all of them are sentient, (or at least display signs of sentience) nor technological.

You would need at least 4 limbs, two for walking and two for other stuff, (picking berries, etc.) Each additional limb or organ above what is needed to survive requires energy, or food to make, maintain and use. Either the limb or organ pays for itself, by helping the species survive, or the entire speices dies out. Evolution.

Look at all bipedal critters on this planet. Only humans and apes have the upper arm strength to do anything with that extra set of limbs. What they do, and we used to is called "brachiated", climb trees. Kangaroos, and t-rexes have wimpy arms compared to primates.

There are also good reasons for life being carbon based. First off it has four valence electrons, which means it can form long chains and have attachments. Also it is more common than silicon, and many carbon compounds are easily soluble in water, which is a bi-polar compound. Water has some cool properties especially related to lipids that form cell membranes.

Carbon dioxide is a gas that is soluble in water. Silicon dioxide is sand or glass. It is too inert for what we would even recognize as life.

Metabolic rates have to be considered, as it appears to require a lot of food to run a brain. And if all your food is being used to power extra limbs, well you have a problem. Many species simply are not active enough to have anything like our brains. Reptiles are pretty slow, metabolically, and birds spend too much energy flapping their wings. And also crawling on your belly or flapping your wings mean you have no extra pair of hands to do anything with, even if they could adapt to new activities.

Technology itself requires fire, for the making of metals and ceramics. Which rules out underwater species. Dolphines could not build a digital watch, even if they had the hands to do so.

So you find that what you end up with is a carbon based, bipedal, land based, brachiating organism. In other words a humanoid of some type to develope a technically advanced civilization. It is the result of evolution, and unless you posit some other strange environment, that is what you are going to be stuck with.

I should note that I am dealing solely with natural evolution. It is possible that some future genetic engineer may be able to grow dragons and centaurs as smart if not smarter than us. But it is unlikely that such body forms or creature could evolve naturally.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 10, 2003 4:54 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.

Randy wrote:

Quote:
I agree that this future seems much more realistic. It is chaotic and dark, like our own lovely world of today.

You made a good point. Having no aliens certainly sets the Firefly world apart from others. And again, shows that the focus of this series is elsewhere than laser battles and gruesome creepies.

The thing that always sorta bugged me about aliens on other shows is that it seems 90% of the aliens are humanoid. Given all the weird life forms on our own planet, multiply it by the ga-gillions of other planets, seems there'd be a bit more variety than two legs, two arms, walking upright etc etc etc.

I agree about the atmosphere of the show. I think that the general atmosphere genuinely reflects a post civil war setting. There is a feeling of distrust, resentment, and unresolved conflict between the side that won, and those that lost.

I also feel the lack of sophisticated technology correctly reflects what we could actually expect in such an enviroment. Core worlds will have easy access to modern tech and creature comforts. Colonies on the fringe of space will not have advanced tech as they are so far out, and the cost of shipping and then buying such items would be prohibitive. Life would therefore take on a pioneer or old West feel.

I too love a Sci Fi w/ no aliens. If I want aliens, I will watch Star Trek or Farscape. I also agree that it is a bit silly to think that all aliens would be bipedal and human in appearance. Sure it is done for ease of make up and to keep the special effects budget down, but it is still not very realistic.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 10, 2003 5:06 AM

SKULLNINJA

Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
Randy wrote:

Quote:
I also agree that it is a bit silly to think that all aliens would be bipedal and human in appearance. Sure it is done for ease of make up and to keep the special effects budget down, but it is still not very realistic.

Star Trek uses a variant on the Panspermia hypothesis of why most intelligent life is bipedal humanoid in the Trek Universe. An ancient race seeded their genetic information throughout the galaxy and it acted as a dominant shaper for the form that intelligent life would take on those planets.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 10, 2003 6:27 AM

LADYSHILLELAGH

Most definitely. The only other SciFi show I can think of that was good, was Babylon 5. It had aliens, but it did not have humans as the obviously dominant species.

Firefly doesn't have aliens, but it does have a focus on the actually characters, as originally stated. The idea that the main characters are not heroes also helps. They are just a bunch of people on one ship, trying to eek out a living. As far as we know, Simon and River are the only ones with a good reason to be running from the Aliance (ie the Alliance abused River).

The fact that Mal doesn't try to be heroes, and he and his crew get injured just as much as anyone else, and makes mistakes, gives the show a realness that even Reality TV can't top.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 10, 2003 6:43 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.

