The "Everyone is Right Theory" on Firefly Planets by JavidRho

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

The "Everyone is Right Theory" on Firefly Planets

POSTED BY: JAVIDRHO
UPDATED: Friday, March 5, 2004 05:35
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6977
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, March 1, 2004 4:10 AM

Hi all,

I've been following all of the treads on the subject of "single vs. multiple solar system" over the past year, and just last night, I think I came up with one answer that might make everyone happy (not possible, I know).

Forgive me if this has already been stated, but in all of my reading, I have not seen this take on the subject.

--- the "Everyone is Right" theory ---

What if there are multiple star systems, but Serenity only flies around one particular sun?
This would allow for 70 or more planets (settled by humans) and also allow for Serenity to not need FTL drive (she can only visit the planets in her solar system).

Think about it, the crew have only visited a handful of planets in the dozen or so episodes created, and, in fact, they have visited several planets or moons twice. This would imply that they might be restricted to a single solar system.

If I told you that there are 100,000 cities on the Earth, but I travel around by bicycle, you wouldn't try to figure out how I can visit all of them in my lifetime. Who said I was going to ? And following that logic, who says that Serenity is able to visit all 70 earth-type planets in the galaxy?

Now, this could leave the door open for the big city-sized Alliance ships to have FTL drive if you want, but Serenity wouldn't need them. She's a small cargo ship and being "stuck" in one solar system seems fitting...

I'm now off for a week-long research cruise in the Chesapeake Bay (in my own kind of firefly class vessel), so I won't be able to respond to this thread till I return on the 8th. So, someone jump in and tell us all what does or doesn't work with this theory...

If this ideas has already been stated, then just let it die a slow death at the bottom on the thread stack - I won't mind

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

Monday, March 1, 2004 4:23 AM

HANS

Quote:
Originally posted by JavidRho:
Hi all,

I've been following all of the treads on the subject of "single vs. multiple solar system" over the past year, and just last night, I think I came up with one answer that might make everyone happy (not possible, I know).

Forgive me if this has already been stated, but in all of my reading, I have not seen this take on the subject.

--- the "Everyone is Right" theory ---

What if there are multiple star systems, but Serenity only flies around one particular sun?
This would allow for 70 or more planets (settled by humans) and also allow for Serenity to not need FTL drive (she can only visit the planets in her solar system).
(stuff cut)

While I still like the "one system" theory best, this is a very interesting and creative compromise.

One of the reasons I disliked the multiple systems theory is that so many sci-fi shows ignored the significant and major problems associated with FTL travel. They just assumed that warp speed (or whatever) was commonplace in their universe. To have a show like Firefly, where they seemed to be confined to a single system was a breath of fresh air. In your theory, FTL could exist, or maybe they just have "near-FTL" travel that takes several years to reach the other systems, which is the reason Serenity stays in that one system.

I have no solid evidence to contradict your theory. I would say that one of the reasons I support "one system" is the language used on the show - rim/border worlds, core/central worlds, moons vs terraformed planets, etc. The way they used that language always made me think of one system (but of course, that's open to interpretation).

Enjoy your cruise!

Hans

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

Monday, March 1, 2004 10:31 AM

GATORMARC

Has anyone made a list of all of the planets and moons that they've visited and how many times?

Perhaps they are limited to one system, a system that is several light years from the core of the alliance.

Perhaps later, Joss will tackle the issues with travelling from system to system in this case? Does only the Alliance have the resources necessary to travel between systems?

GatorMarc

Eat 'em up, chomp, chomp.

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

Monday, March 1, 2004 11:00 AM

LINDLEY

^FireFlyFans has a planet guide.

There's too much use of the word "Galaxy" for it to be a single system, I think. Despite how interesting that would be.

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

Monday, March 1, 2004 6:10 PM

RANGER

I like this idea. It would answer a lot of questions without going into too much techno-babble. One question that still needs to be answered is how Ariel is a "Core" planet, but that is easy enough. If the Alliance controls interstellar travel, then any planet that you can leave the system from is part of the "Core".

Traveller, if you go to Sparta, tell them you have seen us lying here as the Law commands.

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

Tuesday, March 2, 2004 3:02 AM

DRAKON

Quote:
Originally posted by Hans:
One of the reasons I disliked the multiple systems theory is that so many sci-fi shows ignored the significant and major problems associated with FTL travel. They just assumed that warp speed (or whatever) was commonplace in their universe.

Sigh, and around and around we go.
First off, new research shows that FTL may not be as problematic as you think it might be. It is even allowed for under General Relativity. The "significant and major problems" are not that signficant, at least in the theoretical sense, and boil down to a question of technology and understanding how to achieve the effect.

