FTL or not FTL... by BadgersHat

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
.... isn't that exactly what I said?

What I caught is that you stated that we must have a crazy acceleration to get to relativistic speeds and that that acceleration can't be curved in some way.

Although it is true that we must have that acceleration (to get to any relativistic speeds within a "small" amount of time) there is no absolute that we must "feel" that acceleration (ie inertial dampeners). I reference my prior conjecture that states the possibility of Serenity's grav drive to reduce the effects of acceleration on the crew.

I think we were both too terse. My wife tells me I do that a lot

----
"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 11:21 AM

FORRESTWOLF

Ah...a fellow "Joss is an ex-Traveller player" theorist :)

Joss has done enough D&D references over the years that I really DO wonder about Traveller. Makes me feel confident about using Traveller rules for my Firefly game.

I'm not sure if it being Traveller-inspired really decides the FTL issue one way or the other, though - Joss could have just dropped Jump drive (set the show in TL what - 8 or so?). Traveller is full of nice 1-6 G acceleration, which would match fairly well with interplanetary travel times in Firefly.

Someone's got to ask Joss about Traveller somehow someday...let me know if you ever hear anything!

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 11:23 AM

I'd either agree or disagree with you and your wife, if I knew what the word "terse" means...

I thought you were talking about my response to someone's note about 90c, thinking that I thought it meant 0.9c, or that I was confused (which happens a lot, my hat's too tight)... I think I kinda lost my train of thought (happens, too--see note about tightness of hat)...

Um... so, what we're saying is, they might be able to go really really super duper fast, but not get squashed to little itty bitty smudges of jeely-like protoplasm, due to an inertial damping doohickey?

I see that as possible... but, I'm not sure where you stand in the "They Have" or "They Have Not" FTL issue... umm... do you say yes or no?

If yes, then I think we're more or less on the same page, and are probably arguing each other's point without realizing (that happens, too, but not because of the hat tightness, mainly because my fingers type faster than the brain thinks).

If no, then I'm REALLY confuzzled, because I lost my point somewhere...

Either way, if sublight, we're talking mucho years to the next place...

... ummm...

....

....

... if anyone happens to see a medium-sized mind, only slightly used, wearing a bowler hat and singing 80s songs, please forward it to me...

... oh waiter, clue please...

--Jefé The Hat

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

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 12:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
I'd either agree or disagree with you and your wife, if I knew what the word "terse" means...

Brief and to the point; effectively concise

So, "too terse" would cloud what you are trying to say as you weren't stating all the necessary data for others to understand. I do it all the time, again according to the wife

I think I make perfect sense

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Um... so, what we're saying is, they might be able to go really really super duper fast, but not get squashed to little itty bitty smudges of jeely-like protoplasm, due to an inertial damping doohickey?

Basically, yes.

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
I see that as possible... but, I'm not sure where you stand in the "They Have" or "They Have Not" FTL issue... umm... do you say yes or no?

I haven't really seen a whole lot of evidence for either type of drive. But, since I have seen a some evidence for the one system theory and I tend in that direction, I'd be inclined to move toward the no FTL drive.

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
If yes, then I think we're more or less on the same page, and are probably arguing each other's point without realizing (that happens, too, but not because of the hat tightness, mainly because my fingers type faster than the brain thinks).

I had a friend a while back that would argue a point and then we would end up arguing the same point which would really piss me off. Not because we were arguing the same point. But, because he knew we were and continued to argue anyway. It was quite irritating.

For the record I'm not saying you are doing what he did. Just a story is all.

And my finger type to fast as well. Makes for some interesting first drafts of posts sometimes

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Either way, if sublight, we're talking mucho years to the next place...

Only if that next place is another star system. Which as said by many people, we can only speculate until we get more info.

----
"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 12:19 PM

XARR

Quote:
Originally posted by 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!

just gotta say, that rocks! hahahaah

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 1:21 PM

... ow....

... my head hurts...

