FTL or not FTL... by BadgersHat

Of course this begs the old "one system/many systems" argument - which I can now definitively resolve once and for all.

The original version of the pilot began with the following spoken intro, it was also printed out on the screen.

Quote:
The War to Unite the Planets was six years done and the victorious Alliance was spreading its control further and further throughout the galaxy.

Those who had fought for independence and so bloodily lost had no choice but to live by Alliance law.

Some never would and those few found themselves drifting, flying to the furthest reaches of the galaxy, to the worlds less civilized - some barely settled - where the Alliance might not control their lives.

These were hard worlds, and work was where you found it. Those who got by lived by a simple creed.

Any job, anywhere.

There you have it. They were traveling throughout the galaxy. Not much point in doing that if all the inhabitable planets exist in one system.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

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

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 11:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Of course this begs the old "one system/many systems" argument - which I can now definitively resolve once and for all.

But, at the end of "The Train Job" one of the blue hands men said "We didn't travel 86 million miles...".

I did a google and the average distance from the sun to the earth is 92,900,000 miles. And since the blue hands man made it seem as though 86 million miles was a great expanse and interstellar travel is (to put it lightly) a touch more I'm going to side with one system.

I would also think that some of the reasons why that spoken intro was taken out was that it sounds corny and makes it seem too star trekish, too Sci-Fi. The one system theory seems more plausible. And I seem to think that being realistic (eg no aliens) was on the to do list for Joss given the way the universe is constructed.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

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

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 11:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Faster than Light seems to be impossible, if you believe Einstein (and there's a lot of reasons to do just that).

Actually, Relativity only states that we can't accelerate to the speed of light. So, if we could find a way to just jump to a faster speed than light, it wouldn't break this theory.

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
However, there's many that disagree, not so much with the faster than light, but with the speed of light itself--they think that the speed of light is NOT a constant velocity, it shifts in many cases due to various factors.

Well, it is constant in the medium that it is in. So if it's in vacuum it's approx. 3x10^8 m/s, but, it would go at a different speed if in a different medium.

But, there is current research that is investigating if the speed of light has changed with the evolution of the universe (Something that we cannot manipulate).

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
The most brilliant minds in the world are in disagreement about this issue. There's the hypserstring idea, the quantum tunneling idea, hyperspace, warp space, etc etc etc.

I wasn't aware that hyper-strings or quantum tunneling could be used to create an FTL drive. I'd be interested in some references

But, as I am aware, warping space and space folding are just ways to get around the issue by making the distance between the two points shorter. Thereby creating the illusion of FTL travel, but, not actually breaking the rules. Nice ideas, eh

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Personally, I think hyperspace is the true answer--a plane of existence in which everything is accelerated, meaning that even if we travel a fraction of light-speed, that speed is exponentially faster than it would be in normal space. But, I don't know from theoretical physics and such.

I can't remember any real science on this. Did I miss (or forget) this in Kaku's Hyperspace? It's been awhile.

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Anyway, the long-since-buried point is, we shouldn't quibble over FTL or not FTL possibilities, because we simply don't know.

We definitely don't know, very true. But, I still find it's fun to debate.

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Oh, and just for the record, there IS sound in space, just WAAAAAYY below human hearing (it's recordable with highly sensitive instruments, because, after all, there IS air in space, it's just EXTREMELY thin--if space were a TRUE vacuum, everything within it would collapse, and we wouldn't be here to have this stimulating discussion).

Well, it depends on what you mean by "TRUE vacuum". There is a theory called dark energy which (as I know it) is used as an explanation of why we are seeing the galaxies accelerate away from us for no apparent reason. So, there would be that there even if no gas existed.

But, I don't see any reason that it would collapse if nothing existed in between. Could you elaborate, please?

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

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

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 11:24 AM

GROUNDED

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Actually, Relativity only states that we can't accelerate to the speed of light. So, if we could find a way to just jump to a faster speed than light, it wouldn't break this theory.

I find your use of the word 'just' here interesting

Can you give any example of a theory that would allow for such 'discontinuous' acceleration?

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

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 12:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Grounded:
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Actually, Relativity only states that we can't accelerate to the speed of light. So, if we could find a way to just jump to a faster speed than light, it wouldn't break this theory.

I find your use of the word 'just' here interesting

Yah, I know, it's a big one

Quote:
Originally posted by Grounded:
Can you give any example of a theory that would allow for such 'discontinuous' acceleration?

I don't think that one exists. Asked the wife, and she's pretty sure that one doesn't exist either.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

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

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 12:49 PM

FOURSKYS

Couple things:

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Actually, Relativity only states that we can't accelerate to the speed of light. So, if we could find a way to just jump to a faster speed than light, it wouldn't break this theory.