Second, 70 worlds in a single system would require a lot more technical expertise, and potentially the exact same technologies that would allow warp drive to exist. We already see evidence of gravity manipulation, in the pilot no less. If you have the ability to manipulate gravity, that will give you warp drive. That makes achieving FTL rather trival in comparison.

Just as transporters give you replicators in Star Trek, it is hard to imagine having the ability to turn gravity on and off aboard ship and NOT having the ability to use that in a warp drive system. Especially since the theoretical groundwork has already been laid.

I think the problem is that things have changed since most of us were in school, and this new research only dates back to 1994 at the earliest. But we are stuck with two big problems. A solar system (or system of closely bound solar systems) that has 70 life supporting planets in it. Or FTL. In light of the most recent research on the subject, the first proposition is far more unreasonable than FTL travel is.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Tuesday, March 2, 2004 3:33 AM

HANS

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:

Sigh, and around and around we go.
First off, new research shows that FTL may not be as problematic as you think it might be. It is even allowed for under General Relativity. The "significant and major problems" are not that signficant, at least in the theoretical sense, and boil down to a question of technology and understanding how to achieve the effect.

As much as anything, it is because of aesthetic reasons that I am annoyed by the persistance of everyday FTL in TV and movies. It falls into an old cliched mindset that if it's sci-fi, you have to be zipping around from star to star. To me it represents lazy thinking on the part of writers, the kind where when you hear the words "sci-fi" they immediately think robots, ray guns, aliens, time-travel, etc. Whether FTL is possible or not, JUST ONCE I'd like to see a representation of the future where FTL is not as commmonplace as walking to the corner store. It presents unique problems which require unique solutions - and for me, when I see Firefly, it seems quite clear to me that the writers were thinking the same way. Certainly they have been willing to break many other cliches seen on sci-fi shows. Other people see different things.

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:

Second, 70 worlds in a single system would require a lot more technical expertise, and potentially the exact same technologies that would allow warp drive to exist. We already see evidence of gravity manipulation, in the pilot no less. If you have the ability to manipulate gravity, that will give you warp drive. That makes achieving FTL rather trival in comparison.

That's a rather blanket statement, not really backed up by real science. I could just as easily say "If you have the ability to manipulate gravity, you can terraform just about any world to be earth-like".

And, if you are correct that the level of superscience required to have multiple worlds in a single system is around the same as the level needed for FTL, then that certainly does not rule out the single system theory. In my mind it strengthens it, since there's so much other evidence in favour of one-system.

However, based on the limited evidence of the 14 episodes, I don't think either of us is going to change the other's mind... :)

Hans

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

Tuesday, March 2, 2004 3:40 AM

SINGULARITY

What everyone seems to forget is that we all love this show. We all miss this show. We want more. Of everything. Story, character backgrounds, technology, you name it we want it. We can yak until the cows come home in little bundles of cookable mush, but we can not answer them with out the help of Joss and all the people who made this work of fiction seem so real to all of us. I would love to ask Joss. I would love to know more. But I can simply watch each episode and enjoy them. I can look at each character and say I miss you. I would hope that when these notions of opinions get bumped around the net we can all take stock in the simple joy of what we have, not what we don't

As long as we remember, Serenity will always fly.

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

Tuesday, March 2, 2004 3:54 AM

DRAKON

Quote:
Originally posted by Hans:

As much as anything, it is because of aesthetic reasons that I am annoyed by the persistance of everyday FTL in TV and movies. It falls into an old cliched mindset that if it's sci-fi, you have to be zipping around from star to star. To me it represents lazy thinking on the part of writers, the kind where when you hear the words "sci-fi" they immediately think robots, ray guns, aliens, time-travel, etc. Whether FTL is possible or not, JUST ONCE I'd like to see a representation of the future where FTL is not as commmonplace as walking to the corner store. It presents unique problems which require unique solutions - and for me, when I see Firefly, it seems quite clear to me that the writers were thinking the same way. Certainly they have been willing to break many other cliches seen on sci-fi shows. Other people see different things.

Well I sort of see where you are coming from, but I disagree. Its like complaining that all cop shows have cars or guns or those clique badges they are always flashing.

Also there is an economic issue involved. Interstellar travel should be pretty lucrative, which in turn would reduce the costs for doing just that. The more lucrative something is, the bigger the market, generally speaking, you get economies of scale and competition which would make that product easier to use and more prevalent in the world.

I don't think it will easy to get started. To figure out all the bits required to get it to work. But once you know how to do it, build it, it gets a lot easier and a lot less expensive. The first gas engines were hand tooled things. Now we got big assembly lines producing them 24/7.