SkullNinja wrote:

Quote:
Star Trek uses a variant on the Panspermia hypothesis of why most intelligent life is bipedal humanoid in the Trek Universe. An ancient race seeded their genetic information throughout the galaxy and it acted as a dominant shaper for the form that intelligent life would take on those planets.

Yeah, I saw that episode of Star Trek Next Gen. Still not very realistic for Sci Fi. Sure it ties it altogether and explains why all the major players in the ST universe are all so similar, but the Ancients didn't "seed" every world in the universe. Surely there are far more "alien" species than humanoid.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 10, 2003 8:00 AM

SKULLNINJA

Actually, the Panspermic theory is an accepted theory in some scientific circles. It has fewer holes in it than Darwin's evolutionary theory and was one of the primary causes of all the hype a few years back when we thought we may have discovered a martian rock in the Antartic.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 10, 2003 8:12 AM

LOSTANGEL

That theory would work if all planets that were formed were exactly like Earth. The fact is that there are too many planets out there. Of the planets that we have found, few are like Earth. Life finds a way to flourish, no matter what the atmosphere or conditions. Sentience (sp) is only by our reckoning, and we don't know what other animals on this planet are like, because we are so different from them. Whales are sentient, people would have to agree with that, but they have no need for a digital watch, or fire, or anything like that, their societies are advanced and such.

If life can find a way to flourish at the mouth of thermal vents in the ocean floor, then life can flourish in other types of environments that are nothing like ours.

Aside from that, I think that most aliens are perceived as bipedal so that the audience can relate to them in some way.

______________________
Lost Angel

WASH: Psychic, though? That sounds like something out of science fiction.
ZOE: We live in a space ship, dear.
WASH: So?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 10, 2003 10:58 AM

SELNYC

Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:

I also agree that it is a bit silly to think that all aliens would be bipedal and human in appearance. Sure it is done for ease of make up and to keep the special effects budget down, but it is still not very realistic.

And while we're counting the unrealistic things SF shows on TV do on account a they're all on pretty strict budgets, let's discuss artificial gravity.

For example, in "Out of Gas" how did Serenity hold on to her artificial gravity when everything else was going to hell in a hand basket? 'Cause of the budgetary restraints on episodic television. Let's also point out that big budget movies "cheat" in the same fashion (the one major exception to this being Apollo 13).

Why?

Expediency, my friends.

Even George Lucas expects us to accept the general use of artificial gravity; on the other hand, all of his ships make all that noise in space, so, there ya go...

Never forget that necessity is the mother of invention; the reason Kirk could say "Beam me up Scotty" (OK, he didn;t really say it, but you know what I mean) is because Gene Roddenberry couldn't figure out how to land that big damn ship.

Were there monkeys?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 10, 2003 1:03 PM

I have to agree that the concept of sentient life is relative to humanity. Different types of existence is a complex concept to try to wrap in one piece of brown paper.

There are all kinds of little questions when you try to attach reality to the concept of space travel. Artificial gravity is one (I didn't even think about that one). Another is the concept of time. At what reference point do they set their clocks, calendars and their sleep cycles? I assume they select a particular time zone on earth. Like River says at Simon's birthday, time based on solar cycles aren't relevant in space. It is interesting to consider living in a somewhat artificial "day".

Another thing I noticed in Safe, the crew gets paid for the cattle. Now how do they give Badger his cut since they are a cash business? Do they fly the 3 weeks back to Persephone? It is not like they have ACH deposits and can do an internet transfer.

One thing I wanted to mention about a previous post about Zoe NOT speaking her mind. I think you have to consider her character. She's an unflappable, serious woman of few words. Unlike Inara, who is outspoken in an emotional way, Zoe is outspoken in an even-toned, intellectual manner. She is just not one to have emotional outbursts. There are many instances when has she told the captain, "It bothers me" or "This is a bad idea" or "I don't like him" or even "Sir, I think you have a problem with your brain being missing." And that look she gave Mal in Shindig was deadly. She simply understands and respects the chain of command. She is a soldier after all. But she does tell the captain when she doesn't agree, even if she has to follow orders. I believe that given her and Mal's history, he understands her well enough that she doesn't need to say much to him to let him know how she feels about a situation. Anyway, that's my take on it.

"...morbid and creepifying, I got no problem with" - Mal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 10, 2003 1:03 PM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 10, 2003 5:57 PM

Those were some real pretty words, Captain!

