Technology in the 'verse by zeke023

Can't speak to the other questions, but dear GOD I hope they clear up the geography (astrography?) of the show.

This whole 'One System, Hundreds of Worlds' thing just drives me nuts.

The show otherwise takes some effort to be technically correct.

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

Friday, May 30, 2003 4:33 AM

SARAHETC

I don't have links or anything, but the official press packet materials located the 'verse as the Ghost of Jupiter nebula. Type that into Google and you get real astronomy.

http://rao.150m.com/NGC3242.html
http://www.phy.mtu.edu/apod/ap970331.html
http://www.blackskies.com/pnweek4.htm

It appears that the star in the center of the nebula is a white dwarf (or remnant thereof) but it appears blue. There's your blue sun.

As for "hundreds" of planets, I think the opening has a touch of the hyperbole. In a deleted scene of OMR, Mal says "There's more'n seventy little earths spinnin' and the meek have inherited not a one." Or something like that. "More than seventy" would seem to me to be less than 100.

Plus there's the whole terraforming aspect. If it wasn't inhabitable to begin with, the Alliance will make it so, come hell or high water or bowden's malady.

Sarah

I'm a dying breed who still believes, haunted by American dreams. ---Neko Case

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

Friday, May 30, 2003 4:55 AM

HAKEN

Likes to mess with stuffs.

Keep in mind too that "worlds" do not necessarily mean planets. We've seen in Firefly that many of these worlds could be teraformed moons or other celestial objects. At least that's my understanding.

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

Friday, May 30, 2003 5:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Haken:
Keep in mind too that "worlds" do not necessarily mean planets. We've seen in Firefly that many of these worlds could be teraformed moons or other celestial objects. At least that's my understanding.

Still though - if we go with the aforementioned '70 earths'... there's aren't seventy planets and satelites in our solar system! If we are to use ours as a model - one would think that you could populate a bunch of planets and moons in a thin margin - but anything else would be way too hot or way too cold to support life. This simply cannot take place in one solar system. *shrug* can it?

And, btw, I could have sworn that the beacon idea came from "Out of Gas". I thought they were flying so far out of the way, the were far away from any beacons, hence their delima of communication. Can anybody verify this?

-Zeke

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

Friday, May 30, 2003 5:46 AM

wasn't there a post on a different thread where someone mentioned they heard reference to traveling to other systems?

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

Friday, May 30, 2003 7:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Thegn:
I think so, but this doesn't necessarily mean they were traveling to another star system.

I'm not sure what else they would be refering to. Solar Systems are the only thing that comes to mind when I think systems - at least in terms of Sci-fi.

-Zeke

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

Friday, May 30, 2003 8:02 AM

SWITCHY

Quote:
In a deleted scene of OMR, Mal says "There's more'n seventy little earths spinnin' and the meek have inherited not a one.

I'll ask you nicely. how do you have access to deleted scenes from OMR. HOW!!!!!! sorry
someone was asking about all the locations being one city/village per planet. While it does give a limited view of the globe I don't think it's neccesarily due to lack of scope. It's reasonable to think that colonies on previously uninhabited planets may or may not give birth to more cities depending on the flow of immigration. some planets may only be useful for resources (e.g. Canton)but otherwise aren't much of a destination for settlers.

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

Friday, May 30, 2003 8:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by zeke023:
Quote:
Originally posted by Thegn:
I think so, but this doesn't necessarily mean they were traveling to another star system.

I'm not sure what else they would be refering to. Solar Systems are the only thing that comes to mind when I think systems - at least in terms of Sci-fi.

-Zeke

Planetary systems, the earth and moon are a planetary system. Most of the time you wouldn't use that terminology, but if you had places where there were multiple planets with as many moons as Jupiter you might.

The gravity is my only complaint, I don't see any teraforming operation that could change the gravity of a planet.

Temperature might be affected by adding things to the upper atmosphere (upper so you don't kill the people down on the ground.) Global warming might not be a very big deal here (i.e. it wont get so hot that we all die) but if we were working to increase it, and had technology like is shown on firefly it might be possible to trap enough heat to create a livable planet distant from it's sun.

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

Friday, May 30, 2003 8:45 AM

CAPTBAGGYTROUSERS

Quote:

christhecynic wrote:
Friday, May 30, 2003 08:37

The gravity is my only complaint, I don't see any teraforming operation that could change the gravity of a planet.