Quote:
Quote:
Second, 70 worlds in a single system would require a lot more technical expertise, and potentially the exact same technologies that would allow warp drive to exist. We already see evidence of gravity manipulation, in the pilot no less. If you have the ability to manipulate gravity, that will give you warp drive. That makes achieving FTL rather trival in comparison.

That's a rather blanket statement, not really backed up by real science. I could just as easily say "If you have the ability to manipulate gravity, you can terraform just about any world to be earth-like".

Actually the research is simply not presented here. I am trying to be brief, and have gone over it on this site a number of times. It does exist, and you don't have to believe me, you can research it yourself. Check out LANL archives, notably the paper by Alcubierre and the resulting debate on it. You might also look at the work by Matt Visser on wormholes. Essentially if you get gravity manipulation you get both. Its just a matter of twisting it in the right shape.

Quote:
And, if you are correct that the level of superscience required to have multiple worlds in a single system is around the same as the level needed for FTL, then that certainly does not rule out the single system theory. In my mind it strengthens it, since there's so much other evidence in favour of one-system.

This is another point we disagree. Making a ship go faster than light seems pretty reasonable. Both from a science perspective as well as economics. Taking an asteroid and giving it a 1G gravity? While it may be technically feasible, it looks to be far more expensive, possibly prohibitively so.

There is no evidence that it is a single system, with the exception of one comment by the Blue Hand Crew. And that could have been metaphor, or hyperbole or whatever the literary term for saying something not literally true, just figuratively true.

There is no evidence for FTL either. And this is where the entire thing breaks down to a religious argument. There is insufficient evidence to postulate either way. There is or is not FTL and there is or is not more than one star system. We really have no way of telling either way given the available data. So any position has to be taken on faith, rather than evidence.

One way or the other, one of us is gonna have their suspension of disbelief challenged to the breaking point. I have tried to lay out why I think it woudl have to be FTL, as being less stressful for that suspension.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Tuesday, March 2, 2004 4:07 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC

I still maintain the one system theory, there is no reason to assume they go faster than light, but certainly very fast sub light speeds would make travel times i9n a large system make sense, a large habitability zone, the ability to change gravity, and proper teraforming would seem to make the idea seemless.

Don’t forget we live in a small solar system (based on size of the star and thus space for orbits) and we have 70 worlds spinning.

I like the idea of everybody’s right, but I see no need for it. After we learn that they can change the gravity of a planet it all falls into place.

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

Tuesday, March 2, 2004 5:48 AM

IAMJACKSUSERNAME

Well, I'm all right. - Mal

What seems to me like the most obvious evidence that Serenity can go FTL is that the sun looks the same on all the planets and moons where her crew are shown, and it's unlikely that they've only visited worlds in one stable belt of worlds around the star.

Superset: just one credible mention of something FTLy would mean some ships can travel FTL.

--
I am Jack's username
FTL in Firefly? < http://jack.p5.org.uk/ftl-firefly.en.html>

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

Tuesday, March 2, 2004 7:37 AM

SHINY

I'm relatively sure that Joss & co. don't give a rat's pee-goo about this level of technical detail/debate and even if the show had gone on for several seasons, they would probably never have addressed it directly, so it would always remain a 'religious' issue among those who feel a need to rationalize or justify everything in the show to such a degree.

RIVER
Purple elephants are flying.
MAL
Good. Thanks for the update.

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

Tuesday, March 2, 2004 8:17 AM

HANS

Quote:
Originally posted by Shiny:
I'm relatively sure that Joss & co. don't give a rat's pee-goo about this level of technical detail/debate and even if the show had gone on for several seasons, they would probably never have addressed it directly, so it would always remain a 'religious' issue among those who feel a need to rationalize or justify everything in the show to such a degree.

Whatever. As I've said in many other posts, 99% of why I enjoy the show has absolutely nothing to do with scientific or technical issues, and I'm sure most people (on any side of this issue) feel exactly the same. Debating this kind of thing is as much an intellectual exercise as anything else. It's the story, the characters, the drama that are most important to me, and in no sense whatsoever is this a "religious issue I need to justify to such a degree". That's a ridiculous and totally unsupported statement.

You claim that the creators would never address this issue at any time, which I completely disagree with. This was a show that had enough respect for science fact to avoid having sound in space. Since 2001 (the movie, not the year) every single sci-fi movie and TV show has had sound in space, but it was important enough for the creators to include this aspect of realism (despite the fact they probably had to fight the network to keep this aspect of the show intact). I'm sure it wasn't the only scientific aspect of the show the creators considered, and this attention to detail is part of that other 1% of why I like the show. And I'll continue to debate the issue as long as I like, thank you very much.

