system or galaxy - what are the facts? by Tiger

For canon, I personally look to the episodes in the DVD set. I'd like to include the deleted scenes on the last disk, but one could argue that they were deleted for being flawed.

The Real Me

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

Sunday, July 11, 2004 7:17 PM

Quite right, Noocyte!

I hadn't considered mentioning the fact that simply turning the nose of your spaceship DOES NOT change your ship's direction of travel. In fact, the likely way to decelerate is to turn the ship around so that the primary thrusters in the butt end of the ship are pointing backwards (that is, in the direction of motion), then run your engine until you slow down to the desired velocity.

And there is no banking in space (aside from possible finacial institutions).

As I think on it, I believe that only Babylon 5 got that bit right with its starfuries.

The Real Me

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

Sunday, July 11, 2004 8:22 PM

SPACEMANSPIFF

Wanted to make a quick point to something mentioned earlier. The Orion Project was, as was stated, basically a bunch of nuclear bombs on the underside of a ship. That is a fission reaction, which takes a heavy element and breaks it into lighter, usually unstable elements and radiation, both of which are dangerous. A fusion drive would take light elements and fuse them into heavier elements, which creates a lot of radiation, but not unstable (i.e., radioactive) elements, and is therefore safer overall.

Not to make this a physics lecture, but does anyone see a seeming physical flaw with these ideas?

Spiff

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

Sunday, July 11, 2004 9:46 PM

AMNESIAC

This is not meant to be hostile, I am merely frustrated.

Sometimes I just want to hit people over the head wit a rock. This is one of those times. I mean no offense but this is the truth.

Whoa. Um. OK.

Interstellar travel and FTL are kind of synonymous, aren’t they? It would take generations to reach even the nearest blue stars. The chances are pretty low that one of Sol’s neighbor stars is this single blue star. We’re talking hundreds of years at near the speed of light to get to the overwhelming majority of the galaxy. On the way they would probably pass thousands or millions of normal yellow stars, and maybe hundreds of terraformable planets.

And FTL isn’t so implausible or exotic an idea really. There are plenty of possible ways to bend space, alter gravitation, or warp time. As Earth died, maybe corporations and governments joined together to scout nearby star systems, build the terraforming equipment to make new homes for humanity, and the FTL ships to take them there. Allot of things that seem normal today would have been unimaginable even a hundred years ago.

I just think the Single Blue Giant theory is a little less interesting, and a little less plausible. This is a story about people on a frontier, making civilization up as they go along. The Galaxy is a much larger frontier. If it’s just one system, even with 70 planets, it’s still much smaller than a galaxy, and has less possibilities.

Oh, and the planet where Blue Sun is based can still have a blue sun. That’s what makes it special. If there was only one blue sun that all the human worlds circle, it would be like a company on Earth calling itself The Sun or The Earth.

How’s this for an obscure reference: The shadow play in the background at the saloon in ‘Heart of Gold’ depicting the exodus from Earth, showed many small ships headed in different directions away from what is clearly planet Earth. They are spreading out, not moving towards a new single place.

I think the intent of the writers is really clear. Mankind in Firefly is expanding through the galaxy; all of it, and general relativity is just too goram inconvenient to address, they leave the how and why of FTL in their universe unexplained. Their universe, though requires FTL travel.

And um, aren’t blows to the head with rocks often fatal? I really don’t think I was off topic, and I had read the other posts. I don’t see how my post would make someone want to murder or wound me. That sounds pretty hostile.

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

Sunday, July 11, 2004 11:55 PM

Yes, I agree that the rock-to-the-head comment that somebody made was too harsh. While it's fair to talk about being frustrated, describing the kind of violence that comes to mind is a bit much, I think.

However, I will agree with that poster and say that Faster Than Light travel and interstellar travel are not necessarily the same thing. Speeds of a quarter, or a half, or of 99.999% of the speed of light are possible without invoking FTL travel.

At a mere 0.25 c, humanity can spread 100 light years in 400 years (I'll grant them a century to get the tech ready). There are certainly hundreds, and perhaps thousands of stars in that volume.

I will state that I still support the theory of FTL drive and multiple systems (though perhaps not a galaxy full).

Good point about the little ships flying in all directions away from Earth That Was in the shadow play in Heart of Gold. I missed the possible significance of that.

The Real Me

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

Monday, July 12, 2004 12:38 AM

CREVANREAVER

Quote:
I just think the Single Blue Giant theory is a little less interesting...