Okay, but bear in mind that in "Out of Gas" when serenity has lost all power and life support, Mal is still miraculously walking around (or limping, as the case may be). I think they have got some kind of artificial gravity business we simply haven't got in the here and now. I realize this is a bit of a stretch, but it's one of those times I say to myself "Space... Western... Space.. Western" and I should really just relax.

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

Friday, May 30, 2003 9:09 AM

SARAHETC

Quote:
Originally posted by switchy:
I'll ask you nicely. how do you have access to deleted scenes from OMR. HOW!!!!!! sorry

It used to be on www.buffyscripts.net but I see that they're no longer there. A google search will take you to a link to that page but there's a 404 error.

Sorry. But don't worry. You'll get to see it soon.

Sarah

I'm a dying breed who still believes, haunted by American dreams. ---Neko Case

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

Friday, May 30, 2003 10:40 AM

Multiple star systems would just be so much simpler than trying to contrive an explanation for over seventy habitable bodies in a single system. Seventy-plus inhabitable planets, with all the ones we've seen possessing Earth-type gravity (okay, we understand that as lavish as they went on the sets, constructing a few on the moon and Mars was out of the question, unfortunately.) and other blatantly terrestrial features.

I guess it's partly my own prejuidice at work here. It just seems so unlikely that the human race would leap out and settle just one bloody system, if given the chance.

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

Friday, May 30, 2003 10:57 AM

KNIGHTNAVRO

Quote:
Originally posted by Thegn:
Other then adding mass on colossal scale, there is no way of terraforming a planet to have a higher gravity.

While I generally agree, they clearly had artificial gravity on Serenity. It might be possible, if impractical, to arificially generate artificial gravity for an entire city or planet.

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

Friday, May 30, 2003 11:18 AM

Still, over seventy inhabited orbs in a single system? Other than proposals for terraforming Mars (there's a school of thought that that is untenable with the difficulty of getting Mars to retain an Earth-type atmosphere.) you end up in every case in our system being one of enclosed domes and/or subterranean construction rather than strolling around on the surface herding cattle.

One concept I hope FF picks up in the future is the concept of Belters, the folks who live off in asteroid colonies.

However, the single-system construct does mean that there are likely other systems totally independent of what we know of as the Firefly 'verse.

Smile when you say Star Trek Syndrome. NCC 1701 no bloody A, B, C, D, or E. ;)

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

Friday, May 30, 2003 11:32 AM

Actually it is possible to increase (surface) gravity by a decrease size, which is just about as practical as adding mass. It would seem that they have something that can, without power, create a gravity on Serenity, so if they have that maybe they just stick it into a world at equally spaced intervals. Have a drone with a drill and some of this special stuff.

As for multiple systems, it just wouldn’t work. If we assume that there are multiple planets in single orbits, thus minimizing the distance between them we are still left with a fairly long trip to get from one to the next.

One would assume that if we were to up and leave we would pick the place with the most resources, so we would look for a system that would have a very large number of orbiting teraformable celestial bodies. This could happen if there were drastically different starting conditions than our own solar system.

Travel faster than the speed of light is actually possible, but there isn’t enough energy in the world to move a person that way.

(Sorry guys, but it just doesn’t work. Subspace, hyperspace, or whatever you want to call it this time can be created, but it would be enough to power the entire world, almost indefinitely, to move a macroscopic particle for well under a second, well under being many orders of magnitude smaller than.)

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

Friday, May 30, 2003 11:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Thegn:
I partially agree, I think both Mars and Venus are terraformable, but unlike scifi, it will require hundreds of years and the affect will not necessarily generate fields of dewy meadows.

Out of curiosity, got any online references to the viability of terraforming Venus? I've heard mention of the possibility, but never seen any practical suggestions as to how it could be done.

Thanks.

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

Friday, May 30, 2003 12:26 PM

Yeah, self-replicating machinery isn't that farfetched.

Can we build it to survive the conditions on the surface, though?

Got me all sorts of curious, now.

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

Friday, May 30, 2003 12:39 PM

TALRIUS

Quote:
Originally posted by switchy:
I'll ask you nicely. how do you have access to deleted scenes from OMR. HOW!!!!!!

Switchy,

I have the OMR script from Buffyscripts saved on my computer, if you want it. Just e-mail me and put Our Mrs. reynolds in the title or OMR. I also have the other three scripts from that site. Bushwhacked, The Unaired Serenity (With a Dobson scene that wasn't in either of the two versions of the pilot.), and Out of Gas. If you want those too just ask and remember to put the script title in title box otherwise you go out with the spam.