Hans

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

Tuesday, March 2, 2004 9:27 AM

KASUO

What about interstellar gates, similar to the ones mentioned in Blade Runner (see "Tanhauser Gate") or the late 1990's Lost in Space movie (the gate they were building near Earth orbit)? Such a gate would enable non-FTL ships to travel to other systems that also had gates.

This could also help support the idea of the OP that Serenity and her crew are limited to one system with multiple moons. While use of such gates have not been mentioned on the show, it's not a stretch to consider that maybe ME didn't think it was necessary for the plot to mention the use of such gates. (yeah, it's a stretch but gorramit, it can happen!)
________
"Let's moon 'em!"

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

Tuesday, March 2, 2004 1:21 PM

GROUNDED

Quote:
Originally posted by Hans:

As much as anything, it is because of aesthetic reasons that I am annoyed by the persistance of everyday FTL in TV and movies. It falls into an old cliched mindset that if it's sci-fi, you have to be zipping around from star to star. To me it represents lazy thinking on the part of writers, the kind where when you hear the words "sci-fi" they immediately think robots, ray guns, aliens, time-travel, etc. Whether FTL is possible or not, JUST ONCE I'd like to see a representation of the future where FTL is not as commmonplace as walking to the corner store. It presents unique problems which require unique solutions - and for me, when I see Firefly, it seems quite clear to me that the writers were thinking the same way.

This is what appeals to me about it to. What would be really interesting would be a show in which only lightspeed has been achieved. Then you'd have the beautiful premise of zipping between planets in a subjective instant arriving back home some hundred years after you left

All this talk about FTL suddenly being not only possible but inevitable makes me somewhat uneasy. To have an FTL-enabled society colonising the galaxy within the next 500 years is more than a long stretch of the imagination. Of course you can always fudge that by stipulating that an astounding, and unusually premature, technical breakthrough was made in 2274 - but that's not scientific extrapolation, that's dramatic license. I think there is a nice equal balance of both in Firefly.

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

Tuesday, March 2, 2004 7:58 PM

SHINY

Quote:
Originally posted by Hans:
You claim that the creators would never address this issue at any time, which I completely disagree with. This was a show that had enough respect for science fact to avoid having sound in space. Since 2001 (the movie, not the year) every single sci-fi movie and TV show has had sound in space, but it was important enough for the creators to include this aspect of realism (despite the fact they probably had to fight the network to keep this aspect of the show intact). I'm sure it wasn't the only scientific aspect of the show the creators considered, and this attention to detail is part of that other 1% of why I like the show. And I'll continue to debate the issue as long as I like, thank you very much.

I just re-read my post and I'm sorry for coming off a bit snippy; I didn't mean that you guys shouldn't discuss this topic...I think I was just a bit out of sorts when I wrote that. I apologize. (although I still doubt that Joss & co. would have addressed it directly, because in Joss' words "I'm completely useless when it comes to science" and while there definitely was an attempt to make the show realistic, he never spent time detailing how the ship or engines work since those details were never central to the plot or 'human drama' he was shooting for...imho)

RIVER
Purple elephants are flying.
MAL
Good. Thanks for the update.

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

Wednesday, March 3, 2004 4:02 AM

DRAKON

Quote:
Originally posted by Hans:
Quote:
Originally posted by Shiny:
I'm relatively sure that Joss & co. don't give a rat's pee-goo about this level of technical detail/debate and even if the show had gone on for several seasons, they would probably never have addressed it directly, so it would always remain a 'religious' issue among those who feel a need to rationalize or justify everything in the show to such a degree.

Whatever. As I've said in many other posts, 99% of why I enjoy the show has absolutely nothing to do with scientific or technical issues, and I'm sure most people (on any side of this issue) feel exactly the same. Debating this kind of thing is as much an intellectual exercise as anything else. It's the story, the characters, the drama that are most important to me, and in no sense whatsoever is this a "religious issue I need to justify to such a degree". That's a ridiculous and totally unsupported statement.

I think you misunderstand me, which is pretty common I find. It appears the use of that term is non-standard and did not communicate what I wanted to.

The primary difference between science and religion (according to me) is that science uses observation and logic to arrive at models of how the world works and what it contains, etc. The scientific method.

The major advantage of this method is that it is independent of any specific observer. In principle, anyone can make a scientific observation, or experiment and come up with a viable theory. Its objective nature, its independence from specific or particular observers, renders the question answerable to just anyone.

Religion uses appeal to authority, or references subjective data. The problem with subjective data is not that it might be wrong, is that there is no objective way to tell if it is true or not. In these case, it does depend on a specific observer. Only you know whether you have had those little chats with the divine, or with your conscience, and what was said by both sides. No one else is privy to the contents of your mind.