Department of Redundancy Department

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 10, 2003 6:17 PM

Bravo, Captain! So right and so eloquent. I couldn't agree more.

"...morbid and creepifying, I got no problem with" - Mal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 10, 2003 6:17 PM

Bravo, Captain! So right and so eloquent. I couldn't agree more.

"...morbid and creepifying, I got no problem with" - Mal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 10, 2003 6:19 PM

SELNYC

Quote:
Originally posted by Randy:
There are all kinds of little questions when you try to attach reality to the concept of space travel. Artificial gravity is one (I didn't even think about that one). Another is the concept of time. At what reference point do they set their clocks, calendars and their sleep cycles? I assume they select a particular time zone on earth. Like River says at Simon's birthday, time based on solar cycles aren't relevant in space. It is interesting to consider living in a somewhat artificial "day".

One other thing I forgot to mention in my earlier post was the confusion over *where* this show is taking place. Originally, I think we were told this was a fairly large, almost completely terraformed solar system. In later intros, it seems to be a galaxy (could they have named their solar system "Galaxy"?).

Needless to say, this is a huge difference.

If Serenity is flying through a solar system at fast, though sub-light speeds, well, we're not going to have to worry about little things like relativity or time dilation/distorion.

If they're flying within a galaxy, however, then we're talking about faster-than-light (FTL) space travel, with all the distortions of time and space our current physics tell us would apply. Star Trek & Star Wars are famous for this kind of cavalier treatment of the laws of the universe (although Lucas has made it clear we're watching a fantasy with SF tropes). One of the few film series to acknowledge the vast distances involved in space travel of any sort was the Alien series.

Travelling at FTL speeds, you'd also need some sort of inertial dampener; otherwise you and all your crew would resemble strawberry jam spread all over the rear bulkhead of the ship...

Kinda makes the gravity thing look like small potatoes.

"Were there monkeys?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 10, 2003 6:43 PM

PMJI:
It seems pretty clear to me that FF takes place in another galaxy (or perhaps a globular cluster...mayhap one of the Magellanic Clouds?). It just doesn't make any sense for all these stories to take place in some unimaginably crowded solar system. For one thing, it (the system, that is) couldn't possibly be stable with all those gravity wells dancing around one poor sun (remember that, terraform as you might, all these occupied worlds have something resembling a 1-G environment [faux-grav is all very well and good on a ship, but on a planetary scale, it just doesn't wash...pardon pun]). It would surely fly apart, zinging planets at each other like billiard balls (and Management is NOT responsible for ball failure!) (to say nothing of monster tides in any sufficiently large body of water!).

So, we're pretty much talking about FTL travel. Don't see any other way around that. Joss seems pretty intent on not mucking about with the tech-talk any more than he has to, so this may just stay a black box. Just another secret of his warped (har-har) imagination.

As for arti-grav. Well, in "Serenity" we see the grav kick in just as the air lock is pressurized (cargo boxes from that dead carrier slam to the deck, soon as the outer door is sealed and atmo gets pumped in). Again, no muss, no fuss, just a little visual beat to quiet our tech hindbrains, and on with the story. Along with that, there pretty much has to be some kind of inertial dampening. We see these big bursts of speed when Serenity's Glowing Arse of Accelleration lights up, and no crew smearage to be seen. We can see that it's not perfect ("everybody hold onto something" for the Ivan), but we are treated to exterior shots of Serenity buffeting about the clouds (one Inara shuttle lauch bit comes to mind), whilst everyone just strolls around a quiet, stable interior. My guess would be that the grav and inertial dampening are linked systems, so maybe less active as exterior gravity becomes available. This last is one I haven't thought through too well, and could be pulled apart pretty easily...(also, I wonder if Wash likes a little "road feel" in the cockpit, since we see him rattling around, while the crew saunters. Mayhap he can customize by zone?)

Time dilation and such are only problems as you approach light speed in flat space, so some kind of worm-warp-folding-thingie would eliminate that bugaboo handily enough (can't have Badger being 50 years older than the last time they saw him the next time they ground on Persephone, can we?).

Gods below, but I'd love to see how Joss would tackle these issues in his off-handed, unobtrusively-well-though-out way!!!

Grrr...Arrrgh.

Ta.