Catch me at: Talrius2@aol.com

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

Friday, May 30, 2003 12:43 PM

You've also got the factor of high pressure to account for.

Weather gets nasty around those parts, too.

Ah well, as you said it's a ways off in the future, and I probably won't see it. Gorramit.

Thanks for the discussion, though.

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

Friday, May 30, 2003 3:32 PM

DEFENDER82

Plus the later trailer voiceovers in Mal's voice speaks of a "Whole new galaxay of earths."

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

Friday, May 30, 2003 4:30 PM

WULFHAWK

Durn tootin' thar ain't no way fer a man to go off ta some fur off planet! It'll never happen, mark my words! There is no possible way to travel from one place to another on

WINGS!

don't wanna pee on your parade of pessimism, fellas, but it's gonna happen, probably sooner than we can imagine.

as for Neuman machines (quite an old concept) that use recursion/selfreplication to overcome a problem by sheer numbers, think of deep ocean volcanic vents. Massive pressure, intense heat, no radiated energy except for the heat of the vent. Critters live there quite happily, and might just be able to stand a little transgenetic tinkering to tailor them to Venus. Anyway, after we slam a few icey asteroids into the old girl, all bets are off. And Mars just needs a few tattoos...on the poles, mostly, but a few million acres blackened on the equator will help stir up some weather.

If all it takes is energy to pop open a wormhole, well, that'll probably happen in your lifetime. Our remote little neighborhood has energy density enough to send a considerable mass that way, which, coupled with future mass transmission, might get around a little faster than those pokey photons.

To increase gravity, you increase density. take a tectonicly stable world, say, a moon; add a generous amount of iron alloyed with other elements higher on the periodic table (iridium?); be sure to use considerable force when combining ingredients, since you want the iron to end up at the core. Follow with a bombardment of ice; Oort cloud ice is nice, but gas giant rings will do in a pinch. This will help develop a nice, smooth crust, hiding the marks you made when inserting the iron. Now add a few thousand quantum black holes, but not too many; I suggest adding one hundred at a time until your gravity is as you like it. They will settle in the dense mass in the core and feed there for a few million years.

In conclusion...o hell, it ain't over yet. Just remember, never say never.

tanstaafl

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

Friday, May 30, 2003 6:20 PM

BLUEHOOT

Someone mentioned their discontent about the lack of mention of more than one city/town/settlement on each planet/moon/celestial body.

Well Ive been comparing (and further compiling) all the places mentioned in Firefly using all the transcripts I can find and all the sites with the places already listed (including this one, and I give much thanks to the person who did all that!) and watching as many eps as I have and using any other resources out there....so:

Specific mentions on Persephone include Eavesdown Docks, Cadric Pond, Southdown and Bathgate Abbeys. then there is Hancock and Paradisio in the Georgia System (whatever 'system' refers to I'm still not sure of) and then there is Serenity Valley and New Kasmir on Hera.

I think the lack of mentioning multiple places on worlds comes from the fact that there is no need to. There is already a massive amount of places mentioned and just name dropping of more for the sake of name dropping would just make things more cluttered.

On a side note, if the person who compiled the list of places on this site would be so kind to drop me an email, I would like to discuss some things.

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

Friday, May 30, 2003 6:43 PM

SUCCATASH

ZEKE023 wrote:
geography: Has anyone come up with an actual citation from the show for this taking place in one solar system or many?

This sort of topic is certainly not my area of expertise, kind of like Maniac's Blue Print thread. My brain doesn't jump for joy when I think of this kind of thing. So if I come across as stupid, that's why.

But here's what I think. "Earth was used up." 100's of new worlds. It seems clear that Firefly involves multiple solar systems.

I'm kind of wondering why the question even needs to be asked. Am I just dumb and don't get all you people's space talk?

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

Sunday, June 1, 2003 8:34 AM

KENWOOD

Quote:
Originally posted by Thegn:

Current science suggests a future that is somewhat less enthusiastic, however. Current theories of physics suggest that the speed of light is a boundary condition to the universe and that it cannot be broken. Contrary to science fiction pseudo science there is no realistically sound theories of physics that suggest that we will ever move across the universe at faster then light speeds. Any suggestion that it will happen is simply wishful thinking at best.