--Jefé The Hat

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

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 1:25 PM

FARWALL

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Even if AC DOES have planets, and planets exactly like earth

The planets in Firefly aren't(well wheren't originally) necessarily like Earth at all, they where Teraformed as is stated in the show a couple of times. Seeing as we're given no information on the Teraforming tech (just as we're given no info on any of the other tech), who's to say what the planets where like.

----------
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 2:48 PM

NRKANGEL

Ok... I really didn't want to participate in this, but I...can't stop....typing...

Let's see...if the reference to 70 earths is accurate, then there is no possible way that we're dealing with one system.

The Life Zone in any given solar system (capable of supporting water in liquid form) is very narrow. It would be physically impossible to support more than a few planets in this area of space, much less 70.

OK...if we're dealing with multiple systems, how do we go from planet to planet?

Remember, it took man over 2000 years to come up with powered flight (counting BC years), but after that it only took 53 years to go from Kitty Hawk to hitting golf balls on the moon.

With the technology we have now, the gravity dampeners on the show are impossible. The fusion reactor they have is impossible. The ability to keep someone in revivable cryogenic stasis for long periods is impossible. (Let's not even discuss the idea of Jayne ever being mistaken for a heroic figure...that's just too silly for words...still, it happened.)

That's why I think they must have FTL. Of course, they may have something that allows them to warp the curvature of space so that they can travel from point to point faster than light can. (Draw a dot at either end of a piece of paper. Draw a straight line from dot to dot. That's the shortest distance between the two points as we understand our universe. Now, fold the paper in half. The dots are closer. Now if you draw a straight line between the two of them, you would be able to do so significantly faster without speeding up.) On the show they can create gravity, so warping space should be possible...

The only other argument I could use is that it's fiction and anything is possible in fiction.

How is it that we're still talking about this?

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 4:22 PM

WYDRAZ

I've held my tongue long enough. Of course they have FTL. They have control of gravity (i.e. gravity drives).

FTL is considered impossible because as a mass (the ship) moves closer to the speed of light, the energy required becomes an impossible amount for the ship to sustain. However, this rule can be broken if the ship's mass is reduced to zero. Given their control of gravity (including terraforming small moons), it is a small step to say that they are able to cancel out the ship's mass with the gravity drive. Hence, very little power is required for them to travel faster than light.

It always amazes me how sci-fi fans continue to dismiss something we are not capable of doing today, despite the fact that sci-fi stories usually occur in a future where technology is beyond what we have today.

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 6:59 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
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.

Agreed

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
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.

Do you mean the crazy Ivan on re-entry? If so, agreed.

But, they didn't do the crazy Ivan on re-entry. They did it while taking off and only did the full burn after they did that maneuver.

Was it not done on reentry? I thought they entered the atmosphere before doing that, but I guess they were taking off.

I need to rewatch my Firefly episodes, I think I'm rusty.

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:10 PM

The Crazy Ivan was in the atmosphere.

As far as the FTL thing, I change my opinion everytime I watch the show but for the past while I'm thinking they do have it. They can manipulate gravity, no zero-gee on the ship normally, and that is one thing that would allow FTL.

I chuckled the first time they started the whole,"Can you do an Ivan" thing because I knew they were gonna call it a Crazy Ivan. Which is pretty shiny even though what Serenity does barely resembles a real one. If the show went any further I was interested in seeing if they'd try any other Russian naval/air maneuvers with the ship. A Kobra would be possible with Serenity and would be interesting to see.

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
"Oh hey, I got an idea. Instead of us hanging
around playing art critic till I get pinched by
the Man, how's about we move away from this
eerie-ass piece of work and get on with our
increasingly eerie-ass day, how's that?"

My eerie-ass website:
http://gunhandsfirefly.homestead.com/Index.html

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

Thursday, May 13, 2004 4:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Gunhand:
If the show went any further I was interested in seeing if they'd try any other Russian naval/air maneuvers with the ship. A Kobra would be possible with Serenity and would be interesting to see.

What's a Kobra?