Department of Redundancy Department

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 10, 2003 7:10 PM

JEFFNS

I lean towards a single, large solar system for the background of the 'Verse. Who's to say that whatever techniques of terraforming were used on all the worlds, moons, large asteroids, planetesimals, etc, it wouldn't have the effect of increasing the gravity to something approaching Earth normal?
Also, if the number of worlds seems too large to be in orbit around just one sun, just think about how many bodies exist here in our own Solar System. There are more planets, moons, etc in our system than have ever been visited, listed or mentioned in the episodes thus shown.
And only in a small (compared to the rest of the Universe) volume like a solar system would the Alliance have a hope of exercising any kind of control over the peoples. So, I think Serenity has incredibly efficient and powerful engines, but they are sublight.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 10, 2003 8:20 PM

>I lean towards a single, large solar system for the background of the 'Verse. Who's to say that whatever techniques of terraforming were used on all the worlds, moons, large asteroids, planetesimals, etc, it wouldn't have the effect of increasing the gravity to something approaching Earth normal?

Trouble with that, Jeffns, is that I don't see evidence in the rest of the 'verse of that kind of God-like tech. Try to boost the gravity of even a small planet-like body, and you'd have to stabilize megatons of rock 'n such against the immense geological (*don't* give me a hard time about that word!) forces involved in changing the grav at the surface (like, say, by burrowing a small singularity into its core...remember, it has to be zero-maintenance, so giga-machines are pretty much out). The body would have a tendency to buckle. Not to mention that without enough mass to sustain some kind of tectonic process, atmo gasses would tend toward equilibrium, and not get recycled through vulcanism and such (I think this would be so even with enough plant and animal biomes to recycle oxy and carbon diox).

And remember again that the orbital dynamics of a system with THAT many bodies (*especially* one in which their gravitational characteristics had been mucked about with willy-nilly) would be outlandishly complex and, ultimately, catastrophically chaotic.

> Also, if the number of worlds seems too large to be in orbit around just one sun, just think about how many bodies exist here in our own Solar System. There are more planets, moons, etc in our system than have ever been visited, listed or mentioned in the episodes thus shown.

Well, in our own system, 4 out of 8 planets (I'm counting Pluto/Charon as a Kuiper Belt Object...and, yes,that's a WHOLE other thread!) are gas giants, so they're right out. Yup, they've got plenty of moons...but then there's the problem of the sun being too far away. Yah, maybe you could orbit artificial suns, or implode the gas giants to make mini suns (if they're massive enough...which most ain't [not even Old Jove]). But you're still talking about a whopping load of radiation on close-orbiting "planets." Again, these measures have to be zero maintenance, or your investment's for naught. Rocky planets closer in aren't as much of a problem ('less you count such as Mercury, where you'd have to orbit huge sun shades...and keep 'em there, or your colony's like ants under a magnifying glass [actually, with Mercury, you'd also have to spin it up, since it's tidally locked; always shows the same face to the sun...killer winds, and the small problem of your atmo constantly snowing onto the dark side!]). Your best course would be to stick to the relatively habitable zone (Venus-Earth-Mars), which eliminates all but three (four, if you count Luna) of the many bodies in this particular system. Again, looks like our FF 'verse is a collection of star systems.

>And only in a small (compared to the rest of the Universe) volume like a solar system would the Alliance have a hope of exercising any kind of control over the peoples. So, I think Serenity has incredibly efficient and powerful engines, but they are sublight.

This problem all-but goes away if you posit efficient FTL travel. And, with sublight engines pushing that 1-C (lightspeed) envelope all the time, then, over time, you'd start to see those pesky time dilation FX (seems I've got too much time on my hands!).

And, remember, Mal said something like ~"No matter how long the arm of the Alliance may reach, we just push out a little further." If we were talking about one star system, such boundless optimism would hit a hard limit in a relatively short time. If, instead, we were talking about even a small galaxy (like one of the Clouds), he could realistically expect a growing frontier to exist waaaay longer than his lifetime.

Hope I've laid these arguments out well enough that it doesn't look like I'm picking nits,and I DON'T mean to belittle your views...I just don't see any way that FF's 'verse could be confined to one star system...and, more fundamentally, I just LIKE the idea of a frontier that's finally really boundless. Makes hope a lot more hopeful...and the Big Black at the Rim a LOT scarier to boot!

Thoughts?

Gods, I love this gorram show!!

Department of Redundancy Department

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 11, 2003 7:59 AM

All technical jargon aside (way above my head), Mal states in the intro..."Here's how it is. The Earth got used up. So we moved out and terraformed a whole new GALAXY of Earths. Some, rich and flush with the new technologies. Some, not so much."