I coule be misunderstanding this, but... Since acceleration is simply a change in velocity, there is no way to go from traveling less than the speed of light to grater than the speed of light (read: a change in velocity) without accelerating.

Quote:

Well, it depends on what you mean by "TRUE vacuum". There is a theory called dark energy which (as I know it) is used as an explanation of why we are seeing the galaxies accelerate away from us for no apparent reason. So, there would be that there even if no gas existed.

Having just come from a lecture dealing with Dark Energy (literally, walked into my office on my way back from the lecture, then checked the boards), I think I should probably comment here. Couple things:

1) If you define "True Vaccuum" as there being no matter ot speak of, then everything would not "fly apart", simply because gravity holds it all together. Most models that astrophysicists use pretend that the minimal amount of matter outside of stars and planets and such is actually not there. They don't take it into account because it's so minimal as not to affect anything. Nothing would fly apart, gravity is strong than that.

2) But yes, even in the perfect vaccuum there is something there. Vaccuum energy. This is essentially small quantum mechanical fluctuations in the amount of energy inherant in the fabric of space. So technically, you can't have a perfect vaccuum, because this vaccuum energy is actually creating and anhilating particles and anti-particles constantly, an effect which is key to Hawking Radiation, the reason black holes can evaporate.

3) But this vaccuum energy is possibly different from Dark Energy. Dark Energy is just a name given to something that astrophysicists can't quite explain. They know some of the properties, and they know what they want it to cause, but they don't know what it is or even very much about it. There have been hundreds of papers published in recent years as to what kind of theoretical formulation we can give to them. But, regardless, it's what's responsible for galaxies moving away from us at an increasing rate, as SigmaNunki wrote. Galaxies move away from each other at what originally seemed like a constant speed (The Hubble Parameter, formerly the Hubble Constant) depending on their distance from us. Recent observation of very distant supernovae seem to show that this rate of expansion of the universe (govered by the hubble parameter) may, indeed, not be constant. Now this is fine, since one would naturally expect that the universe, which contains mass, would slow down as it expands as gravity tries to hold it closed. Imagine a rock falling back to the earth after you throw it. But, the observations show that the exact opposite is happening. The universe is actually accelerating with time. The expasion rate is even greater now than it was in the early universe(I'm talking about after inflation and the big bang, these are different scenarios). This effect is what the concept of Dark Energy was created to explain. This change in the hubble paramater with time. Exactly what Dark Energy is is still a matter of great debate.

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

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 1:20 PM

LJOSALF

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Of course this begs the old "one system/many systems" argument - which I can now definitively resolve once and for all.

But, at the end of "The Train Job" one of the blue hands men said "We didn't travel 86 million miles...".

I did a google and the average distance from the sun to the earth is 92,900,000 miles. And since the blue hands man made it seem as though 86 million miles was a great expanse and interstellar travel is (to put it lightly) a touch more I'm going to side with one system.

I would also think that some of the reasons why that spoken intro was taken out was that it sounds corny and makes it seem too star trekish, too Sci-Fi. The one system theory seems more plausible. And I seem to think that being realistic (eg no aliens) was on the to do list for Joss given the way the universe is constructed.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

As for 86 million miles being a far distance, keep in mind that they covered it in something less than 2 days, 3 at the tops. Jayne had to have a chance to contact the Feds, the Feds had to have a chance to contact the Hands of Blue, the HoB had to throw their little killing gadget in an overnight bag and hop a fast ship to Ariel. The planning and execution of the heist took approximately 3 days max; ergo, 86 million miles in about 2 days, or 1 day to accelerate and 1 day to decelerate. Even so not an appreciable percentage of light speed. Serenity kinda lumbers along by comparison.

Ljosalf

The voyage of discovery is not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes.
Marcel Proust (1871 - 1922)

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

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 1:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FourSkys:
Couple things:

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Actually, Relativity only states that we can't accelerate to the speed of light. So, if we could find a way to just jump to a faster speed than light, it wouldn't break this theory.

I coule be misunderstanding this, but... Since acceleration is simply a change in velocity, there is no way to go from traveling less than the speed of light to grater than the speed of light (read: a change in velocity) without accelerating.

It is true that our current understanding of how things move does require acceleration. But, who knows what we'll dream up or realize in the future.

As mentioned prior it would require a discontinuity in velocity. How we go about getting that discontinuity or even if that is possible is for further study.

I'd say that this is unlikely, but, other barriers have been broken in the past, so, who knows.

Isn't science fun

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

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

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 1:26 PM

RELFEXIVE

As an example from SF, the reactionless drives from the Larry Niven books seemed to allow almost instant deceleration...

Then there are the various inertialess drives, like the ones in the Lensman books...

Of course, both of these fall outside our current understanding of science... again. Doesn't mean they are definitely and absolutely impossible though.