No offense Amnesiac, but I completely disagree with that statement. There is nothing especially interesting about an idea that has been done over and over again for decades such as an entire galaxy open to explore.

The reason so many fans like the Single System Theory is that it is so unique.

For years in almost every work of science fiction involving space travel, the theme has been travel throughout the galaxy. If Firefly takes place in one solar system, that would make it highly original and it would be one of many thing that would distinguish it from all all other scifi.

I for one can't think of any material where its been done before!

And a solar system is a lot bigger than we mere humans realize. There could be a lot more possibilities than you give it credit for. And as for the name of the Blue Sun corporation, it would actually be more like a company calling itself the Yellow Sun corporation, which really isn't all that silly.

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

Monday, July 12, 2004 2:04 AM

CSTEINME

That scene has bothered me too. I prefer to think that there was a large artistic license taken in that they showed the ships passing in super slow motion to emphasize how close the two ships were to each other. Similar to the artistry of Inara's sponge bath stop motion scene.

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

Monday, July 12, 2004 2:35 AM

PURPLEBELLY

Quote:
Originally posted by Amnesiac:
the exodus from Earth, showed many small ships headed in different directions

Hoping for verisimilitude in a TV drama is probably too much, but in a shadow play?

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

Monday, July 12, 2004 2:38 AM

ANONYMOUSPOSTERCHILD

Quote:
Originally posted by Diego:
>1. A large star could hold a large solar system. This covers a >lot of the arguments made. A large star would be blue...hence, >the Blue Sun corp. A large star has a much larger habitable >zone (the volume around the star that roughly recreates Earth->like conditions) that could easily hold 70+ habitable or >terraformable planets/moons.

I like the idea of connecting the Blue Sun Corp with a large, blue star- it's pretty clever. But I don't see any reason inherent to the Single System Hyptohesis that we have to reconcile all 70+ worlds with a single system. The characters visit only a few worlds and some of them they return to multiple times. Maybe some of the planets are in other systems but were colonized independently during the diaspora/exodus period 500 years before and are inaccessible to our BDH. They would know about these sister civilizations by radio and might even keep up a very slow correspondence across the light-years. But there's nor reason that humanity would put all its eggs in one basket- especially after the apprent demise of earth.

If I recall correctly, Mal makes a reference to 50 moons. Now, while this isn't an exact figure, most likely, it would lend stock to the idea that there are very few worlds that aren't moons, and that there are several planets but many moons.

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

Monday, July 12, 2004 3:31 AM

DIEGO

>If I recall correctly, Mal makes a reference to 50 moons. Now, >while this isn't an exact figure, most likely, it would lend
>stock to the idea that there are very few worlds that aren't >moons, and that there are several planets but many moons.

I said 70 "worlds" in order to avoid just that question. However my explanation would still hold whether there were 50 moons of 50 planets, as long as most of them are scattered in different star systems. My main point is that Mal doesn't have to be able to visit all these celestial orbs to know of their existence (and presumably to know that the meek have "inherited not a one of them").

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

Monday, July 12, 2004 4:41 AM

Purplebelly,

All we have to work with are tiny bits and pieces, subtle hints that most likely were not intentionally included.

Please do not make the mistake of waving about the subtle hints that support your position and trivializing the subtle hints that do not.

The Real Me

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

Monday, July 12, 2004 5:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by CrevanReaver:

The reason so many fans like the Single System Theory is that it is so unique.

For years in almost every work of science fiction involving space travel, the theme has been travel throughout the galaxy. If Firefly takes place in one solar system, that would make it highly original and it would be one of many thing that would distinguish it from all all other scifi.

I for one can't think of any material where its been done before!

The anime series Cowboy Bebop takes place in one solar system (ours). Of course, you might decide to not take a "cartoon" seriously, but really, it is great stuff.

The Real Me

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

Monday, July 12, 2004 5:26 AM

PURPLEBELLY

Fair enough, TheRealMe. I guess we just find interest in different rabbit holes

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

Monday, July 12, 2004 7:36 AM

GUNRUNNER

Quote:
Originally posted by THEREALME:
Quote:
Originally posted by CrevanReaver:

The reason so many fans like the Single System Theory is that it is so unique.

For years in almost every work of science fiction involving space travel, the theme has been travel throughout the galaxy. If Firefly takes place in one solar system, that would make it highly original and it would be one of many thing that would distinguish it from all all other scifi.