So it is a galaxy, according to Mal. Which makes sense that there are so many planets and so many settlers flying around to settle on new planets. But it must be a somewhat crowded galaxy what with Serenity running into other ships (including the Alliance) all the time.

As for that pesky time travel paradox, well, it IS science FICTION after all, and everything is based more on imagination and conjecture than on pure science. That is the function of fiction and the beauty that lies at the core of its premise. It is based in enough reality that we can accept the situations and enough fantasy so that it we can get lost in an imaginary world . And Firefly does this beautifully. Not too much science but a whole lot of humanity.

"...morbid and creepifying, I got no problem with" - Mal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 11, 2003 7:59 AM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 11, 2003 8:44 AM

LOSTANGEL

Well, Mal could have said Galaxy figuratively.

Noocyte, how do you know so much? Got a job we're not supposed to know about? (top secret kind) Never mind, if you did you wouldn't be able to tell us anyway.

I do like the fact that its all fiction and stuff, but I also like the fact that it's able to attract people who are able to have theoretical conversations like these.

Also, let's not discount technology here. We went from riding horses to landing on the moon in less than 100 years, so with the rate that technology is growing, 500 years from now will have things that not even Joss or Gene R. could imagine.

______________________
Lost Angel

WASH: Psychic, though? That sounds like something out of science fiction.
ZOE: We live in a space ship, dear.
WASH: So?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 11, 2003 10:54 AM

I think you are taking it too literal. Mal says galaxy of earths, like a bunch of geese, (gaggle?) May not be the right word for a bunch of new planets, but they are talking about this here galaxy you and I are in right now. They just went out to the nearby stars, and made more earths.

As for technical stuff, time dilation only goes for slower than light travel, and becomes a problem when you are accelerating and decelerating, in this "normal space". You get into a different space, a "jump" space or "hyper" space, all bets are off.

Anti gravity is not that big a stretch. Right now there is some interesting research being done for NASA by a gal named Ning Li, on this very subject.

Like your last line. "Not too much science but a whole lot of humanity."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 11, 2003 1:42 PM

Quote:
I think you are taking it too literal. Mal says galaxy of earths, like a bunch of geese, (gaggle?) May not be the right word for a bunch of new planets, but they are talking about this here galaxy you and I are in right now. They just went out to the nearby stars, and made more earths.

I quess none of us knows whether Mal is being figurative or literal. What you said above jibes with what I think Mal means in his monologue.

I'm also not discounting technology at all. But the heart of my point is actually in LostAngel's response.

Quote:
We went from riding horses to landing on the moon in less than 100 years, so with the rate that technology is growing, 500 years from now will have things that not even Joss or Gene R. could imagine.

Science and technology are advancing rapidly in some areas (and painfully slow in others). Things are being done that no one could have imagined 100 years ago. For me, trying to conjecture 500 years into the future when we can't even guess where science will be in 50 years seems a Sisyphean feat. When I watch the show, I just make simple assumptions (I'm afraid my mind isn't up to the challenge) and enjoy. Like I said, I am NOT discounting technology. It provides the catalyst for many interesting discussions which I've been enjoying here on the board. And the ideas and knowledge that people on this board have are amazing to me. I really am in awe.

But for me, technology is not the focus of this show. It is incidental. In fact, the show itself almost seems anti-technology. They use guns. They open doors with their hands (and some of them seem pretty hard to open). Simon stitches wounds. Kaylee keeps the engine running with duct tape, rubber bands and wishful thinking. As is the theme of this thread, that is what makes this series so special...their version of technology even manages to make Serenity seem like a warm and fuzzy being. I hope my technological ineptness doesn't offend anyone.

"...morbid and creepifying, I got no problem with" - Mal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 11, 2003 1:42 PM

Quote:
I think you are taking it too literal. Mal says galaxy of earths, like a bunch of geese, (gaggle?) May not be the right word for a bunch of new planets, but they are talking about this here galaxy you and I are in right now. They just went out to the nearby stars, and made more earths.

Quote:
We went from riding horses to landing on the moon in less than 100 years, so with the rate that technology is growing, 500 years from now will have things that not even Joss or Gene R. could imagine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 12, 2003 9:55 AM

"But for me, technology is not the focus of this show. It is incidental. In fact, the show itself almost seems anti-technology. They use guns. They open doors with their hands (and some of them seem pretty hard to open). Simon stitches wounds. Kaylee keeps the engine running with duct tape, rubber bands and wishful thinking. As is the theme of this thread, that is what makes this series so special...their version of technology even manages to make Serenity seem like a warm and fuzzy being. I hope my technological ineptness doesn't offend anyone."