--Jefé The Hat

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

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

Thursday, May 13, 2004 4:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Quote:
Originally posted by Gunhand:
If the show went any further I was interested in seeing if they'd try any other Russian naval/air maneuvers with the ship. A Kobra would be possible with Serenity and would be interesting to see.

What's a Kobra?

--Jefé The Hat

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

A Kobra is a move that can only be pulled off in a Russian MiG-29 fighter, although I heard rumors that it was done once with a SU-27 but I don't really believe it.

Wish I had a drawing here...but I'll give it a shot.

Basically you start straight and level, then the pilot noses down a little, say 5 degrees to get a little extra airspeed, then pulls up into a straight ballistic climb, so the nose is pointing directly up. This bleeds off airspeed pretty quickly, the pilot keeps back pressure on the stick so the plane's nose actually points slightly backwards in the direction he was coming from so it winds up the plane is at an angle.

Cheesy attempt at a graph coming up here, but once the pilot is in a Kobra:

Plane lookes like \ in relation to the ground with the nose up while still travelling ---> in the original direction he was flying. Basically the tail is leading the way with the nose pointed slightly in "reverse" and up.

How long he can hold it is pretty much how big his cajones are, a really good pilot can even do it while still travelling in the same direction, nose pointed back a bit and at a low enough speed that he decends a bit while keeping forward motion.

What's the use of such a trick? Well it looks impressive as hell at airshows and the Mikoyan corporation includes that maneuver in it's sales videos so countries like India are impressed enough to buy some. But actually it's a pretty clever combat move, either with guns or more likely with an infared AAM that is hooked up to a helmet sight, he can shoot off center of the plane with that setup and with that move can snapshot a missile at a plane chasing him.

Bad pilots wind up stalling and spinning and even good ones can if they hold it too long, there's only so long you can ride the edge of physics. The reason the MiG-29 is the only plane that can do it is because it has the right balance between thrust, weight and doesn't have a fly by wire system. An F-16 has the right thrust to weight ratio too but the fly by wire system would prevent the plane from entering that radical an angle of attack.

Why would Serenity pull one? Well that would be one way to get an off angle away from a persuer and then kick in a full burn to escape. Seems to me that spaceships depend on angle in the 'Verse to a pretty realistic extent, open an angle wide enough and fast enough and you can get away from a persuer.

When Zoid checks in he can go over my aerodynamic facts that I'm probably a fair bit hazy on.

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
"Oh hey, I got an idea. Instead of us hanging
around playing art critic till I get pinched by
the Man, how's about we move away from this
eerie-ass piece of work and get on with our
increasingly eerie-ass day, how's that?"

My eerie-ass website:
http://gunhandsfirefly.homestead.com/Index.html

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

Thursday, May 13, 2004 5:07 AM

You know, for a description relying purely on text and a slash mark, you gave me a pretty detailed picture... kudos, Gunny.

I'm wondering what Zoid does, that he knows so much about aerodynamics and the like... hmmm... perhaps we have our own Book counterpart here...

--Jefé The Hat

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

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

Thursday, May 13, 2004 5:12 AM

Gracias Jefé, I do try.

Zoid was a Zoomie so he has probably forgotten more about planes than I ever have known.

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

Thursday, May 13, 2004 6:00 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Out of curiosity, how does one go into a ballistic climb in powered flight?

As far as Serenity, it has swiveling turbine engines, which might in theory allow it to do a great many interesting things, assuming it would remain intact at high velocities. I am somewhat curious about whether the cinematic depiction of Serenity in endoatmospheric flight is consistent with current observations. I’ve seen several things that looked encouraging. The atmospheric heating and wake do to reentry in one episode I thought was a wonderful effect.

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

Thursday, May 13, 2004 6:12 AM

Ballistic climb is pretty much a misnomer, but gets the point across. Sounds a little better than fly straight up I guess, the Soviets used to use it for whatever their nefarious reasons were. As a Kobra is a Russian combat move it seemed appropriate.

Crazy Ivans.