I for one can't think of any material where its been done before!

The anime series Cowboy Bebop takes place in one solar system (ours). Of course, you might decide to not take a "cartoon" seriously, but really, it is great stuff.

The Real Me

Didn't "Star Hunter" take place only in the Sol System?

The Firefly CCG Yahoo Group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/FFCCG
The Firefly CCG Forum:
http://s8.invisionfree.com/FFCCG/
My Other Site:
http://www.geocities.com/billds9/

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

Monday, July 12, 2004 8:20 AM

CYBERSNARK

Quote:
Originally posted by THEREALME:
The anime series Cowboy Bebop takes place in one solar system (ours). Of course, you might decide to not take a "cartoon" seriously, but really, it is great stuff.

Same for Gundam Wing (in fact, fairly deep in our system --Zechs & Noin think Mars is a distant getaway). In fact there's a great deal of talk later in the series (and in the movie, Endless Waltz) of calculating vectors, thrust, and using decaying orbits to plot intercept points.

And Quatre has mastered the art of steering by blowing up strategic portions of his ship while keeping the engines at full-burn.

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

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

Monday, July 12, 2004 8:51 AM

CREVANREAVER

OK, OK! Starhunter and this Cowboy Bebop cartoon both took place exclusively in the Sol system.

I'm not familiar with Cowboy Bebop so I can't comment on that. However, from what I know about Starhunter, it didn't involve much terraforming.

What I wrote about how one solar system would make Firefly unique is that it would be various Earth-like planets in a single system.

I can't think of any series where that was the focus of the show, however if you guys can, please let me know.

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

Monday, July 12, 2004 9:20 AM

DRYGUYSTOPHER

Danfan, this is a point I've been thinking of for a while. I think everyone looking for a one-system or galaxy answer should think about it:

Quote:

4) Lot’s of talk about “Earth that was” that is no longer habitable. So they terraformed 70+ new planets to live on. If they have interstellar FTL drive and they travel between multiple planetary systems spread out all over the galaxy (needing only days or weeks depending on how circuitous the route taken), then a trip back to the Solar system would be like a drive to the grocery store. And if you can terraform a barren rock out on the edge of the “habitable zone” in one star system, you could surely terraform a once (abundantly) life-bearing planet smack in the middle of Sol’s habitable zone. Strip the poisoned atmosphere, reload a new one (just like you’ve done dozens of times before), reseed with plant/animal life from the Alliance worlds and start selling tickets to “Earth that is.” But the feeling of the story is that it isn’t possible to do what’s already been done over and over again… so why?

I agree with Danfan. Clearly there must be limitations to travel. Personally, I think Serenity travels at sub-light speeds. In my opinion it is possible that FTL travel exists in the Firefly 'verse. But if it does exists the alliance would keep it to itself or possibly, it's so difficult and expensive that few can afford a FTL ship.

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

Monday, July 12, 2004 10:30 AM

Okay, Cowboy Bebop. I don't have an axe to grind about this series, it's just one that takes place in one system and has a number of terraformed earthlike worlds.

After a disaster that made Earth less habitable... "Nothing good comes from Earth anymore"... the folks in that series terraformed Venus, Mars, and at least one of the moons of Jupiter to have more or less earthlike conditions.

They also had what seemed to be hyperspace gates that allowed quick transit among the bodies of the solar system, but which was never used for interstellar trips.

The Real Me

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

Monday, July 12, 2004 11:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by danfan:

4) Lot’s of talk about “Earth that was” that is no longer habitable. So they terraformed 70+ new planets to live on. If they have interstellar FTL drive and they travel between multiple planetary systems spread out all over the galaxy (needing only days or weeks depending on how circuitous the route taken), then a trip back to the Solar system would be like a drive to the grocery store. And if you can terraform a barren rock out on the edge of the “habitable zone” in one star system, you could surely terraform a once (abundantly) life-bearing planet smack in the middle of Sol’s habitable zone. Strip the poisoned atmosphere, reload a new one (just like you’ve done dozens of times before), reseed with plant/animal life from the Alliance worlds and start selling tickets to “Earth that is.” But the feeling of the story is that it isn’t possible to do what’s already been done over and over again… so why?

We are plagued with warring assumptions. My own feeling is that Earth That Was is not lost, it is just used up. Yes, they could travel back to Earth. There is just no purpose.