What you said. I agree totally, and will add that if you don't have good characters and good plots, all the high tech special effects in the world ain't gonna save you.

But what you would call anti-technology I think makes it more realistic.

Horses? The higher the "tech level", the more advanced it is, the more infrastructure needs to create that technology and maintain it. Cars need roads, gas stations, factories which require raw materials, mines, which in turn requires mining equipment, etc. And then there is repair shops, parts supplies, diagnostic equipment. There is a large infrastructure in place just to support cars.

On the other hand, horses are self replicating, self repairing to a large extent, and fueled by the local grasses, possibly grains you have to grow anyway.

Out in the black, one has to get imaginative in repairs because its a long way between filling stations. So one may need to use duct tape and bailing wire to fix things till you get to some high tech world.

And besides there is something to the low tech side that makes it feel more comfortable to me. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 12, 2003 10:35 AM

I had never even thought about the infrastructure. You are so right. Good point.

I agree wholeheartedly that the low-tech approach of the show makes everything just feel more realistic, more touchy-feely tangible. Like eating a real apple instead of watching a Pixar rendition of one. You can almost breathe the dust and smell the engine grease. We can relate to these sights and sounds: a doctor stitching a wound...a mechanic using a wrench...horses and guns...bad food...cow pies...a captain who says "Huh!?" a lot...dangling Jayne out of the cargo bay with a rope. These things are all part of our current experience (um, well, sorta...at least the "bad food" bit). It is completely unlike other shows whose technology is so advanced, everything seems to be done by magic...deus ex machina. In those shows, their daily lives are so perfect, there is no story to tell. Hence alien meanies and the like. Not so for our beloved Firefly. The fact that their daily lives are so difficult is what helps us relate, draws us in, makes us care. Their lives, filled with conflict and self-doubt as well as happiness and caring...love, even, is no picnic, with or without fancy technology. Just like ours.

"...morbid and creepifying, I got no problem with" - Mal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 12, 2003 10:35 AM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 12, 2003 11:04 AM

And no damn "Prime Directive" BS that makes the crew act like complete morons for weak plot points. Grrr... that is one thing that really gets me about Star Trek.

Again, another stellar post.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 12, 2003 5:56 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.

Woa, what a thread! I have to say Captain can certainly write.

A lot to think about here. On the technology/science side, the one error I see right off, is the comment regarding the recycling of atmospheric gases through tectonic processes. This has very little to do with vulcanism. It's handled primarily by life and the water cycle. I can't comment on FTL travel or antigravity except to say at this point in time, those things are physically impossible.

To answer the thread. For me Firefly is so different because it doesn't make the gee-whiz technology the star of the show. The crew is the star(s). It's sci-fi with less emphasis on the science part of the formula than on the character development and the story. Joss and Mear assembled a terrific cast and wrote some great stories The technology is usef as plot device not as character or entitiy of its own. Aside from red and blue shifts, there are no doppler effects in space. As to why the show is so appealing to its fans I'd have to say Jubal Early says it best,

"... Firefly is a good design."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 13, 2003 1:16 AM

It has everything to do with tectonic processes and vulcanism. Carbon dioxide dissolves in water, rain, which upon impact with calicum becomes calcium carbonate or limestone. It gets removed from the cycle altogether. Until that limestone rock gets subducted under the mantle, melted, and the CO2 is released to come out as volcanic gasses.

But I think I see the confusion here in that this is more a heat regulation thing. As CO2 is a greenhouse gas. By pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere, you cool the planet. Which reduces rain fall, leaving just volcanic venting. That increases CO2, raising temperature, which increases rainfall, etc. You get a dynamic equalibrium in geological time, even if over shorter periods you end up with global warming and ice ages.

Oxygen is a biological process and it appears that atmospheric oxugen cannot exist without biology. And you have the whole CO2 to O2 exchange between plants and animals to deal with and keep the air clean enough for both sides to breathe.

As for FTL and antigravity, neither are known to be physically impossible. And as a matter of fact there is tantilizing evidence that they are possible, although they are not well understood. Our present theories suggest they are impossible, well that is not even true any more.

See http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0009013 and other papers referencing this work for more information.