Given this, we can begin to construct what a 'Firefly-like' space-fairing society might look like. With stars averaging 5-20 light years apart, and mankind limited to a maximum speed of 0.999c, there are two interesting points that come to mind.

First is that man WILL be limited to a small number of solar systems and in fact, the vast majority of all mankind will be isolated to only one solar system, which will invariably lead to a distant future of very differently evolving human societies and possibly different species of man.

Second, any travel between solar systems will require huge vessels and colossally powerful propulsion system, and a crew that is capable and willing to endure the affects of time dilation, which at speeds of 0.999c and distances of 50 light years or more will be very extreme.

Although typically science fiction has avoided certain concepts. In general, you can almost always rely on two axioms of pseudo-science, non-centripetal artificial gravity and faster-then-light travel. So it just amounts to which assumptions you want to make in defining the theme of a show. In the end, we really don't know what the future holds.

Wrong. If our current understanding of the laws of the universe are correct ( any at least some of it is almost certainly wrong ) "FTL" travel
must be possible. The only problem is the energy required and there are theoretical ways around that. Additionaly if we assume that the Ghost of Jupiter nebula is the setting of Firefly some FLT travel is also required. Although this could be a one shot useing the power of the sun.

The artifical gravity is the real problem. There are some possibilities but nothing set in physics right now that would allow for it very well. The best answer for both of these ( excluding just saying it's FM ) would be exotic matter. Solves the energy problems for both ( assuming that gravity is a function of a single closed loop dimension which has it's own problems ).

Later,

ME.

Don't look back, som'thin' might be gainin' on ya.
Who let the pigs play poker?
Evo Shander was right!

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

Sunday, June 1, 2003 12:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by KenWood:
Wrong. If our current understanding of the laws of the universe are correct ( any at least some of it is almost certainly wrong ) "FTL" travel
must be possible. The only problem is the energy required and there are theoretical ways around that. Additionaly if we assume that the Ghost of Jupiter nebula is the setting of Firefly some FLT travel is also required. Although this could be a one shot useing the power of the sun.

The artifical gravity is the real problem. There are some possibilities but nothing set in physics right now that would allow for it very well. The best answer for both of these ( excluding just saying it's FM ) would be exotic matter. Solves the energy problems for both ( assuming that gravity is a function of a single closed loop dimension which has it's own problems ).

Later,

ME.

Don't look back, som'thin' might be gainin' on ya.
Who let the pigs play poker?
Evo Shander was right!

We have seen anything in Firefly to suggest FTL, if River could be frozen, so could everyone who got off earth, it could well be 500 years in the conscious future, and the time in transit wasn’t counted because everyone was asleep. Would be interesting when people woke up and found that their loved ones had died hundreds of years ago because the next ship over hit a meteor.

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

Sunday, June 1, 2003 12:14 PM

KAYTHRYN

Quote:
Posted by Christhecynic:
Would be interesting when people woke up and found that their loved ones had died hundreds of years ago because the next ship over hit a meteor.

I'm thinking you and I differ in our interpretations of the word "interesting"

-------------------------------------
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Aristotle

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

Sunday, June 1, 2003 1:13 PM

Subspace, or hyperspace, depending on which sci fi show you watch, has been created. As I said before the power needed to transport anything big enough to see makes the creation useless. However the whole reason for making it is to make a region of space with laws of physics in which non-energy particles can be accelerated to, or passed the speed of light.

Further the ability to send information faster then light has been shown, and verified, though not accepted by the community at large. (The information sent was Mozart, though I have forgotten which bit of music.) Because the conversion of mass to energy, and energy to mass is accepted as possible (energy to mass is to my knowledge not verified) it would in theory be possible to convert something to energy, send it faster than the speed of light, and convert it back. I would not use this technology (were it to be created), because if whatever was used to convert back didn’t work I’d have died.

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

Sunday, June 1, 2003 1:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kaythryn:

I'm thinking you and I differ in our interpretations of the word "interesting"

-------------------------------------
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Aristotle

Sorry, didn't see you responded. Interesting has no negative or positive connotations that I know of, so a horrible thing can be interesting just like a good thing or an indifferent one.

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

Sunday, June 1, 2003 2:41 PM

Verified does not mean accepted, it merely means that it has been repeated. This was fairly recent, within the past two years. The scientific community doesn’t dispute that light (what the information had been encoded in) can be sent faster than c (the speed of normal light through a vacuum.) What is disputed is the fact that information encoded in said light will remain.