Maybe.

Mal: "We're not gonna die. We can't die, Bendis. You know why? Because we are so... very... pretty. We are just too pretty for God to let us die."

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

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 1:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ljosalf:
As for 86 million miles being a far distance, keep in mind that they covered it in something less than 2 days, 3 at the tops. Jayne had to have a chance to contact the Feds, the Feds had to have a chance to contact the Hands of Blue, the HoB had to throw their little killing gadget in an overnight bag and hop a fast ship to Ariel. The planning and execution of the heist took approximately 3 days max; ergo, 86 million miles in about 2 days, or 1 day to accelerate and 1 day to decelerate. Even so not an appreciable percentage of light speed. Serenity kinda lumbers along by comparison.

Ljosalf

I think we are speaking of two different episodes. I was talking about "The Train Job" (no time was referenced in how long it took the blue hands to get there) and you seem to be talking about "Ariel" which we don't know where the blue hands were before they were called. Presumably they were close by as they are tracking River.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

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

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 2:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Of course this begs the old "one system/many systems" argument - which I can now definitively resolve once and for all.

But, at the end of "The Train Job" one of the blue hands men said "We didn't travel 86 million miles...".

I did a google and the average distance from the sun to the earth is 92,900,000 miles. And since the blue hands man made it seem as though 86 million miles was a great expanse and interstellar travel is (to put it lightly) a touch more I'm going to side with one system.

I would also think that some of the reasons why that spoken intro was taken out was that it sounds corny and makes it seem too star trekish, too Sci-Fi. The one system theory seems more plausible. And I seem to think that being realistic (eg no aliens) was on the to do list for Joss given the way the universe is constructed.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

We all seem to be forgetting, Persephone is here in the Solar system (is it one of the moons of Pluto or something? Can't recall, but it orbits our sun). I don't think there's ANY chance that the planets of Firefly are in the Solar system, they have to be elsewhere, meaning that FTL drive of some sort MUST be in Firefly, whether it's hyperspace, quantum tunneling, etc etc etc.

And it seems that Serenity is not a reactionless drive, so there must be aspects we haven't seen yet... or, Joss just doesn't give a crap about this particular aspect of SF...

--Jefé The Hat

***************************
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne

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

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 2:45 PM

FORRESTWOLF

Well, I'm being bad and not tracking back all the (I assume) various threads on Serenity's drives. But speaking from some experience in this area, my personal favorite is that Serenity just has your run-of-the-mill fusion reactor-based propulsion system. The enormous power levels that could be achieved (specific power, if we're getting technical) allow for specific impulses (gas mileage, if you will) that permit relatively reasonable propellant usages for interplanetary trips like you're discussing (earth-to-sun-type distances). And the power levels of fusion reactors would ALSO allow for trip times of only a few days (perhaps not 1-2 days, which is a bit on the fast side).

HOWEVER, it's been stated elsewhere that a) Serenity has "grav" technology of various kinds (for artficial gravity, if nothing else), which would make reaction-based drives like I'm describing possibly obsolete, and b) there is definitely a dichotomy present in the depiction of the 'Verse regarding solar system-vs.-galaxy. My own guess is that Joss and company haven't yet decided themselves (I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming they understand the issues) about FTL.

Anyway, in MY mind, Serenity uses a relatively "fuel-efficient" drive that probably expels something like its own mass in propellant between worlds, which is why it needs to refuel and why fuel IS an important issue. Also, in my mind, we're dealing with one solar system (I'm hoping for FTL and Alcubierre's warp drive and wormhole transport someday, but I like Joss's realistic feel to Firefly). But again, while I prefer those two answers, I think Joss has left enough ambiguity and outright contradictions in the show that we'll all be delightfully in the dark until he decides to enlighten us :)

If anyone wants to talk specific impulse, electric propulsion, fusion propulsion, or even spacetime metric modification in regards to Firefly, just let me know...I'll go on for far too long :)

- Forrestwolf the rocket scientist (no, really!)

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

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 3:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
...I don't think there's ANY chance that the planets of Firefly are in the Solar system, they have to be elsewhere,...

What are you basing this on?

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
...or, Joss just doesn't give a crap about this particular aspect of SF...

I think it has been said that Joss is a non-Techie, so, I would think that that is the most likely reason for the lack of detail in such areas.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

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

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 6:43 PM

WANGENSTEIN

Here's a way to effectively travel faster than light: time travel. If one travels forward or back in time without moving in space, one will travel to worlds that will be/were in or near the spot you are "now". More to the point, those worlds will travel to you. Ultimately it would be a very limited way to travel, as you would only encounter those things that will/have travelled through the general area you are "now".

Of course, this theory means that Marty McFly would have travelled back to 1955... and suffocated in the vacuum of space, with Earth some 30 years away. Oh well...