That's the term I know from reading their manuals, like I said my aerodynamics knowledge is pretty shallow and specific to capabilities and not how the physics of it all works except in a general way.

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
"Oh hey, I got an idea. Instead of us hanging
around playing art critic till I get pinched by
the Man, how's about we move away from this
eerie-ass piece of work and get on with our
increasingly eerie-ass day, how's that?"

My eerie-ass website:
http://gunhandsfirefly.homestead.com/Index.html

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

Thursday, May 13, 2004 6:18 AM

Wasn't the Crazy Ivan a submarine move?
They did it in "Hunt for Red October" as I recall.

--Jefé The Hat

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

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

Thursday, May 13, 2004 6:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Wasn't the Crazy Ivan a submarine move?
They did it in "Hunt for Red October" as I recall.

--Jefé The Hat

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

Indeed! (dammit I need a David Lo Pan picture for that)

Soviet sonar technology was never as advanced as ours so they used the sudden turns in circles to allow their sonar to sweep all the way around the sub. American attack sub captains hate this maneuver because of the chance of a collision especially if the Russian sub does a depth change while an American or British one is "underhulling" the Russian. Basically that's when a US or British sub actually goes right under a Russian one to make recordings of all the machine noise.

Remember in Hunt For Red October when the skipper asked if they "knew" him? That's from underhulling, all the Soviet submarines ever floated have been underhulled at some point to record all their machinery sounds, which gives a thumbprint of sorts. But there always was a first time for a new boat so that's when they really, really hated the Crazy Ivan, if they were doing the premiere recording of a new Russian boat.

US subs don't generally do Crazy Ivans since our towed array sonar allows the subs to hear into the baffles, since it's towed it's behind the prop, covers the rear without any ambient machine noise from the US boat to interfere with passive sonar detection of anything back there.

Soviet towed array sonar was...well to be blunt go-se and so they had to generally rely on their main sonar at the front of the boat. Not many Sovier/Russian subs were ever operationally equipped with the stuff last I knew such things and seeing the state of the Russian Navy right now I doubt the situation has gotten better and probably is a lot worse.

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
"Oh hey, I got an idea. Instead of us hanging
around playing art critic till I get pinched by
the Man, how's about we move away from this
eerie-ass piece of work and get on with our
increasingly eerie-ass day, how's that?"

My eerie-ass website:
http://gunhandsfirefly.homestead.com/Index.html

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

Thursday, May 13, 2004 6:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Gunhand:

Indeed! (dammit I need a David Lo Pan picture for that)

... You know what Jack Burton always says at a time like this...

Who?

Jack Burton? Me???

--Jefé The Hat

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

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

Thursday, May 13, 2004 6:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Quote:
Originally posted by Gunhand:

Indeed! (dammit I need a David Lo Pan picture for that)

... You know what Jack Burton always says at a time like this...

Who?

Jack Burton? Me???

--Jefé The Hat

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

You were not put on this Earth to "get it" Mr. Hat!

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

Thursday, May 13, 2004 6:54 AM

...... huh?

But I DID get it... didn't I?

--Jefé The Hat

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

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

Thursday, May 13, 2004 7:00 AM

TEDC

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Is Serenity traveling fater than light, and if so, how?

It is apparent that Serenity travels between solar systems in times ranging from hours to weeks. The ship is therefore obviously capable of travelling faster than light. FTL travel is a science fiction staple that I wouldn't expect to be missed in this show.

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

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.

People who believe otherwise are on the lunatic fringe of the scientific community.

Quote:
Is faster than light speed possible in normal space? Not bloody likely, but then again, you never know. Some say, the Conservation of Energy prevents it, some say it's just another speed. We in our lifetimes will likely not know the truth.

Time and mass dilation are the primarily stumbling blocks. Plus, an object would have to annihilate more than its one mass to achieve that kind of kinetic energy.

Quote:
But, I don't think any of us can give more than an opinion on this matter, regardless of our reading habits. Theoretical physicists create.... wait for it... THEORIES. Theories are NOT facts, they are ideas on something, and ideas on how to maybe prove or disprove those somethings. Nothing more, nothing less.