IN General Relativity, gravity is not a force. It is "simply" a result of an object following the straightest possible path it can in curved space time. Reverse the curvature, you move the other direction, in effect you get space time.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 13, 2003 6:42 AM

Wow, Drakon, you blow me away! How do you know so much?! You don't have to answer...just a rhetorical question.

I think I need to go back to school. I'm not worthy of these discussions...

"Hell, I don't know! If I wanted schoolin', I'd'a gone ta school" - Jayne

btw, I think I finally have the answer to the galaxy/solar system debate. When Book does the intro, he says, "After the earth was used up, we found A NEW SOLAR SYSTEM and hundreds of new earths were terraformed and colonized. The central planets formed The Alliance and decided all the planets had to join under their rule."

Here, Book is very specific - "A new solar system" versus Mal's nebulous "A WHOLE new galaxy". So it sounds like a whoppin' big solar system if it has hundreds of planets. Hence "central planets" makes a bit more sense versus if it were a galaxy (though a galaxy does have a "center").

What do you think?

"...morbid and creepifying, I got no problem with" - Mal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 13, 2003 6:42 AM

Wow, Drakon, you blow me away! How do you know so much?! You don't have to answer...just a rhetorical question.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 13, 2003 7:57 AM

Hmmm, long story.

I am a space buff, born between Yuri Gargarin's and Alan Shepard's first space flight. I remember waking up in the wee hours of the morning and watching Neil Armstrong's "small step for Man" I read a lot of science fiction, but a lot of science fact as well. Heck, I wanted to go ever since I was a tiny thing.

My needing glasses prevented that, and I sat around and watched as we did not go back to the moon, did not push onward to Mars, did not really go anywhere since 1972, except around and around this one planet.

Why? Why had the promises of the 1960's puttered and all but fizzled out. I thought about it and came up with an answer.

There is no place to go and no way to get there.

The moon is an airless rock. Venus makes Hell look chilly, Mars is all but frozen. The outer planets are even worse, and anywhere we go in this solar system means having to take so much equipment and supplies along, have to rebuild a small version of the earth, that it is a bit expensive.

The nearest stars are too far away, and even if we could get there, it would mean the crew would essentially be returning so far into the future that they would be returning to an alien world.

At least that is the perception as of about 7 years ago.

I read, I researched, looked stuff up. Came across the workds of Kastings, Weatherall, and Bennest among others that showed that despite the fact that our nearest neighbors are a binary (and a half) star system, that does not prevent earth like planets.

(I say binary and a half, because Proxima was only discovered about 1910, and there is not enough orbital data to determine whether it is in orbit, or simply passing through. One of the many things I picked up.)

I also found out about Alcuiberra's paper, which I suspect was written as a lark, but the theory is still sound. It has stirred up a debate in the science community, and forced me to learn more about General Relativity.

(God, the math is a bear and I think I hurt my brain a couple times. And I can't say I got a real good handle on all of it. But it was worth it.)

In short, (too late) I was able to convince myself the standard perception is wrong. There is a really good chance (better than 50%) that there are earth like planets around our nearest neighbor. That General Relativity does not exclude FTL travel, and there are hints that it is possible.

So basically, I read a lot. Haunted libraries, and the various science paper archives. In some cases, actually e-mailed some of the writers of those papers. Nothing nobody else couldn't do. I got the same mark one mod one brain that you or anyone else has. I just may be more nuts on this particular subject :)

I still don't think you can find more than about 3 habital planets in any solar system. Even with terriforming. A planet needs to be in what is called the "habitablity zone" which is determined by the temperature of the star. Temperature is determined by mass of the star, and mass also determines age.

More massive stars are hotter, but live shorter lives. More massive stars have wider habitablity zones, further away from the planet, and therefore less chance of the orbit of one screwing up the orbit of another planet. But again, their life times are much shorter. And tend to end life rather dramatically. (Supernova)

Planets in orbit perturb other planets, also in orbit. And so there may be a very good reason for the separation of planets as observed in this solar system is so far apart. If they get too close, they tend to smack into each other, or kicked out of the solar system altogether.

So I still think that it is more metaphorical rather than literal. But in the end, does it really matter? Firefly is a great show, and does not bother me one way or the other. Just wish we had more episodes to watch.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 13, 2003 7:15 PM

Gosh, that is an impressive body of knowledge. You've really expanded your breadth of "space know-hows" into a pretty comprehensive base. That is quite amazing.

And yes, after all these discussions on theories and speculations, all we really want is more Firefly, flawed physics and all.