In this case, Joss is the authority, and he has not said. Why? As you describe, because while the set may be 500 years in a future dominated by space travel, that ain't the point of the show, or why it is so good. But his silence is the problem, as his view is the only one that really matters.

So, because we are appealing to authority for the ultimate answer to this question, it is a religious discussion. It was not meant as a slam, insult or any such thing. I was thinking denotatively, and completely disregarding any connotations to the word.

Quote:
You claim that the creators would never address this issue at any time, which I completely disagree with. This was a show that had enough respect for science fact to avoid having sound in space. Since 2001 (the movie, not the year) every single sci-fi movie and TV show has had sound in space, but it was important enough for the creators to include this aspect of realism (despite the fact they probably had to fight the network to keep this aspect of the show intact). I'm sure it wasn't the only scientific aspect of the show the creators considered, and this attention to detail is part of that other 1% of why I like the show. And I'll continue to debate the issue as long as I like, thank you very much.

Hans

And I will be right there with you, as I find it an enjoyable mental exercize.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Wednesday, March 3, 2004 4:14 AM

DRAKON

Quote:
Originally posted by Grounded:
All this talk about FTL suddenly being not only possible but inevitable makes me somewhat uneasy. To have an FTL-enabled society colonising the galaxy within the next 500 years is more than a long stretch of the imagination. Of course you can always fudge that by stipulating that an astounding, and unusually premature, technical breakthrough was made in 2274 - but that's not scientific extrapolation, that's dramatic license. I think there is a nice equal balance of both in Firefly.

It is more scientific extrapolation these days than you might think. FTL looks more promising these days, we actually have a theory that allows for it, without actually creating any "rubber" science to get it to work.

I have heard of several groups who are working through the mathematics, and trying to figure out how to build it today. (Well in the next few years) One even has submitted papers to LANL, and has a yahoo group. It may not be like MIT or Cal Tech kind of folks, but then neither were Wilber and Orville.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Wednesday, March 3, 2004 4:43 AM

RANGRBOB

"As much as anything, it is because of aesthetic reasons that I am annoyed by the persistance of everyday FTL in TV and movies. It falls into an old cliched mindset that if it's sci-fi, you have to be zipping around from star to star. To me it represents lazy thinking on the part of writers, the kind where when you hear the words "sci-fi" they immediately think robots, ray guns, aliens, time-travel, etc. Whether FTL is possible or not, JUST ONCE I'd like to see a representation of the future where FTL is not as commmonplace as walking to the corner store." Hans

I would then recomend the "Mad Max" movies.

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

Thursday, March 4, 2004 6:58 PM

BBAY

I'm afraid that FTL is the only correct theory. Based not on current scientific possibility, but purely on the plot of the show.

You can't "keep pushing further out" when you're in a single solar system.

You can't plot a course "off the alliance radar" in a single solar system.

You can't be out of range of even present day lightspeed communication in a single solar system. (We can still talk to the pioneer spacecraft.)

A single solar system is just too small to have the "wild west" themes of FF. Imagine "40,000 firefly's still flying" in one solar system, that's way crowded. And that's just a single class of ship.

At the level of technology in FF, a single system would quickly be completely saturated by civilization.

Also, it's germane to point out that the big solar system theory usually postulates a mode of travel that is "conventional, but better". Proponents of this theory fail to take into account that even travel between planets, on the timescales that we see in the show, present technical difficulties well into the realm of the fantastical. The amount of propellent and energy that would be required to burn from one planet to another, even planets in similar orbits, in eight or ten hours is so outlandish that you really might as well allow FTL travel, from a standpoint of how it violates the laws of physics as we know them.

(Oops, sorry, I got into science when I meant to argue purely from plot.)

And the jump gate theory doesn't hold up either. Such gates would become alliance chokepoints that would make hiding fugitives, smuggling or eluding the authorities basically impossible.

In short, without FTL there is no frontier. And frontier is a critical theme in Firefly.

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

Thursday, March 4, 2004 11:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
The primary difference between science and religion (according to me) is that science uses observation and logic to arrive at models of how the world works and what it contains, etc. The scientific method....

In principle, anyone can make a scientific observation, or experiment and come up with a viable theory.

Well, strictly speaking, science makes use of hypothesis, and the proving (or otherwise) of theories, in order to advance. Generally, as you say, it's based on observation and logic, but has plenty of room for imagination and inspiration as well. Pedantic? Me?

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:

Religion uses appeal to authority, or references subjective data. The problem with subjective data is not that it might be wrong, is that there is no objective way to tell if it is true or not.