How does this effect objects with mass? Well it doesn’t. What it does effect is our understanding of acceleration of things at the speed of light. Why that matters is a little more odd. It is possible to change energy into matter, and we have been able to turn matter into energy. If it we could find a way to turn something into energy and then have it decay back into matter then it could be accelerated beyond the speed of light and turned back into matter after, thus creating FTL travel. The big if is whether energy can be converted back to matter, and if it can if it could be done without any technology on the other side.

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

Sunday, June 1, 2003 6:19 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.

Quote:
Oh yeah? Well I'd like you to show me the equations that defined the particular law of physics which you claim indicates that faster-then-light travel "must be possible." I don't remember any mention of these laws when I was taking Relativistic Mechanics or Quantum Field Theory in Grad school.

Faster then light travel is only possible if your mass is effectively zero. Otherwise you are bound by Relativity, which clearly states that you cannot travel faster then light, or even at the speed of light.

Man, I'm glad you're out there.

The infinite improbability drive was created by a graduate student who, while sweeping up in the lab one day realized that there must be a finite probablity that there was an infinite improbability drive. He plugged this into a finite probability drive and out popped an infinite improbability drive. Originally it was used to move the undergarments of party hostesses three feet to the left. ...he was eventually hung by a crowd of physicists who decided what they reallyd didn't like was a wise ass, and generally didn't get invited to parties. - Douglas Adams

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

Monday, June 2, 2003 8:34 AM

KENWOOD

Quote:
Originally posted by Thegn:
Quote:
Originally posted by KenWood:
Wrong. If our current understanding of the laws of the universe are correct ( any at least some of it is almost certainly wrong ) "FTL" travel must be possible. The only problem is the energy required and there are theoretical ways around that.
Oh yeah? Well I'd like you to show me the equations that defined the particular law of physics which you claim indicates that faster-then-light travel "must be possible." I don't remember any mention of these laws when I was taking Relativistic Mechanics or Quantum Field Theory in Grad school.

Faster then light travel is only possible if your mass is effectively zero. Otherwise you are bound by Relativity, which clearly states that you cannot travel faster then light, or even at the speed of light. As a massive object travels faster, its mass actually increases. For relatively slow speeds, like those we encounter in our lives, the increase in mass is negligible, but at speeds close to the speed of light, mass begins to increase very quickly with an increase in velocity. With the increase in mass comes an increase in the amount of energy to further accelerate an object. At the speed of light, your mass is essentially infinite, according to Relativity, and you would need an infinite amount of energy to accelerate to the speed of light.

And THAT is what the current laws of physic state.

That would be string theory and hyperdimensional physics. As long as you have access to the Plank energy you can create artifical wormholes to effectivly allow FTL travel ( and time travel also ). Technicaly you are correct this is not traveling faster than light. It is instead avoiding the intervening space altogether, but the effect is for real world concerns "FTL". Of course you do need something like the energy output of the sun to pull this off. Sorta presents some engineering problems there, but again there are some theoretical possibilities. This all assumes superstring theory is correct ( a big assumption ), but it is the leading "theory of everything" right now. Actualy membrane theory but its just a refinment with one more dimension.

A mass of zero only allows travel at the speed of light ( photons ). Only something with zero mass can travel at the speed of light and can only travel at that speed. You need negative mass ( the unlikly tackyons ) to travel faster in "normal" space. Actualy I have reversed cause and effect there but it gets the idea across.

Quantum entanglement does not allow information to be sent FTL. Every thoery and experiment to try to get this to work has died on the vine. It seems the universe just doesn't want it to be.

The trick of getting light to go faster than it should is just that. A trick. It's literaly done with smoke and mirrors. Part of it has to do with the fact that light only travels at the "speed of light" in a vacume and part of it comes from tricks with how you measure the light pulse. The peak of the pulse can be shifted and the rise time altered to create the illusion of faster speeds or even arriving before it leaves. Makes for good press but it has no practical effect so far and probably never will. As far as I know nobody on this world has sent data, messages, music, etc. FTL.

This isn't a physics paper here, spelling may be off and liberties have been taken with definitions and some concepts for brevity. It's close enough for government work.

Later,

ME.

Don't look back, som'thin' might be gainin' on ya.
Who let the pigs play poker?
Evo Shander was right!