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

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 7:14 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.

Quote:
Originally posted by Wangenstein:
Of course, this theory means that Marty McFly would have travelled back to 1955... and suffocated in the vacuum of space, with Earth some 30 years away. Oh well...

Well maybe the flux capacitor in the Delorian accounted for the shift.

How far from Earth is the nearest system, that we know of, with planets? Joss says that FF is set 500 years in the future. Considering the time it would take to travel to the new system(s), establish the core planets, and terrafrom rim planets and moons, it seems FTL travel is likely.

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

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 7:15 PM

ROCKETJOCK

Quote:
But, at the end of "The Train Job" one of the blue hands men said "We didn't travel 86 million miles...".

I did a google and the average distance from the sun to the earth is 92,900,000 miles. And since the blue hands man made it seem as though 86 million miles was a great expanse and interstellar travel is (to put it lightly) a touch more I'm going to side with one system.

This is what I call "Rod Serling Science"; Rod would think nothing of putting in a line like "Look, two suns; we must be more than a million miles from Earth!" -- and he'd be serious about it! As good a writer as he was, he never understood that (for example) asteroids are way too small to have a natural atmosphere of any sort, let alone one that's breathable.

It didn't matter, because the stories were the thing.

Now, Joss is a bit more science-literate that the late, great Rod S. (as evidenced by the realism of Firefly's EVA scenes), but he's a lot more interested in advancing the plot than in plotting things on a warp-drive scale. It's a flaw, but a minor one, in the firefly context.

That aside, the line quoted doesn't convince me of the one system argument.

Think of it this way; suppose an FBI man had business in (say) Sacramento, but then a hot lead pops up in San Jose, so he spends three hours commuting; he'd be understandably peeved at the waste of time if the lead doesn't pan out; and might very well say "I didn't drive a hundred and ten miles to investigate a robbery..." or somesuch. That doesn't mean he's limited to travel in a single state, now does it?

86 million miles might seem a far piece to go in one context, but be a light commute in another, just as a 110 mile trip is a far piece to travel in a car, but about ten minutes transit time on a commuter jet.

But hey, the "One System/Many Systems" argument can't be settled without more data anyway; what evidence exists in the series as it stands now is contractictory at best. The argument can't be settled until (a) Joss makes a definative statement, or (b), new evidence come to light via the BDM or a new series (please, please, PLEASE...)

"You can't enslave a free man. The most you can do is kill him." -- Robert A. Heinlein

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 1:20 AM

LJOSALF

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I think we are speaking of two different episodes. I was talking about "The Train Job" (no time was referenced in how long it took the blue hands to get there) and you seem to be talking about "Ariel" which we don't know where the blue hands were before they were called. Presumably they were close by as they are tracking River.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

Yup! My bad! no distances mentioned in Arial. Hangs head in shame. I'll be off in my corner now trying to recover my composure.

Ljosalf

The voyage of discovery is not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes.
Marcel Proust (1871 - 1922)

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 4:26 AM

CYBERSNARK

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
But, at the end of "The Train Job" one of the blue hands men said "We didn't travel 86 million miles...".

I did a google and the average distance from the sun to the earth is 92,900,000 miles.

Guys, you're forgetting one critical fact. Joss can't count.

(Buffy's age versus her date of birth. Spike being "barely 200" after being vamped in the late 1800s. Etc.)

Quote:
Originally posted by ljosalf:
the HoB had to throw their little killing gadget in an overnight bag and hop a fast ship to Ariel.

Okay, that's it. I so want to see a "Pulp Fiction" episode revolving around a pair of BlueHands.

It can be Firefly's big "departure" episode, like the Buffy musical, or the puppet Angel show.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 5:01 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Prof.: These are the dark matter engines I invented. They allow my starship to travel between galaxies in mere hours.
Cubert: That's impossible! You can't go faster than the speed of light.
Prof.: Of course not! That's why scientists increased the speed of light in 2208!

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 5:05 AM

HANS

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

Quote:
The War to Unite the Planets was six years done and the victorious Alliance was spreading its control further and further throughout the galaxy.

Those who had fought for independence and so bloodily lost had no choice but to live by Alliance law.

Some never would and those few found themselves drifting, flying to the furthest reaches of the galaxy, to the worlds less civilized - some barely settled - where the Alliance might not control their lives.

These were hard worlds, and work was where you found it. Those who got by lived by a simple creed.

Any job, anywhere.

There you have it. They were traveling throughout the galaxy. Not much point in doing that if all the inhabitable planets exist in one system.

SergeantX

Hmm, not sure of the source of that quote. However, one of the strongest pieces of evidence in favour of the single system theory is Book's intro (used in the first few episodes) where he says:

Quote:

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...After the war, many of the Independents...drifted to the edges of the system, far from Alliance control.