Bit of a generalisation about subjective data, but I guess you're talking about unverifiable data (e.g. 'one person sees a unicorn, it's an hallucination' type of thing). For me, this is the primary difference - the accessibility of the data; not having to "take somebody's word for it" (or take it on faith). After all, if we discover science behind magic, it ceases to be magical (e.g. If 100,000 people see a unicorn, it's a horse with a horn).

After all that, I think we're basically saying the same thing, just from a different angle.

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

Thursday, March 4, 2004 11:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by bbay:
I'm afraid that FTL is the only correct theory. Based not on current scientific possibility, but purely on the plot of the show.

You can't "keep pushing further out" when you're in a single solar system.

You can't plot a course "off the alliance radar" in a single solar system.

You can't be out of range of even present day lightspeed communication in a single solar system. (We can still talk to the pioneer spacecraft.)

A single solar system is just too small to have the "wild west" themes of FF. Imagine "40,000 firefly's still flying" in one solar system, that's way crowded. And that's just a single class of ship.

At the level of technology in FF, a single system would quickly be completely saturated by civilization.

I think 'the only correct theory' is perhaps a little too dismissive of other possibilities.

Why can't you keep pushing out, or stay away from Alliance radar in a single solar system?

I, too, imagined the single solar system theory to be too crowded at first, but now I'm not so convinced. In a larger system than ours (more of that later), maybe it's not so crazy. Imagine, say, 100,000 ships (only 2 classes, not necessarily popular) cluttering up the distance between Earth and the moon - nightmare! How about between the Earth/Mars orbits? Still very congested; Venus/Jupiter? Fairly busy still, but you start to get a picture. Venus to Pluto? Double the diameter of the system, and that's a lot of space to fill.

Quote:
Originally posted by bbay:

Also, it's germane to point out that the big solar system theory usually postulates a mode of travel that is "conventional, but better". Proponents of this theory fail to take into account that even travel between planets, on the timescales that we see in the show, present technical difficulties well into the realm of the fantastical. The amount of propellent and energy that would be required to burn from one planet to another, even planets in similar orbits, in eight or ten hours is so outlandish that you really might as well allow FTL travel, from a standpoint of how it violates the laws of physics as we know them.

And yet there is also talk of journeys taking weeks and months on the show. The colonisation of moons has already been discussed at length. Could not these by a mere ten hours apart?

Quote:
Originally posted by bbay:

And the jump gate theory doesn't hold up either. Such gates would become alliance chokepoints that would make hiding fugitives, smuggling or eluding the authorities basically impossible.

Indeed they would (this has the potential for dramatic plot development - talking purely aesthetically), but in a crowded system there would be so much traffic it would be impractical to police them quite that thoroughly, whereas in my less crowded system our Firefly crew may never need to use them.

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

Friday, March 5, 2004 12:09 AM

GROUNDED

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:

It is more scientific extrapolation these days than you might think. FTL looks more promising these days, we actually have a theory that allows for it, without actually creating any "rubber" science to get it to work.

I have heard of several groups who are working through the mathematics, and trying to figure out how to build it today. (Well in the next few years) One even has submitted papers to LANL, and has a yahoo group. It may not be like MIT or Cal Tech kind of folks, but then neither were Wilber and Orville.

Single photons have been teleported - but does anyone genuinely believe we'll be teleporting humans within 500 years? I'm not disputing the validity of any FTL research, but having theories and making advances are two entirely different things.

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

Friday, March 5, 2004 1:08 AM

BBAY

Quote:
Originally posted by AJ:

I think 'the only correct theory' is perhaps a little too dismissive of other possibilities.

I'm very sorry, I didn't mean it like that at all. I am, in fact, a fan of hard sci-fi that takes place in a single solar system. What I'm suggesting is that there are several plot elements in FF that pretty much require FTL as a premise, even though we may wish otherwise.

Quote:

Why can't you keep pushing out, or stay away from Alliance radar in a single solar system?

A) You can't keep pushing out. You run into the edge of the habitable zone. (OiS: "No matter how long the arm of the Alliance might get, we'll just get ourselves a little further.") And you can't run away from an Alliance cruiser at light speed or lower, they would just watch where you went. (Assuming they were serious about enforcing the law, which is a safe bet.) And then they'd radio their nearby friends to track you, and then they'd catch you.

B) It only takes 4 hours for light to travel from the orbit of pluto to the sun. OiS again, you simply cannot be so far off the beaten path that your signal won't reach somebody. Note that they didn't say that no one could reach them in time, they said that the signal wouldn't "go far enough", which speaks to some kind of FTL radio governed by different rules than the inverse square of the distance.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by bbay:

And the jump gate theory doesn't hold up either. Such gates would become alliance chokepoints that would make hiding fugitives, smuggling or eluding the authorities basically impossible.