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

Monday, June 2, 2003 8:46 AM

KENWOOD

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:

We have seen anything in Firefly to suggest FTL, if River could be frozen, so could everyone who got off earth, it could well be 500 years in the conscious future, and the time in transit wasn’t counted because everyone was asleep. Would be interesting when people woke up and found that their loved ones had died hundreds of years ago because the next ship over hit a meteor.

Yeah, I thought about this one. They have some sort of cryo/suspended animation so it could have been done that way. If so it would make sense to not count the "lost" years. Just for the psych effect if for no other reason.

Here's another thought I had: Maybe the comonly accepted history in the FF 'verse is a lie. That would account for the awful short time for terraforming and haveing all these populated core worlds. We debate today over the "facts" of history from 50 years ago. With a centralized computer database the "history" of 500 years ago would be very maliable. Just because the main characters in FF believe history went a certain way doesn't make it so.

Later,

ME.

Don't look back, som'thin' might be gainin' on ya.
Who let the pigs play poker?
Evo Shander was right!

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

Monday, June 2, 2003 9:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Thegn:
Verified does not mean repeated. Verified means that it has been shown to be true.

I understand that you may have trouble believing this, but nothing (when referring to laws of physics) has ever been proven to be true. Not one thing. Zip.

That’s because things can’t be proven to be true, if were able to somehow find out the speed of everything in the universe, and find out all of the speeds that had been and would be, there would still be no way to prove that the speed of light couldn’t be passed. You could say that it never had been or would be, but you couldn’t prove that it was impossible. Something is a law of physics if it is never proven wrong, NOT if it is proven true, because it can’t be proven true.

ver·i·fy
tr.v. ver·i·fied, ver·i·fy·ing, ver·i·fies
1. To prove the truth of by presentation of evidence or testimony; substantiate.
2. To determine or test the accuracy of, as by comparison, investigation, or reference:
3. To confirm
4. To affirm

sub·stan·ti·ate
tr.v. sub·stan·ti·at·ed, sub·stan·ti·at·ing, sub·stan·ti·ates
1. To support with proof or evidence; verify

con·firm
tr.v. con·firmed, con·firm·ing, con·firms
1. To support or establish the certainty or validity of; verify.
2. To make firmer; strengthen

af·firm
v. af·firmed, af·firm·ing, af·firms
v. tr.
1. To declare positively or firmly; maintain to be true.
2. To support or uphold the validity of; confirm.

Note that the main idea is to support with evidence. If you want to show something to be true, how about show that the world is flat. That can be shown to be true, it isn’t true, but it can be shown to be true. If you want to talk about something being verified in a scientific sense it means that experimental results were repeated that showed that in this instance the theory or hypothesis is an accurate predictor of whatever is being tested.

Quote:
Originally posted by Thegn:
Ha! The Spaceship Heart of Gold, powered by a cup of tea. :D I love Douglas Adams.

-----------
In the Dark Ages, Romano-Celtic Britannia was over-run by Viking-like cultures collectively called the Anglo-Saxons. They were led by warlords called Drytinns, and the greatest warriors among them were the Thegns.

It was a powered by the Infinite Improbability Drive, the Gold Bail, part of the Wicket Gate. The power of it had nothing to do with a cup of tea. Read the damn books.

The cup of tea was used in the creation of the Infinite Improbability Drive, not the powering of the ship. There are people who haven’t even read the books who know that.

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

Monday, June 2, 2003 9:30 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
I'm kind of wondering why the question even needs to be asked. Am I just dumb and don't get all you people's space talk?

What a spoiled sport. Don't you realize the 'gravity' of this argument? Establishing the internal consistency of the Firefly universe is of utmost importance. Without that, all we're left with is a bunch of stories about a group of people riding around in a boat. Get with the program!

SergeantX

"..and here's to all the dreamers, may our open hearts find rest." -- Nanci Griffith

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

Monday, June 2, 2003 9:49 AM

Keep in mind that there ins't going to be a scientific explanation for all of this. It's science-fiction If we invent a lot of technobable to explain evything we'll end up with heisenberg regulators and inertial dampeners. Let's not go there.

The question was meant to be practicle - not technical. I don't think Joss really expected there to be a technical or scientific answer to all of these questions.

I dig the whole tech debate - but really all I wanted was enough to run a game on - not enough to write a Physics book.

Anyone got any insight on how communication works yet?

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

Monday, June 2, 2003 10:43 AM