To me, this is pretty definitive. If the unused quote mentioned above is genuine, the fact that the producers bothered to change the opening to be much more specific is just about the final nail in the coffin of the "many system" theory.

Yes, I know that the later show opening (narrated by Mal) talks about "a whole galaxy of earths". While this evidence supports the many systems theory, it is certainly a line that could be hyperbole or exaggeration, while the Book line seems to me to be very specific.

Hans

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 6:21 AM

FARWALL

A few points from my sciencey-but-not-particularly-well-trained-in-physics brain.
Firsty, on the idea of jumping between discreet velocities (ie without acceleration, as mentioned earlier). When I read the idea it was instantly apparent to me that this is a similar idea to wormhole or bent-space travel. In the same way we imagine bending space to circumvent distantance between two points in space we can also image (with a little more difficulty perhaps) bending time to circumvent the distance between two points in time. Possibly. So acceleration (which = velocity/time and time is now 0) cannot be calculated (anything divided by 0 is not a number, as far as I know). Whether not being ably to calculate it means it doesn't actually happen, I'm not sure.

Secondly, the rather cunning idea of travelling through time and letting objects in space come to you might work (assuming the problems of Michael J. Fox's hideous exploding space-death could be worked out), but it'd be almost impossible to use it for anything other than exploration. For example, business travel - say you want to arrange a meeting with someone on a different planet. If you arrange the meeting with a present day contact, by the time you get to their offices you'll either be very, very late (depending on which way and how far you travelled) and so inter-planetary business would be really slow moving. Or you'd be very, very early which would mean your contact would have no idea about the deal you've showed up to discuss.

And lastly, while it is fun to debate people's theories on the physics/mechanics/astronomy of the 'Verse, I think it's pretty pointless anyone trying to assert that their version is 'what Joss intended' 'cause I really don't think the creative team behind Firefly care about that aspect of the show. They're fare more concerned with interesting characters and cool stories. And even if they did acquiesce and put down a set of rules about FLT, galaxy vs. system etc. I expect they'd hapily break them in a second if they had a story idea that went against them.

----------
I have no faith but it's all that I want
to be loved and believe
in my soul.

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:08 AM

Quote:
To me, this is pretty definitive. If the unused quote mentioned above is genuine, the fact that the producers bothered to change the opening to be much more specific is just about the final nail in the coffin of the "many system" theory.

Yes, I know that the later show opening (narrated by Mal) talks about "a whole galaxy of earths". While this evidence supports the many systems theory, it is certainly a line that could be hyperbole or exaggeration, while the Book line seems to me to be very specific.

Poppycock! Balderdash! It's far more likely that Book's line was meant to be taken metaphorically and the fact that they changed it, to clear up any confusion, pretty much puts the nail in the coffin of the "one system" theory.

Think about it. First of all the one system theory rests on the unfounded assumption that there is no faster-than-light travel. If that's the case, how did we ever get to this system? And are you seriously suggesting that one system contains 'hundreds of new earths'?? The one system theory strains believability to the point of breakage.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:33 AM

Look--

We KNOW for a fact, they're NOT on Earth, due to the numerous "Earth-That_Was" references, and such.

So, they're not here. They're also not on ANY of the other planets in the Solar system, because they are either complettely impossible to terraform (some being made entirely of gas) or too far away to bother. Also, they all have names (Mars, Venus, etc) and would likely NOT be renamed.

Therefore, they MUST bein a different star system, which means they MUST have at least HAD FTL drive, because the nearest star to us is Alpha Centauri, which is 4.6 years travel time AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT, and as far as we know, there's no planets there anyway...

So, FTL seems to me that it MUCT exist in the 'verse, or at least DID at some point during the colonization. Also, if we have the tech needed to terraform on such a huge level (changing atmosphere, AND gravity, of a planet), it seems we MUCT have a corresponding transport tech to match it.

But again, I might not know what the hell I'm talking about...

--Jefé The Hat

***************************
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:55 AM

DIEGO

>Therefore, they MUST bein a different star system, which >means they MUST have at least HAD FTL drive, because the >nearest star to us is Alpha Centauri, which is 4.6 years travel >time AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT, and as far as we know, there's >no planets there anyway...

I prefer the no-FTL idea if only for the aesthetic appeal of an alternative to warp/wormhole/hyperspace plot devices, but your point is a good one. In 500 years, it would be hard to get to a new world and to have had time to build up a system-spanning civilization of terraformed worlds (leaving aside the weirdness of a system so full of easily terraformed terrestrial bodies).

But here is a possible no-FTL rebuttal:

But then again, we don't know how long they've been settled on the new frontier. Early periods in Alliance history (the age of the Companion tea ceremony etc) could have occurred before or after the departure from Earth-that-was.