Indeed they would (this has the potential for dramatic plot development - talking purely aesthetically), but in a crowded system there would be so much traffic it would be impractical to police them quite that thoroughly, whereas in my less crowded system our Firefly crew may never need to use them.

Have you been through customs lately? (Ha ha.)

Making the science argument, I wonder if anyone has done the math on the BSS theory. If we assume a habitable zone with a solar flux similar to what we find between Venus and Mars (because the sun looks similar regardless of what planet you're on). And we assume the planets are arranged in kemplerer rosettes (a stable configuration, with five planets per orbit). And we assume that the orbits of planets have to be a minimal distance from each other to avoid unpleasantness slingshot effects. We could, in theory, compute the size of star necessary to produce a habitable zone that could contain 70 planets (with the afore mentioned inverse square law). (Anyone here know the math to do this? I'll try to give it a shot, but I'm more of a formal systems guy, I've forgotten all my physics training.)

Of course, there could be planetary systems around gas giants which could increase the number of planets per orbit, but which would also serve to reduce the total number of orbits that you could populate because the increased gravity of the main planets would increase the necessary distance between orbits.

That sciency stuff is all beside the point anyway. The main point that eliminates the light speed barrier is that if you can only travel below light speed, then you're never out of sight. And that's contradicted by the cannon.

(I'll stick by the FTL theory, but if Joss himself came down and contradicted it, I'd still watch. I LOVE this show.)

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

Friday, March 5, 2004 1:35 AM

DRAKON

Quote:
Originally posted by Grounded:

Single photons have been teleported - but does anyone genuinely believe we'll be teleporting humans within 500 years? I'm not disputing the validity of any FTL research, but having theories and making advances are two entirely different things.

Good point. I personally ain't stepping in one of those things, no matter how safe they say they are. But that is me.

Here is the deal with warp drive right now. We have a theory, which is consistent with General Relativity, and does not "break" it in any way. It is dependent on how true the energy conditions are, and from quantum research, there is some area to doubt that the energy conditions will hold, and in most cases, quantum effects that appear to be gross violations of them.

The energy conditions are an extra set of postulated and reasonable sounding constraints on what a "proper" metric tensor, (the mathematical description of the curvature of the space-time manifold. And no, that is not technobabble, although it looks like, don't it?) should look like. The reason for their inclusion is because as it stands, there is no limitation on the Einstein equations, and some pretty weird configurations would be more prevalent. But like all postulates, there is no known underlying cause or reason for the conditions.

If the energy conditions are false, then negative mass/energy is possible. Most of the energy conditions state that such is impossible, to some degree or extent or another. But the problem is that research at the quantum level keeps showing small and limited violations of these postulated energy conditions.

GR is on more firm ground than Quantum Mechanics, heck I think there are something like 3 different major interpretations of QM (Copenhagen, Everette's Multiverse, and Bohm's "pilot waves") as well as a lot of smaller, less well recognized interpretations. GM is well tested, and keep passing, as well as, as near as I can tell only two major interpretations. Well one major and the other (variations of aether theory) considered crackpot.

The trouble with multiple interpretations is that it is difficult to know which is right (at least at this stage of the game.) In the case of both QM and GR, most of these interpretations don't mean much. Whether the cat is in an undead/not alive state or not, or whether the universe bifurcates and are all but identical except in one the cat is alive and in the other, its dead, does not matter too much. We are in this universe and the cat's state will "collapse" when we open the box. It all ends up the same anyway.

Anyway, it is a fasinating subject. I know of some research work being done on it, and am quite hopeful for the outcome. NASA used to have an Advance Propulsion Group working on awarding research contracts on a number of different interstellar flight ideas. Will I see it in my lifetime, I wish I could say definitatively one way or the other. But I am getting old, so....

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Friday, March 5, 2004 2:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by bbay:
Quote:
Originally posted by AJ:

I think 'the only correct theory' is perhaps a little too dismissive of other possibilities.

I'm very sorry, I didn't mean it like that at all. I am, in fact, a fan of hard sci-fi that takes place in a single solar system. What I'm suggesting is that there are several plot elements in FF that pretty much require FTL as a premise, even though we may wish otherwise.

no offence taken

a) Pushing further out - fair point, but then this is a crew who take advantage of salvage (often Alliance), and have a supply of Blue Sun products in their galley. How figurative is this statement?

b) I took flying below their radar to mean, basically, going where the Alliance don't pay much heed to what goes on, keeping your head down, etc.... Not a very scientific viewpoint, I know.