"...morbid and creepifying, I got no problem with" - Mal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 13, 2003 7:15 PM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 13, 2003 8:32 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.

We should probably start another thread, but here it goes anyway...

Some of what you're saying is right. Carbonate rocks are a large CO2 reservoir and this is for the long, long term. Your also right that biological activity is responsible for atmospheric O2. And I really like the stuff about habital zones, makes alot of sense.

However...

Carbon dioxide in rainwater does not form limestone on contact with calcium. The formation of limestone requires biological activity in a very specific environment. You need the right temperature, depth, pH and organisims to produce limestone. Ironically, rain water and carbon dioxide combine to form carbonic acid, which will destroy limestone quite readily. The result of this reaction produces bicarbonate which remains soluble in ocean water for decades.

I don't believe that much limestone get subducted into the mantle. Usually the subducting plate is oceanic crust. This due to it's greater density (relative to continental material). Limestone forms on the continental self in realtively shallow water. When plates collide the limestone is usually abducted onto the continental plate (not to say it is never subducted, it could happen). This is even more pronounced when two continental plates collide, this is why you find limestone outcrops on top of the alps and the Himalayas. If you want to liberate carbon from this limestone, all you have to do is erode it.

Interesting theory on ice ages, but common thought is they are related to changes in the degree of solar radiation, which seem to relate to changes in the earth's orbit, and tilt. These occur in cycles I believe they are called Milankovitch Cycles. I have to qualify this by saying a lot of scientists feel that there are other processes involved.

The reason I mentioned vulcanisim as not being valid in the first place was due to a repsonse about terra forming. Since terra forming is a short term process, you would probably try to creat an equlibrium system where your not relying on an unpredictable process to maintain your atmosphere. I suppose the process would vary greatly depending on the particular rock you were trying to create a habitat on.

This is fun, for me anyway. THanks for getting me to think about some of this stuff again, its been along time.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 13, 2003 9:39 PM

Quote:
We should probably start another thread, but here it goes anyway...

Yah, I'd been thinking the same thing...but here goes!

You seem more hip to the specific chemistry involved in the carbonate question. My data comes from discussions on terraforming Mars (cf: www.marssociety.org and, more comprehensively, Robert Zubrin's The Case For Mars), where it was posited that, since Mars is too small to sustain tectonic activity, the CO2 gets adsorbed into the surface and pretty much stays there. Apart from the near vacuum atmo and a few megatonnes of dry ice at the poles, that's where it stays, which prevents this potential greenhouse gas from significantly warming the surface.

Quote:
Since terra forming is a short term process, you would probably try to creat an equlibrium system where your not relying on an unpredictable process to maintain your atmosphere. I suppose the process would vary greatly depending on the particular rock you were trying to create a habitat on.

I think what you're looking for in terraforming would be not so much equilibrium (which = death) but homeostasis (or the more fancy word, "autopoiesis"). The difference is that the presence of life creates the conditions for the continuation of life (Gaia). Yadda-yadda. You know this. Trouble is, I don't see terraforming as a "short-term" process at all. I imagine it would be a wildly expensive enterprise. And even if colonization is handled by private industry (and often consists of minimal stocking...hence the surprisingly plausible Wild West motifs), you wouldn't want to sink so much good Alliance capital into a project which wouldn't last through geological time-scales (think of the law suits!

). Thing is, on a planet with an active crust/mantle system, vulcanism is not unpredictable at all. Indeed, along with a biosphere, it is part of a self-sustaining system, which would resist perturbation a lot better than any on-going technological management (like big atmo factories).

Just want to say that it's good to run into folks who have such complementary bodies of knowledge to mine (and each other's). Very shiny!

And in keeping with some other responses (and...um...the title of this thread!), yes it is the beauty of this show that it is about people, confronting the contents of their characters under extreme conditions. As much as it is about community, it has also sparked the formation of a very active and civil and varied community.

And, as the icing on the cake for SF and space geeks like yours truly, it takes its science seriously, but doesn't pound one over the head with it (as opposed to Trek [which I also love {for the most part}, but in a very different way], which seems often to do the opposite). This enables us to have conversatiions like this, without resorting to the usual "hey, it works in the script" cop-out quite as much!

Now if we can only get some eccentric billionaire to construct the defunct sets on an estste somewhere (I'd be thinking Michael Jackson...but Joss has been careful not to include aliens in the 'verse!)

FOX

Department of Redundancy Department

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 15, 2003 6:30 PM