And while I'm throwing stuff on the table, I have an idea about some of the references.
1) We already use "galaxy" as an expression for impossibly large things in size, distance, or quantity, so it makes more sense that this would be hyperbole than a reference to a "new system".
2) I believe Mal refers to the fact that the meek have inherited not a one of the vast number of earths spinning (I don't recall the exact number. . .>70?). This has largely been used in defense of the many systems hypothesis, since it seems ridiculous for that many worlds to exist in a single solar system. But there's no reason to believe that those worlds are within reach of our heroes. It seems likely that the exodus from Earth-that-was was a diaspora in many directions. Many, many sublight ships could have gone to cololnize promising systems. And since you can communicate at light-speed, it seems likely that they could have received progress reports from the other settled systems even if the reports are 5, 20, or even 50 years out of date.

Diego

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:58 AM

DIEGO

Oh yeah,

But the main point I forgot to mention is that those who've suggested there simply isn't enough data to reject one hypothesis or the other are probably right.

Oh well, I guess we'll have to wait 500 years for the answer! ;)

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:59 AM

GUNRUNNER

Well Hat humanity may have used very large high sub-light ships to travel to other worlds. So at say .90c it’s about 5 or 6 years travel to the Centauri system, which wouldn't be that bad aboard a generational ship. Maybe it took a generation or two or three to find a suitable system and send for the other generational ships to colonize the system.

Think of it as a futuristic wagon train from the 1800's, which is kind of keeping with the Firefly view of the 'verse.

Since we have no reference to when teraforming of worlds began and that in Shindig the slaver states that they are still terforming worlds its possible that the worlds of firefly have only been inhabited for a few hundred years.

The Firefly CCG Web Site:
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/Bllm119/firefly_ccg_web_site.htm

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 8:03 AM

STEVE580

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Look--

We KNOW for a fact, they're NOT on Earth, due to the numerous "Earth-That_Was" references, and such.

So, they're not here. They're also not on ANY of the other planets in the Solar system, because they are either complettely impossible to terraform (some being made entirely of gas) or too far away to bother. Also, they all have names (Mars, Venus, etc) and would likely NOT be renamed.

Therefore, they MUST bein a different star system, which means they MUST have at least HAD FTL drive, because the nearest star to us is Alpha Centauri, which is 4.6 years travel time AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT, and as far as we know, there's no planets there anyway...

So, FTL seems to me that it MUCT exist in the 'verse, or at least DID at some point during the colonization. Also, if we have the tech needed to terraform on such a huge level (changing atmosphere, AND gravity, of a planet), it seems we MUCT have a corresponding transport tech to match it.

But again, I might not know what the hell I'm talking about...

--Jefé The Hat

***************************
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne

But you can't have "corresponding technology" if the technology you're talking about is impossible. Anyways, perhaps they found a wormhole or something that took them to this new system.

How would there be 'inner' and 'outer' planets if there is more than one system involved? NAh, seems more likely that it's one system of ten or so planets, each with ten or so moons. I just can't believe that Serenity can exceede the speed of light...

Besides, remember in the pilot episode, when she passed the Reaver ship? They were only doing 5-10 mph. So maybe it's just one planet, with a couple dozen moons, and spaceships just move reeaaallly slow.
-Steve

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 8:19 AM

There's no way we could travel at 90c, because the relativistic acceleration would turn the vehicle's inhabitants to jelly.

At most, we could withstand a constant acceleration of about 1.5G (half again the currect gravity of Earth that is). That means, and I forget the exact number, but it would take something like either centuries or millenia to reach Alpha Centari at the 1.5G acceleration curve--you spend half the distance in acceleration, the other half in deceleration...

So, FTL is a must.

--Jefé The Hat

***************************
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 8:24 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

These are all very interesting comments. I’m not sure that any of them reflect what the writers were contemplating, only because I don’t think the writers ever intended this much examination of the physics and celestial mapping of Firefly.

My own personal opinion is that many of these problems could be cleared up if the whole 70-earths rhetoric was dropped. From my meager background in astrophysics I’ve done what little calculation I’ve been able to do, and while I have been able to fit 70 hard-bodied earth or near-earth sized satellites within the life-zone of a relatively large star, it is an egregious balancing game. One that I don’t believe would likely occur naturally.

And of course the problems with interstellar flight is obvious.

Neither of these problems really needs be considered, the reality is that a large star could easily support, say twelve hard-bodied earth-sized satellites in orbits that would allow them to sustain life for a sufficient timeframe. And twelve earth- or near earth-sized planets would offer more then enough diversity of landscape and setting. The problem, I think, is this notion that there must be the appearance of an infinite number of distinct worlds or that each planet must be homogenous and represent only one setting. This is a sci-fi hang up that is long past overdone. In any earth-like world there would be an enormous diversity of landscapes and possible settings, individual cultures, provinces/states.