Theories are not facts, they are explanations of the facts. It is a fact that objects with mass are attracted toward each other; the Theory of Gravity is an explanation for this observed phenomenon.

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

More fringe science. Many of these are hypotheses about phenomena that a mathematically possible under established scientific laws but have never been observed.

Quote:
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 lightspeed, that speed is exponentially faster than it would be in normal space. But, I don't know from theoretical physics and such.

There is no scientific basis for your belief. Hyperspace is an entirely fictional concept.

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

Firefly generally uses the same "black box" concept for technology that Star Wars employs. The technology exists; it's underlying principles are unexplained (because the technology exists to serve the story, and its nuts and bolts are irrelevant to the story).

Quote:
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).

There is no significant amount of sound propagation in space. Space is not a "pure" vacuum, but it's certainly not dense enough to sound to propagate. Even if it were a "true" vacuum, everything in it wouldn't "collapse".

"Burn the land and boil the sea, still can't keep the sky from me."

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

Thursday, May 13, 2004 8:30 AM

GUNRUNNER

Hi Gunhand I thought I add a "little" bit to your statements about the Kobra and the Crazy Ivan.

The Russian SU-33 and SU-35 can perform the Kobra and Bell maneuvers. The SU-33 is the Naval version of the SU-27 Flanker, and the SU-35 is the new thrust vectoring air force version of the SU-33. They can accomplish this maneuver with the aid of "Canards" or little wing like appendages located just aft of the cockpit.

BTW the Bell maneuver is just like the Kobra except they do not keep the nose in the air instead the do a 360-degree roll along the axes that runs wing tip to wing tip.

Now on to the topic of the Crazy Ivan many modern Russian submarines are capable of carrying Towed Arrays. The classes that do are, Victor III, Akula 1, 1-Improved and 2, Delta III and IV, Typhoon, Sierra I and II, Oscar I and II, Lada/Amur (the new Kilo) and the Two next gen submarine classes that are still being built (Severvnisk and Bory?). These classes make up nearly the entire operational force of the Russian navy. However you are correct in saying that hard financial times have no doubt prevented the constant deployment of such systems aboard all active Russian subs.

The Towed Array is more sensitive to lower frequency sound that is used to detect submarines and distance surface ships than the spherical and conformal arrays located in the bow and along the sides thus making them a more powerful tool for detection even aboard older subs. While these systems are not up to the standards of the US and UK their major fault is the weakness of the TA cable on the older boats. If you look at the designs of the Victor III and Akulas you will see a large pod on her rudder, this pod houses the TA because its cable is made up of a brittle rubber like material that can not be brought in to the hull or ballast tanks like on US subs, newer boats have been given a more western like TA cable and their TA Pods are quite smaller. (I wonder if they got the design of a better TA towing cable from the time that Victor III was tangled up in one from a US Destroyer)

The Firefly CCG Web Site:
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/Bllm119/firefly_ccg_web_site.htm
My Other Site:
http://www.geocities.com/billds9/

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

Thursday, May 13, 2004 9:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TedC:
Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Is Serenity traveling fater than light, and if so, how?

It is apparent that Serenity travels between solar systems in times ranging from hours to weeks. The ship is therefore obviously capable of travelling faster than light. FTL travel is a science fiction staple that I wouldn't expect to be missed in this show.

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

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.

People who believe otherwise are on the lunatic fringe of the scientific community.
...

Quote:
But, I don't think any of us can give more than an opinion on this matter, regardless of our reading habits. Theoretical physicists create.... wait for it... THEORIES. Theories are NOT facts, they are ideas on something, and ideas on how to maybe prove or disprove those somethings. Nothing more, nothing less.

Theories are not facts, they are explanations of the facts. It is a fact that objects with mass are attracted toward each other; the Theory of Gravity is an explanation for this observed phenomenon.

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

More fringe science. Many of these are hypotheses about phenomena that a mathematically possible under established scientific laws but have never been observed.