The single system terraforming of 70+ worlds implies the ability to terraform rather small bodies and perhaps even move their orbits into the life zone of the star. Or else it assumes an extraordinary number of large bodies orbiting in a star's life zone.

On the other hand, the multiple star system terraforming of 70+ worlds might only be able to start with worlds very close in size and mass and other features to the Earth.

And to head off the "moon" discussion before it starts up again, a moon is only a body that orbits a larger non-stellar body. It implies nothing about size. A moon can be as large or larger than Earth, as long as the body it orbits is larger still.

Now, making the assumption that Earth can be terraformed back into something useful seems right IF you assume that one CAN terraform a lifeless barren rock at the edge of the habitable zone.

But that makes an assumption about how good their terraforming tech is.

To be fair, I will add that someone (Zoid, I think?) once pointed out a quote from Zoe that clearly implied the ability to alter a world's gravity as part of terraforming. This might lead to a near magical super-terraforming capability, but if you can do that, I feel that the universe would feel and be much different from what we have seen.

That's my $2.00.

The Real Me

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

Monday, July 12, 2004 12:06 PM

TIGER

SYSTEM OR GALAXY - PROBLEM SOLVED

After reading all the posts (most of which are wild speculation, wishful thinking, or attempts to justify a speculative fiction story with real science), I realized I would just have to watch the DVDs again.

I started this thread hoping to find facts that showed the writer's intentions for the Firefly 'verse, and I'm glad to report I have:

Quote:
Originally posted by ZEKE023:
I actually asked one of the script writers over on FOX's site. He said that the script writers had no idea... it was left deliberately ambiguous.

So the answer is: whatever you want it to be.

MYSTERY SOLVED!! This thread can now officially end. :-)

---------------------------------------------
...The beauty of things was born before eyes and sufficient to itself; the heart-breaking beauty
Will remain when there is no heart to break for it.

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

Monday, July 12, 2004 12:22 PM

But Tiger, I was just getting going!

I have no doubt that you have the REAL answer, but I'd rather not end the thread...

The Real Me

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

Monday, July 12, 2004 12:52 PM

TIGER

Quote:
Originally posted by THEREALME:
I have no doubt that you have the REAL answer, but I'd rather not end the thread...

All in good fun.

---------------------------------------------
...The beauty of things was born before eyes and sufficient to itself; the heart-breaking beauty
Will remain when there is no heart to break for it.

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

Monday, July 12, 2004 4:22 PM

WYDRAZ

Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:
So the answer is: whatever you want it to be.

Except that this is a group seeking an answer. So perhaps it needs to be "whatever we all want it to be." That, or "Joss said it's this..."

Perhaps it will be resolved in the BDM, but if not, it would be beneficial to come to a consensus (impossible?) or get an official answer for those of us that want to write, or roleplay, or game in the Firefly universe.

I don't mind leaving it all up to the individual, as it is, I love Firefly and have fun filling in the gaps myself. And maybe every other person's story or game can assume either One System or One Galaxy, or invent an entirely new solution, but this seems messy to me. We all can't ignore this very basic issue forever.

Oh, and play Strange Adventures in Infinite Space. http://digital-eel.com/sais

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

Monday, July 12, 2004 7:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Amnesiac:
1 Interstellar travel and FTL are kind of synonymous, aren’t they?

No.

Quote:
2 It would take generations to reach even the nearest blue stars.

Not really.

Quote:
3 And um, aren’t blows to the head with rocks often fatal?

Often, but not usually. It’s actually an expression. To take it literally would be a mistake.

Quote:
4 I really don’t think I was off topic

I didn't say you were.

Quote:
5 I had read the other posts.

Look at the quote I have labeled 2. If you had read the other posts you would know that this is not necessarily the case. As such the fact you said it causes me to doubt that you have read the posts.

The idea that travel between stars a slower than light speeds would take a long time is based on the idea of absolute time. This is odd, to say the least, as there is no such thing.

For example, lets say you move at near the speed of light. Time almost stops for you, the closer you go to lightspeed the slower it goes. If you got close enough to it practically no time would pass for you at all. Why then would you say that a long time had passed when it so clearly hadn’t?

Another example:

You are on a sleepership. Everyone is cryogenically frozen like River was. You go to sleep one day, you wake up the next. You are at your destination. For the ship a lot of time has passed but not for you. For you it is one day, after all if you don’t base time on your perception what do you base it on? The time that passed on the ship? The time that passed on earth? These two things are different, as said there is no absolute time. So how do you chose?