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 8:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RocketJock:
Think of it this way; suppose an FBI man had business in (say) Sacramento, but then a hot lead pops up in San Jose, so he spends three hours commuting; he'd be understandably peeved at the waste of time if the lead doesn't pan out; and might very well say "I didn't drive a hundred and ten miles to investigate a robbery..." or somesuch. That doesn't mean he's limited to travel in a single state, now does it?

But, in your example he would be pissed in wasting time, not distance traveled. So, he would probably say "I didn't spend 3 hours over 110 miles to investigate a robbery...". People in general like to bitch about everything they can (experimentally verified

).

In you example the FBI also knew that that lead didn't pan out where in my quote the blue hands men *just* got there.

You're also not addressing the value here. In your example it's just a lead, where here we are talking about River. Something that these people have proven that they will indiscriminately kill to get.

Quote:
Originally posted by RocketJock:
86 million miles might seem a far piece to go in one context, but be a light commute in another, just as a 110 mile trip is a far piece to travel in a car, but about ten minutes transit time on a commuter jet.

These guys are from a highly funded organization and trying to track down a highly valuable person to them. The likeliness that they would "drive" when they could take a "commuter jet" is unlikely.

Quote:
Originally posted by RocketJock:
But hey, the "One System/Many Systems" argument can't be settled without more data anyway; what evidence exists in the series as it stands now is contractictory at best. The argument can't be settled until (a) Joss makes a definative statement, or (b), new evidence come to light via the BDM or a new series (please, please, PLEASE...)

Untold amounts of true there

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 8:52 AM

GUNRUNNER

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
There's no way we could travel at 90c, because the relativistic acceleration would turn the vehicle's inhabitants to jelly.

Remember the Crazy Ivan. Half the crew were standing when that happened and none where thrown though the air. So it seems that there is some inertial dampener system, which would allow for high-speed travel.

The Firefly CCG Web Site:
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/Bllm119/firefly_ccg_web_site.htm

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 9:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Poppycock! Balderdash! It's far more likely that Book's line was meant to be taken metaphorically and the fact that they changed it, to clear up any confusion, pretty much puts the nail in the coffin of the "one system" theory.

What are you basing the "taken metaphorically" on? Do you know that they changed it to clear up any confusion? Because if they did, it'd probably be so that they didn't have to get stuck with one system or galaxy. But, I think that it has become obvious that it has still introduced confusion.

But, then again we both just uttered the dreaded word(s)/phrases like, probably, far more likely, etc. Joss'll let us know if/when it's time.

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Think about it. First of all the one system theory rests on the unfounded assumption that there is no faster-than-light travel. If that's the case, how did we ever get to this system? And are you seriously suggesting that one system contains 'hundreds of new earths'?? The one system theory strains believability to the point of breakage.

And the many system theory is based on the unfounded assumption that there is FTL travel. Neither has proof, but, IMHO, no FTL has more evidence. This is of course all a matter of opinion. The truth may or may not be known when the BDM comes out. We'll all have to wait until then.

And it has been said that Joss isn't really a techie so if he meant they went from one to another system I highly doubt that he thought about how they got there as it has never really affect story/plot. But, then there is that nasty thing called speculation again.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 9:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
So, they're not here. They're also not on ANY of the other planets in the Solar system, because they are either completely impossible to terraform (some being made entirely of gas) or too far away to bother. Also, they all have names (Mars, Venus, etc) and would likely NOT be renamed.

Bad assumptions. We don't have any idea of how to actually go about the reality of terraforming, so, I don't think that any of us should place any limitation of that technology. Names change all the time.

And to your too far away. Don't you think that I would be more efficient to travel a few million miles to the moons of Jupiter then the nearest (or some other) star? And as you state that nearest star is 4.6 light years away.

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Alpha Centauri, which is 4.6 years travel time AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT, and as far as we know, there's no planets there anyway...

Again, I don't think that any of us should make such statements as we are just figuring out how to find planets around other stars. So, they could be there and we just can't find them yet.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 9:24 AM

I don't have any hang up with a need for diversity or a need for lack of diversity--there's just the fact that, a planet that can sustain human life without use of bio-domes and such has a fairly narrow range of distances it can be from a star without being either too hot or too cold. And you can't put too many planets around one star, because of gravitational problems... I guess planet moons could help... but you get the point.

Also, as far as the "Core" versus the "Rim" planets--hate to borrow from Star Wars or Star Trek, but it could easily just mean the group of systems around which the main colonies were established, with other star systems at the outskirts.

--Jefé The Hat

***************************
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 9:24 AM

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 9:24 AM

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 9:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GunRunner:
Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
There's no way we could travel at 90c, because the relativistic acceleration would turn the vehicle's inhabitants to jelly.