Okay, dude, I hear ya.
BUT--

Keep in mind, the idea of a round earth was "fringe science" at one time, as was the concept of the earth revolving around the sun, the idea of flight, the idea of reaching the mind... etc etc etc. Anything NEW is considered "Fringe Science" until it happens.

ALSO--Theories are NOT neccessarily "explanations of the facts"--actually, I think a theory CANNOT be an explanation of the facts, because if they're facts, they don't need theorizing. Granted, if you look at dictionary.com's definition, it DOES say "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts..." BUT, it also says "abstract reasoning; speculation" AND "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; conjecture"

So, theories are not strictly used to explain facts, they're used to create an environment in which to discover facts.

ALSO AGAIN--There's only ONE "Solar System"--OUR star system (Named the "Solar" system, because our sun is named "Sol")

... wow, do I sound smarmy as hell or what?

Sorry to sound this way, but as SigmaNunki can tell you, I often type at different speeds than my mind processes...

Anyway... um... what was the question... ?

--Jefé The Hat

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

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

Thursday, May 13, 2004 10:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Was it not done on reentry? I thought they entered the atmosphere before doing that, but I guess they were taking off. I need to rewatch my Firefly episodes, I think I'm rusty.

After all the fighting was done on that little moon Jayne *ran* down the hill (from his sniping position) and said something like "It's the gorram Reavers, they followed us." Then we enter a stimulating spaceship chase scene in atmo where that maneuver was done, then full burn. And our crew went merrily on it's way

God I'm a Firefly geek

----
"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

Thursday, May 13, 2004 10:29 AM

TRACER

thing is if you travel at the speed of light, don't you see where you going, while being there and i'm all confused

Wash is a great pilot,

so it seems plausable that serenity dosn't travel faster then light, just really really quick...besides you'd need a lot of energy to travel at the speed of light considering a vessel of serenity's size its safe to say no.

think we've been listening too much to Data and Mr Laforge.

*
This post's spelling was brought to you today by pap-gram.org
*

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

Thursday, May 13, 2004 10:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Keep in mind, the idea of a round earth was "fringe science" at one time, as was the concept of the earth revolving around the sun, the idea of flight, the idea of reaching the mind... etc etc etc. Anything NEW is considered "Fringe Science" until it happens.

Very true.

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
ALSO--Theories are NOT neccessarily "explanations of the facts"--actually, I think a theory CANNOT be an explanation of the facts, because if they're facts, they don't need theorizing. Granted, if you look at dictionary.com's definition, it DOES say "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts..." BUT, it also says "abstract reasoning; speculation" AND "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; conjecture"

So, theories are not strictly used to explain facts, they're used to create an environment in which to discover facts.

I would have to side with that last two there and/or change the word "facts" to "observations" in that first one.

My personal view is that theories don't really have much to do with facts, those I call statements. Theories are used to try to ex pain something with the limited amount of observables that we have and mostly to try to predict what we will see next to get a deeper understanding of what is going on. Of course these will all have limitations which will then create a new more mature theory... and the cycle continues.

These things are much more clear in Math. Theorems, conjectures, lemmas, etc all have clear cut definitions. Maybe that's why I lean to the math more than the physics.

A prof just finished giving a presentation of a proof.

Prof: "And we are done."
Audience Member: "That's wrong! And I have a counter example to show that it is wrong!"
Prof: "I don't care, I have a proof!"

Just one of those math jokes

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Sorry to sound this way, but as SigmaNunki can tell you, I often type at different speeds than my mind processes...

tee hee

We both did that. tee hee

----
"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

Thursday, May 13, 2004 10:41 AM

SAMURAIX47

Quote:
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 have to correct you on a point. If you do the math you'll find that it would take about 11 months for an object to reach the velocity of light (approx 3x10^8 m/s) at an acceleration rate of 1G or 9.8 meters/sec^2. Heinlein uses this in "Time for the Stars" to great affect. As the ship reaches that velocity time dilation slows down for those riding onboard. If they were going to Alpha Cent. 4.2 lt-yrs away it would take about 5-6 yrs to get there. For the passengers it would seem shorter, 2 years.