The most logical explanation is you don’t. If you were six years old when you went in you are six years old when you come out because you haven’t aged a day.

In both of these it does not take generations. In both of these there is no FTL travel. Both of these have been brought up before. Why then would you state as fact something that these disprove if you had read them?

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

Monday, July 12, 2004 11:49 PM

SIKKUKUT

Wow, this is getting ugly.

I don't think I like comparing artificial gravity and FTL. Somebody did well to point out that it takes an Earth-sized mass to generate 1 gravity, but it also takes a relatively insignificant amount of acceleration. That's a huge range of energy requirements that an artificial gravity field will fall somewhere within... in other words, meaningless.

Warping space enough to actually break it, on the other hand, is insanely hard. I seem to recall reading something about 2 metal plates with roughly Earth's diameter, held rigid a few meters apart and charged many times greater than the power output of our entire civilization, being enough to create a wormhole.

I'll buy that giant gleaming Starfleet (or Alliance?) ships could, with undreamt of technology probably linked to artificial gravity fields, possibly do this. But a little junker like Serenity (all pardons to Kaylee)? Civilian merchants with access to that kind of power output? Seems unlikely to me. And more than unlikely, out of flavor.

Note the lack of sci-fi trappings. No aliens. No transporters/teleporters. No space battles. No sound in space. Heavy emphasis on the possible, it seems to me. If FTL exists in this universe, then it is (correct me if I'm wrong) the ONLY overt contradiction of existing physics. I simply don't buy it.

Of course, the real secret behind artificial gravity in Firefly is that ships that spin for gravity look silly (and can't land) and microgravity scenes are very difficult to film. And the real secret behind this whole debate is, as others have mentioned, that it doesn't matter.

The Joss, if he's watching, is either sitting back and laughing hysterically that we're debating this at such length, or glowering at us for wasting time worrying about something that he obviously went to great lengths to downplay and leave ambiguous.

I don't for a second, however, buy the argument that he didn't think about it. It should be clear by now that he thought about every aspect of this show in painstaking detail. The man is intelligent, creative, and savvy, and seems to have a penchant for deep backstories. He wouldn't-- couldn't, I'd say-- create a universe with such a gaping hole in it.

When I was first watching the show, it bugged me that they seemed to cross interstellar distances without even mentioning it. Then it dawned on me that maybe they WEREN'T crossing interstellar distances. Let's face it, going that far and necessarily using non-Einsteinian space to do it would be such important parts of every day life that not mentioning them would simply be clumsy. Designing a universe where you don't need to go that far would be elegant.

Look at the rest of Firefly-- and I'm talking overt facts, not minor technical blunders like relative velocities and being able to see the freakin' laser beam (very disappointing)-- Look at the rest of the Firefly 'Verse and tell me whether it goes for the fantastic or the realistic, the mundane or the original, the clumsy or the elegant.

Ehh? Ehh?

___________________________
"You're mean. Firefly's making me reconsider my lifelong devotion to Star Trek." --My mother

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

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 12:54 AM

Firstly... unless you can accelerate to near lightspeed instantaneously, it will take time to reach that speed. And since we're talking about slowly increasing relativistic time dilation as the speed increases, we can only be talking about local i.e. ship time. So on the ship, it will take a lot of (local) time to accelerate and decelerate, probably much more than the time taken to actually travel at the desired PSL, presuming they don't employ the "flip over halfway" principle that works at more sedate speeds.

For Earth time, it would take much longer, and there's no "appear to" about it. In the Earth frame of reference, a long time would pass. And since it's Earth financing this thing, too long (for them) could mean too risky. So from a "resources/financing/will to do it" perspective, how long it takes by Earth reckoning is very important. Who wants to spend the money required for a high PSL sleepership when it might take centuries to profit from it?

And secondly, let's not forget that cryogenic suspension does not magically halt time, it only preserves you better by effectively almost-killing you and freezing you for a very long time. Presuming it works, of course, and the ice crystals in your cells don't rupture them and kill you or, in the case of brain cells, make you an idiot or a vegetable.

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, July 13, 2004 3:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RelFexive:
For Earth time, it would take much longer, and there's no "appear to" about it. In the Earth frame of reference, a long time would pass. And since it's Earth financing this thing, too long (for them) could mean too risky. So from a "resources/financing/will to do it" perspective, how long it takes by Earth reckoning is very important. Who wants to spend the money required for a high PSL sleepership when it might take centuries to profit from it?