Remember the Crazy Ivan. Half the crew were standing when that happened and none where thrown though the air. So it seems that there is some inertial dampener system, which would allow for high-speed travel.

The Firefly CCG Web Site:
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/Bllm119/firefly_ccg_web_site.htm

Remember that they were all told to hold onto something first?

Also, normal speeds are not to be compared with fractions of light...

--Jefé The Hat

***************************
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 9:31 AM

HANS

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
(stuff cut)
Therefore, they MUST bein a different star system, which means they MUST have at least HAD FTL drive, because the nearest star to us is Alpha Centauri, which is 4.6 years travel time AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT, and as far as we know, there's no planets there anyway...

So, FTL seems to me that it MUCT exist in the 'verse, or at least DID at some point during the colonization. Also, if we have the tech needed to terraform on such a huge level (changing atmosphere, AND gravity, of a planet), it seems we MUCT have a corresponding transport tech to match it.

--Jefé The Hat

Come on now, use your imagination. If a hypothetical star is 15 light years away, and they develop a non-FTL drive that can go up to (say) 1/2 the speed of light, they can get there in 30 years. It's not hard to imagine some catastrophe on Earth (environmental degradation or whatever) causing a slow exodus to a new, more viable system over the course of decades or even centuries, using massive colony ships. Remember, the show takes place in the 26th century after all.

I admit that a planet with 70+ habitable or terraformable worlds is unlikely, maybe highly improbable, but not automatically impossible. There are many respected people who feel the same way about FTL.

Hans

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 9:31 AM

Even if AC DOES have planets, and planets exactly like earth, there's still the "Getting there" part. The human body can't withstand too much G-force, so really really fast travel in normal space will take decades if not centuries if not MILLENIA to reach the nearest star system.

If it's Jupiter, there's the small problem of the sun being WAAAAAYY too far away to sustain the planet. Even given terraforming, there's still the fact that the sun is still a zillion miles away-- have you seen the Rover pictures of what the sun looks like from Mars??

--Jefé The Hat

***************************
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 9:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
There's no way we could travel at 90c, because the relativistic acceleration would turn the vehicle's inhabitants to jelly.

Sorry but this 90c is wrong, it's 0.9c. I know I'm being nit picky, but, there's just a world of difference there.

When you go at a speed (0.9c) there is no acceleration. Acceleration only happens when you are speeding up or slowing down. We also know that they have gravity drives on these ships, so, they could implement these drives in a way to counteract the effects of acceleration. Thereby being able to get acceleration that would normally be impossible due to the fragile nature of humans.

Again, this is all speculation.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 9:46 AM

Well, of course you're all just wrong.

I must confess though, many of my assumptions about the Firefly universe are based on my deep suspicion that Joss, at one time or another, played the seminal science fiction roleplaying game 'Traveller'. A great many parallels exist between that game setting and the tone and texture of Firefly. Not to mention Wash's comment at the beginning of "Serenity" - "Hang on, Travellers!" (A shout-out to old school gamers?)

Granted, that's pretty slim evidence, but the show has such a tremendous roleplaying sensibility to it in other respects that it makes me wonder.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 9:47 AM

yeah, like I said.

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 9:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Remember that they were all told to hold onto something first?

Also, normal speeds are not to be compared with fractions of light...

True, but, it was and still is a good point.

To not be knocked around by that amount of force whether you were holding onto something or not is quite extraordinary. I would think that an "inertial dampener" type thing of some sort would have to be in play here.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 9:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Even if AC DOES have planets, and planets exactly like earth, there's still the "Getting there" part. The human body can't withstand too much G-force, so really really fast travel in normal space will take decades if not centuries if not MILLENIA to reach the nearest star system.

If it's Jupiter, there's the small problem of the sun being WAAAAAYY too far away to sustain the planet. Even given terraforming, there's still the fact that the sun is still a zillion miles away-- have you seen the Rover pictures of what the sun looks like from Mars??

You are still putting limitations on unknown technology/technologies. You really shouldn't do that.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 9:58 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Remember that they were all told to hold onto something first?

Also, normal speeds are not to be compared with fractions of light...
True, but, it was and still is a good point.

To not be knocked around by that amount of force whether you were holding onto something or not is quite extraordinary. I would think that an "inertial dampener" type thing of some sort would have to be in play here.

The kind of velocities a vehicle would experience on reentry would be plenty large enough that “holding on” to something would be pointless during a maneuver in which the vehicle was completely turned about. In fact, I doubt any current construction could even withstand those kinds of forces. The vehicle would likely be torn to pieces and burn up, certainly no one would survive, even if it didn't. They would be greasy stains on the wall.

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 9:59 AM