Barnard star is the next closest star at 6 lt-yrs and has long been suspected of having a Jupiter size planet. But I think even today that is still being debated.

check out this link
http://exoplanets.org/exoplanets_pub.html
It seems most planets discovered are larger than Jupiter... and if a star has several gas giants, it could concievably have many moons of varying sizes including Earth-size moons that could be terraformed.

Jaymes

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

Thursday, May 13, 2004 10:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Tracer:
so it seems plausable that serenity dosn't travel faster then light, just really really quick...besides you'd need a lot of energy to travel at the speed of light considering a vessel of serenity's size its safe to say no.

Well, you can't go at the speed of light. Also, if you take that equation and take the limit of the velocity as it approaches the speed of light you get an infinite amount of energy, which is impossible. So, basically you can never actually achieve the speed of light, even theoretically.

Plus, after a certain speed the relativistic effects would make it impossible to steer. I believe in Star Trek full impulse was supposed to be 0.25c because of this.

If there was FTL then (I'd hazard to say) it'd have to be by some sort of spacial manipulation. ie make the distance between the two point shorter somehow.

----
"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

Thursday, May 13, 2004 11:19 AM

MCFLY

I love topics like this. I'm such a geek.

Anyhow, has anyone considered the possibility that FTL travel exists in the firefly universe but Serenity is not FTL capable?

It makes sense given the 'there's all sorts of cool technology out there, but few people can afford it' mentality of the show. In a situation where there are a few colonized systems with many planets, a sublight vessel would still be able to find work on a number of different planets without using FTL. Serenity does seem to stick around pretty close to Persephone throughout the regrettably limited series.

Hack the planet!

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

Thursday, May 13, 2004 12:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by McFly:
Anyhow, has anyone considered the possibility that FTL travel exists in the firefly universe but Serenity is not FTL capable?

Shiny, never even thought of that

Quote:
Originally posted by McFly:
It makes sense given the 'there's all sorts of cool technology out there, but few people can afford it' mentality of the show. In a situation where there are a few colonized systems with many planets, a sublight vessel would still be able to find work on a number of different planets without using FTL. Serenity does seem to stick around pretty close to Persephone throughout the regrettably limited series.

That would be a great reason of why Serenity stays in the "neighborhood". Zoey did state once that Persephone was like a second home.

Nice one

----
"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

Thursday, May 13, 2004 12:28 PM

RELFEXIVE

The colonists might have had some means of TFL travel to get 'there' but have since lost the ability to use it somehow. Could explain the 'many worlds in one system that is far away' theory.

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

Friday, May 14, 2004 4:47 AM

SAMURAIX47

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
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).

Here's a link that lists all the moons in our solar system...
http://www.planetary.org/learn/solarsystem/moons.html#names

here is a link to Minor Planet (asteroids) names.
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/lists/MPNames.html

Persephone is an asteroid that was discovered in 1895 by astronomer Max Wolf.

Jaymes

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

Friday, May 14, 2004 9:53 AM

SKYDANCE

"Faster than Light seems to be impossible, if you believe Einstein ..."

Actually, I've got a degree in Physics, and that's not what the theory says. It says that you can't travel faster than the speed of light if you have mass.

However, everyone who's ever read a copy of Popular Science knows that Tachyons move faster than the speed of light.

A little more esoteric is the knowledge that we have experiments involving the spin of subatomic particles that show information can move instantaneously between two points. Not "very fast" but "instantaneously". No time. Infinite speed.

So, there's a lot of room for something to be discovered that gets past the whole "speed of light" issue by sidestepping the problem. We'll just have to figure out what it is. Meanwhile ...

As much as we want it to be "real," Firefly is a story. It's not real. Ships travel from story to story, not star to star. Try to analyze it too much, and you miss the point. It's about People, not physics.

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

Friday, May 14, 2004 10:01 AM