Now I'm confused. No one is left on earth. It says the whole race got up and left. So who would care about earth time? It might take centuries on earth, but no one is there. Also the profit intended is saving the species, which would, from the perspective of the people, happen almost immediately.

Quote:
And secondly, let's not forget that cryogenic suspension does not magically halt time, it only preserves you better by effectively almost-killing you and freezing you for a very long time. Presuming it works, of course, and the ice crystals in your cells don't rupture them and kill you or, in the case of brain cells, make you an idiot or a vegetable.

No one said it did halt time. Read the post again. What it said is that it halts your perception of time. Humans base things on their perception. If all of the people on earth were cryogenically frozen for ten years (don’t ask why, it’s hypothetical) they would not all claim to be ten years older. If the last birthday you celebrated was your 31st the next you celebrate will be your 32nd. This is because people base things on their perception.

They would have to change the date to reflect the time that had passed, there are important things that require an accurate calendar, but otherwise they would go on as if no time had passed at all.

Now with earth long gone in Firefly there would be no need to change the calendar so if you went into cryogenic suspension on the 23 of May 2213 you would come out on the 24 of May 2213. This is not saying that only one night has passed, it is saying that all of the days in between would not be given a date as they don’t matter to the people.

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

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 3:15 AM

I was going to explain the expression “sometimes I want to hit someone over the head with a rock” as it has a lot of meaning to it and is not at all hostile. However I decided to leave it at this: it is meant to evoke repeated frustration directed at no particular person.

I thought it was more important to deal with that frustration than explain the tool I used to try to show it. I’m frustrated by the fact that people, multiple people, don’t seem to read the posts of others and repeat the same arguments over and over again. There is no need to say a theory, fact or conclusion one more than once.

Instead it would be better if we only repeated things to refute them or defend them, in which case we should present new information.

I propose that we do this, starting now. First we should put all of the facts, theories and conclusions in one place. After which we should not repeat them instead only adding new information.

-

On the chance that people agree I’ll start this off by stating things off the top of my head that either support or do not contradict (though they have been said to contradict) the one system theory, others should add to this but not repeat what is said. Someone, preferably someone who supports it, should present the things that support the multiple system theory.

After this people should not restate what is stated in these posts. If they do not have a stated reason to dispute something they should take it as fact. The only reason anything here should be revisited is disputing it or refuting as dispute with it. In either case new arguments should be presented.

-

First off we know that a single star can support more than 70 “earths”. As such it would be nice if people stop saying it can’t. If a single star can do it than a multiple star single system could also do it. This covers both variations of the single system theory.

Second interstellar travel does not require faster than light transportation. Nor does it necessarily take generations. (Sleeper ships is my bet, time dilation could to it too.)

Third we know that there are central planets, often known as core worlds. These are the most advanced worlds and thus the most likely to have been colonized first (otherwise how would the get so much more advanced?)

In a multiple system theory there is no center.

If they all went off in different directions than we could call the center earth, but we have evidence that there are non central planets in “short range” of central ones implying that they may be in the same system. Further the most likely way to start a system is to begin with one planet. It then only makes sense to move to others in the same system. As such many, if not all, first planets would have secondary planets radiating out from it. It would make no sense to call the earlier planets central in this case because there would, at least sometimes, be non core worlds between them.

If they went in one direction, starting in one system. They likely chose the closest one that they could teraform. (It has been suggested by a multiple system believer that this goes against the one system idea, I’ll show later why it doesn’t.) Therefore it seems unlikely that they would go back in a direction that they know is devoid of any teraformable planets. This would make the systems used move outward in a largely sideways direction. The first and most advanced planets would not be central, they could be on one side.

In a single system there is a center, in fact central planets is a term that exists today referring to a single system.

The central planets in our own system are Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars. (If memory serves they are actually believed to be the largest as well. It’s hard to tell how large the actual planet part of a gas giant is as the atmosphere is so huge. For this reason the atmosphere is almost always considered part of the planet considerably increasing its accepted size.)

Current theories on creation of gas giants state that all non central planets will be gas giants. They obvious exception is Pluto however theories on it’s creation all state it is atypical, some going so far as to say it isn’t even a planet.

As a result of this all non moon “planets” are be central planets. These would be the most likely first choice for colonization. In this theory the first planets called the “central planets” are central planets. But semantics aside this does give a center, two reasons for calling them the central planets (where the multiple system theory leaves none), and an outward for expansion to go in. Further it makes the exchange:

The wheel never stops turning, Badger.
That only matters to the people on the rim.

make sense. In multiple systems the rim worlds would not be rotating around the center at all. In fact they could be rotating (around their own star) less than central ones.

The outer “planets” seem to be referred to as “border moons” in a multiple system theory there would be no reason for this. Many, if not most, of the outer planets would be planets. There would be no reason to say try the border moons, they’re desperate there, if the border (presumably of known space) was comprised of planets as well. The border planets would have been just a lowly, and as a result he would probably have said “border worlds” or simply “border” if the border were not comprised mostly or entirely of moons.

In one system the border would be made up of moons as beyond the central planets that’s all that could be used. This makes the two terms we have heard, “Central Planets,” and, “Border Moons,” make perfect sense.

Fourth the visual effects we have seen do not indicate faster than light travel. In fact they contradict it.

Fifth what we know of the propulsion (not much) does not imply faster than light travel.

Sixth there are various reasons that they might be out of range of sensors and radio communications. For example there could be background radiation, there could be objects in the way there were more (more plausible) reasons presented but my memory is not that good.

Seventh it has been suggested that if we were to leave earth we would pick the nearest teraformable planet. It is unlikely that the nearest one would be in a system capable of supporting over 70. However if we knew that this would be our new home and we couldn’t get to another easily it would make sense to pick one where there were multiple planets we could use.

Eighth if there was FTL why wasn’t it used? There is no evidence that any interstellar travel before the earth was used up. Don’t you think they would be curious to know what’s out there, what other planets are like? Instead it says that the earth got used up then they found a place to go. Well if they had been traveling around, and these habitable systems (ones with teraformable planets) are so close together with their FTL travel why hadn’t they found a place before?

That’s enough for now.

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

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 5:01 AM

BARNSTORMER

Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:
Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:
I think it has to be a Star Cluster. Meaning an area of space that has several stars in relatively close proximity to each other. There are thousands (hundreds of thousands) of these star clusters known to exist.

The ONE main fact that I know of, that points to Joss and Tim and the other writers showing us this in a loose fashion is the following:

In the episode Safe, The first two scenes are of Serenity landing on a planet, and then they show the three "really nice kidnappers" skinning the rabbit. In these two scenes, the lighting used for these two outdoor daytime scenes is an intense blue/white color. Meaning the sun in that particular solar system comes from a blue/white dwarf star. This could even be THE "Blue Sun" that evil corporations are named after.

After these two scenes, the outdoor lighting color becomes a much less annoying yellow color that we earth dwellers are used to. I think they did this on purpose, to show this light was from a totally different type of star than any of the other planets they had landed on, but then they shifted the color spectrum so as not to annoy the viewers for the rest of the episode.

Joss seems to really want to steer clear of the Star Trekian technobabble. Like detailed descriptions of Warp Bubbles and saving the day time and time again with Inverse Tachyon beams. I don't fault him on this in the least. The interpersonal relationships and the story arc he is telling are of much more importance to me.

But he does put in the occasional hint.

What do you think of this observation everyone?

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

OK, no responses on this observation/theory?

Helllloooooooooooo
Is anyone out there?

If I'm way off base, then tell me.

I'm a large, semi muscular man.....I can take it.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

It seems that the question has been answered.
Check out the below thread. Then check out the website mentioned

WARNING....There be spoilers!!!!!!!!!!!!

Monday, July 12, 2004 22:08 TIMES READ: 187
Sneak peek at Serenity art
IRONCLADOTTER

Sooooo..... have recently discovered that the brilliant and talented graphic designer Geoffrey Mandel has been working on "Serenity". I've been a fan of Geoff's work since "Space: Above & Beyond", and I can't tell you how pleased I am by this news, and how much I'm looking forward to seeing his artistic contribution to the Big Damn Movie. Really, there are no words for how freaking cool I think that is... I'm an art student and would like to grow up to be Just Like Geoff. Except for the part where he's a man and I'm not. I can do without the whole man thing.

In other good news, you can see some of Geoff's artwork for "Serenity" on the Internet. There are some ads, a new "Serenity" logo, a "worlds of the Alliance" chart and some nifty insignias and maps and such.

http://www.geoffreymandel.com

On a side note. It looks like I was right...

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

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

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 7:50 AM

RE: Earth, I was talking hypothetically. And quite frankly, I'd rather they sent out a test mission first as opposed to sending the whole species out at once and hoping. Ever heard of not putting all your eggs in one basket? And very few planet-wide disasters come so fast as to prevent a test run... nothing that wouldn't annihilate the species before they had the chance to get out of the first committee meeting, anyway.

And no matter how much the passage of time depends on personal perception (and it does, no two ways about it) the moment you looked at the ship's chronometer and saw fifty years or whatever had passed, you'd say "hey, I've aged, like, a week and fifty years have gone by; freaky!" Cryogenics can't stop aging, just make it happen really really slowly.

And to begin with, I imagine there'd be lots of sombre expressions and people checking the calender and saying "the Earth has been dead for a hundred years this day... let us pray". They won't forget where they've come from... not for a while anyway.

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, July 13, 2004 7:55 AM

I hereby recognise the futility of attempting to 'argue' with someone who has their own very strong ideas about how the worlds of Firefly are arranged. Could be right, could be wrong. Only person who can say so is Mr Whedon, if he ever does. Whatever works, works.

In other words... we could keep banging our heads against our own respective walls for all eternity and get nowhere, and I can't be arsed

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, July 13, 2004 12:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RelFexive:
I hereby recognise the futility of attempting to 'argue' with someone who has their own very strong ideas about how the worlds of Firefly are arranged.

No offense, but that sounds like a cheap way out to me. Especially considering I don't have strong opinions on the matter. I was a supporter of the multiple system theory until I examined the evidence more closely and heard more plausible explanations than those supporting the multiple system one.

I changed my views once based on logic and I am perfectly willing to do it again. All that you must do to change my mind is present me with evidence. Provided you are as open minded there is nothing to be lost by debating this and it can be productive.

To stop now is like admitting you are wrong, why do that if you don’t believe it to be true? I only ask that you stop saying “I would rather” and use it as a fact, stop stating something that is debatable as if it is an absolute, and read posts.

I don’t consider that to be unreasonable, and unless you do I fail to see are reason to stop. We only bang our heads against the wall for eternity is if we don’t actually listen to each other with open minds.

Present your evidence, it won’t take long. I want to hear it. So far I have only heard two arguments for multiple systems. Only two. Why not share the rest? It’s not like your wasting your life by doing it.

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

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 10:31 PM

This discussion is of no importance to me, I'm afraid. I just commented on the other stuff.

Whatever works, works, remember?

I'm a RPGer, I like having things like this sufficiently defined as much as anyone. I've defined it enough for me, and I'm not interested in conversions.

As I said before...

Quote:
Originally posted by RelFexive:
...I can't be arsed

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

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 12:18 AM

SINGULARITY

WHO RUTTIN CARES....ITS FIREFLY...ITS MIGHTY...AND IT ROCKS.....DOES!IT!MAKE!ANY!DIFFERENCE.....NO....NOT...NOW...NOT....EVER....PLEASE...PLEASE...STOP....GIVING A GORRAM ABOUT THIS.

ITS NOT WORTH A THREAD.....THERE ARE MOONS AND PLANETS...AND ROCKS...AND HUGE DISTANCES BETWEEN EVERYTHING.....HUGE. DISTANCES. BETWEEN. EVERYTHING.

JUST ENJOY THE SHOW....WATCH IT FOR THE SHOW....THE CAST...THE INTERACTIONS...THE FIGHTS..THE HUMOR...THE NICE WARM GLOW OF KNOWING THIS IS SPECIAL....JUST FOR GORRAM SAKES STOP ARGUING ABOUT THIS SILLY ARGUMENT....

DONG MA

Nothing can escape the event horizon. Light, matter, and especially Twinkies.

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

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 2:14 AM

PURPLEBELLY

Please keep arguing, guys. It's better than hitting eachother. Or even shouting at people that aren't likely to listen. Have I told you about Purplebelly's Denouement?

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

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 7:50 AM

LEXIBLOCK

Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:
The drama of Firefly takes place in one star system. Here are the facts:

1. In all their travels, our BDHs never speak of other star systems.

Yes the do. In Train Job, one of the alliance guys (ok, so not a BDH) says there was a robbery in the "Georgia System". In Ariel Simon says "River, the doctors here are the
best in the system."

Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:

2. The blue hands guy says, "We didn't come 80 million miles..." This is an interplanetary distance, not an interstellar one.

Because the writers don't care about such things ;)

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

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 11:46 AM