Quote:
Originally posted by bbay:

Quote:
Originally posted by bbay:

And the jump gate theory doesn't hold up either. Such gates would become alliance chokepoints that would make hiding fugitives, smuggling or eluding the authorities basically impossible.

Indeed they would (this has the potential for dramatic plot development - talking purely aesthetically), but in a crowded system there would be so much traffic it would be impractical to police them quite that thoroughly, whereas in my less crowded system our Firefly crew may never need to use them.

Have you been through customs lately? (Ha ha.)

A-ha, yes! Well, my experience is more of UK customs procedure - perhaps that might explain the difference in outlook! Not that I would rule out the possibility of smuggling and the like still continuing in the US even as we speak....

Quote:
Originally posted by bbay:

Making the science argument, I wonder if anyone has done the math on the BSS theory.... We could, in theory, compute the size of star necessary to produce a habitable zone that could contain 70 planets (with the afore mentioned inverse square law). (Anyone here know the math to do this? I'll try to give it a shot, but I'm more of a formal systems guy, I've forgotten all my physics training.)

That sciency stuff is all beside the point anyway. The main point that eliminates the light speed barrier is that if you can only travel below light speed, then you're never out of sight. And that's contradicted by the canon.

(I'll stick by the FTL theory, but if Joss himself came down and contradicted it, I'd still watch. I LOVE this show.)

Not a scientist myself (with nothing remotely resembling physics training!), so I'll have to leave the finer details to others, I'm afraid.

Personally, my initial instincts were towards FTL only outside actual solar systems/habitable zones, if only because the feel of the show seemed to operate below light speed for much of the time (experiences with reavers et al).

On the last point - totally agree. I enjoy discussing the science, but (as you can probably tell from this post) that's not the main reason for watching Firefly!

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

Friday, March 5, 2004 4:06 AM

DRAKON

Quote:
Originally posted by AJ:
Well, strictly speaking, science makes use of hypothesis, and the proving (or otherwise) of theories, in order to advance. Generally, as you say, it's based on observation and logic, but has plenty of room for imagination and inspiration as well. Pedantic? Me?

Grin, you and me both. Good points btw.

Quote:

Bit of a generalisation about subjective data, but I guess you're talking about unverifiable data (e.g. 'one person sees a unicorn, it's an hallucination' type of thing). For me, this is the primary difference - the accessibility of the data; not having to "take somebody's word for it" (or take it on faith). After all, if we discover science behind magic, it ceases to be magical (e.g. If 100,000 people see a unicorn, it's a horse with a horn).

After all that, I think we're basically saying the same thing, just from a different angle.

Yes. For me the fact that the data is not independently accessible is what marks the difference between the objective and subjective realms. Not just the primary difference, but really, the only difference I can think of.

It don't mean the data is wrong or the observer is flawed. It means its impossible to tell without that observer, or independent from them.

Now once technology like from the movie "Brainstorm" comes around, that might muck with things a bit.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Friday, March 5, 2004 4:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
Now once technology like from the movie "Brainstorm" comes around, that might muck with things a bit.

Haven't seen it, but just done some reading - yep, that would liven up the debate a little!

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

Friday, March 5, 2004 5:35 AM

ROCKETJOCK

Quote:
Originally posted by Hans:
Quote:
Originally posted by Shiny:
This was a show that had enough respect for science fact to avoid having sound in space. Since 2001 (the movie, not the year) every single sci-fi movie and TV show has had sound in space, but it was important enough for the creators to include this aspect of realism (despite the fact they probably had to fight the network to keep this aspect of the show intact).

Hans

Slight historical note for the sake of accuracy: Babylon 5 (and its sister shows and spin-offs) has an excellent record for silence in space. (I don't count dramatic music timed to give the impression of sound effects, which is a trick both B5 and the various Star Trek shows have used to good effect over the decades)*

B5 also had excellent understanding of how things move in a zero-gee environment, which is an area of scientific accuracy Firefly also scores high points on.

As for me, I think the "Multiple systems settled, but Serenity only tools around one of them" theory is dramatically sound. Scientifically it doesn't answer the nonvariant size of the sun problem, but I can accept a dozen or so solar systems each having a rosette or two of three to five terraformed planets and/or moons -- most worlds would then be placed in the "life belt", or close to it, and the apparent size of the local sun wouldn't seem to vary much. Just so long as you're not trying to place 70+ worlds in the same system, I can buy it.

And if Serenity ever needed to go outsystem, perhaps they could hitch a ride on some kind of FTL ferry ship (at considerable expense, and with appropriate dramatic complications,of course.)

"You can't take the sky from me."

*Footquote: "In space, no one can hear your siren." -- From the movie "Galaxina"

RocketJock

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE